Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 6
  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Ah because he can pass over units and impassable terrain which isn't higher than his knees and not wider than 2cm?
Ok.

But a Decimator would be wrecked.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(Moscovian @ Feb. 01 2008,21:32)
QUOTE
Mr. Wordsmith says... (BUZZER)

How about "Broken fearless units are only required to remain outside an enemy ZOC."
I am still trying to figure out what happens to them when they end up in in the ZoC. ?It isn't a big deal for non-fearless units because they are dead and can be removed. ?The situation is rare when non-fearless units find themselves in each other's ZOC at the beginnind of the turn.

With fearless units it can crop up a lot (it has in my games) where you force the assault because you are in their ZOC. ?This is at the crux of the complaints about fearless since players will manufacture this situation with the double-charge/retreat move. ?If you don't address it you will still have people freaking out over it for another 35 pages of forum text. ?It shouldn't be the broken charge/retreat that gets the attention but the ZOC issue itself.

Personally I can't think of anything that isn't wordy, hinky, and overly complex. The funny thing is I don't even think it needs to be fixed. ?Fearless units should be able to charge and make your life miserable even when broken. ?If they stay broken you just have to figure out a way around them since they can't do anything else except be in your way.

Perhaps these all fearless formations need to have their points re-evaluated rather than tweak a generally stable rule?

I'm with you here Mosc.

Essentially, you are suggesting that Fearless really equates to the elite forces in any army / race that should be expected to have a greater impact on the enemy. However, Fearless becomes abusive as the size of formations increases; as the percentage of Fearless formations in the army increases; and through rules abuse.

I would certainly like to introduce limits on the overall numbers either through some army limit (like aircraft/titans) or through limiting the numbers in formations (like Eldar Wraithguards and Wraithlords). I would equally like to see their unit points increased to a minimum of 50-60 each. IMO it is significant that few complain about the 'abusive' nature of Eldar WraithLords, while Wraithguards were toned down in the recent Eldar review, which should give a guide to their general balance.

I agree with you that these approaches may well be sufficient to bring the concept back to what was intended without further work on the rule itself
(though we still need the current change to stop the "Fearless charge"

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Simply make the kill range the ZoC of enemy units.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

(BlackLegion @ Feb. 03 2008,07:03)
QUOTE
Simply make the kill range the ZoC of enemy units.

The point was to put fearless scout within 6cm of normal enemy. Thus the routed scout is not in ZoC, but the enemy is.

That is why I suggested that 15cm to all units.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
If 15cm then the only difference to non-Fearless units would be immunity to hackdown hits and immunity to auto-destruct if they don''t move after being broken?
Correct?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

(BlackLegion @ Feb. 03 2008,15:29)
QUOTE
If 15cm then the only difference to non-Fearless units would be immunity to hackdown hits and immunity to auto-destruct if they don''t move after being broken?
Correct?

..and no auto-hits for blast markers when broken.
(And not destroyed if lose angagement when broken)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Err...right :D I always seem to forget some parts....

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I hesitate to jump into such a difficult situation but you never know I might not make things worse..

It appears that much of the problem comes from broken fearless formations making use of the withdrawal move in an unrealistic/unfair/broken manner.

So how about making the fearless units choose to be fearless and stand against whatever OR choosing to withdraw like normal troops.

So the rule would be something like... Fearless units may choose NOT to withdraw, in which case they suffer none of the ill effects from proximity to enemy units, OR the fearless units may choose to withdraw, in which case all the normal rules for withdrawing apply.

If the formation is mixed fearless and non-fearless then they would have to withdraw as the non-fearless units would drag them along.

All the other fearless immunities would still apply (not dieing from hack down, blast markers when broken etc etc).

So now the choice is be brave/lunatic/brainless and stay where you were, as the bullets fly past.  Or act normally and get away from whatever is killing/harrassing you.  I.e. the choice is hold your ground or run away, instead of hold your ground, run away or charge the enemy.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

(clausewitz @ Feb. 03 2008,16:58)
QUOTE
So the rule would be something like... Fearless units may choose NOT to withdraw, in which case they suffer none of the ill effects from proximity to enemy units, OR the fearless units may choose to withdraw, in which case all the normal rules for withdrawing apply.

See my original proposition at the start of this thread :]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
And what happens if the formation is out of coherency (ex. two fearless units 8 cm apart)?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Moscovian @ Feb. 03 2008,16:05)
QUOTE
And what happens if the formation is out of coherency (ex. two fearless units 8 cm apart)?

One has to be removed, just like normal, unless you move back into coherency.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
clausewitz
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Sorry rpr, I did read the whole thread first but somehow I missed exactly what you had suggested.  So, believe it or not, I came up with that idea independently.  Take it then that I agree with your proposal :)

Before I make any further embarrassing mistakes, what was the objection(s) to your idea rpr?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

(clausewitz @ Feb. 03 2008,18:56)
QUOTE
Before I make any further embarrassing mistakes, what was the objection(s) to your idea rpr?

The main objection here is:
Because they do not fear, they should be able to move to close proximity of enemy when making withdraw move.

The objection can also be that as fearless was nerfed to prevent full "fearless charge", there is no way to nerf it more I guess.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Ok i think my proposal fits here the best.

In another thread i worte:

Ok some Wh40k lessons here :D
If one side in an closecombat suffers more casualties than the other side then it has to make a Leadership test. If it passes the CC goes on, if it looses then they will run with the possibility to be catched up by the winners and hacked down to the last man.
Fearless Wh40k units don't need to roll Leadership. They automatically pass so they will never run from a lost CC. But if the winner has superior numbers the loosing Fearless units can get extra wounds based on how badly they are outnumbered.

Impriotand. Regardess of Fearles or not: A unit cought in CC CAN'T voluntarily leave it. It has to win, be whiped out or manage to run away after a failed Leadership test because of loosing the current round of CC.

If a unit receives 25% casualties of it current strength due to shooting in one shooting-pase they have to pass a Leadership test. If failed they withdraw and have a chance torally in the next turn unless they have less than 25% of their startiung strength.
Fearless Wh40k units ignore this Leadership test. They automatically pass regardless how badly they are shot up.

Pinning causes a unit to get down if they fail a Ledership test. They can't shoot and/ormove for the turn ebcause the get their head downs out of harms way.
Fearless Wh40k units ignore this.


Current Epic-Fearless should be renamed Resolute, Calm or something.

In Epic Fearless should do the following:
- Fearless units are allowed an armour saves against Hack-Down hits
- Fearless units never get surpressed (or: never get surpressed but have to make an armour save if the unit is in a position to get surpressed but wishes to fire anyway)
- an all-Fearless formation never gets broken and never makes any withdrawal moves, even if it looses an assault.
- if an allFearless formation has at least the same number of Blastmarkers as units remaining in the formation each additional blastmarker will cause a hit which can be saved normally.

Lord Inquisitor answerde:
Raa, fear the new Calm Bezerkers!  :p

No, the current Fearless rules are just fine for Fearless units. There are several assumptions you are making that aren't necessarily true:

a) Fearless units suffer hackdown hits in 40K. Yes, they can take additional wounds for lost combat, but that doesn't really correspond to hackdown hits - Fearless units do not run away whether you shoot them or assault them. The fact that Fearless units can be dragged down by superior numbers can be represented by the fact that they are still destroyed if within 5cm of enemy when broken.

b) Fearless units cannot be suppressed in 40K. My Obliterators occasionally get suppressed. Not by any rules mechanic, but because they are fragile and it does happen that hiding them is the only option because they face overwhelming enemy firepower.

I kind of agree with you about the oddity of Fearless units making Withdrawal moves though. However, I've come to appreciate and love the Fearless rules in Epic, I don't think they need messing with.

If we need a sub-Fearless mechanic, then Stubborn works fine.




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 6
  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net