Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 15  Next

Unconventional ideas

 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 12:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:42 am
Posts: 567
Location: Surrey
Spectrar Ghost has identified the closest part in the rulebook, to my mind, but even that's a bit vague. As Kyrt says, it's much like the CAP a CAP situation: it's a grey area of the rules – so to my mind, this boils down to politeness; it's something that should be brought up in the five minute warm-up.

Such an approach is not a tactic I'd have a objection to another player using – particularly in a scenario or friendly game – but as it's a pretty unconventional and divisive tactic, it's got the potential to sour a game for the other player, either through dissimilar views on RAW, RAI, or simply because it 'feels wrong' to them. Anything that can sour a game should be brought up in the warmup, in my opinion.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 2:32 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
CAP a CAP is not a grey area, its not allowed

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 2:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
I think the relevent passage in the context of the GT scenario is here:

EA 6.1.6 Set-up Remaining Formations wrote:
All of the remaining formations in the players’ armies must be set up within 15cms of their own side’s table edge or be kept back ‘in reserve’. The players take it in turn to set up these formations one at a time, starting with the player with the higher strategy rating.

Units kept in reserve must either be aircraft, or be going to enter play in a transport aircraft or by teleportation.Reserve formations entering play in aircraft or by teleportation should be placed aside with units that will enter play via planetfall. These formations are not ‘secret’ and your opponent may inspect them at any time.


Emphasis mine. The second is the more important, as while the first specifically references formations, the second applies unit by unit. There are two ways to solve the problem, IMO. The first, and my preferred as what I perceive as the intent as well as the less extensive change, is to change "All of the remaining formations" to "All of the remaining units". This eliminates any confusion, and they are still stated to be deployed by formation later in the ph.

The other option is to change "Units kept in reserve" to "Formations kept in reserve", and add a clarification later that explains the process for leaving units behind. This is a more involved change, requiring us to basically make up a paragraph of text from scratch instead of working within the current structure. There is no process because, IMO, no one intended there to be a need.


This is where you are getting it from? I'm struggling here, I just don't see how the difference between specifying unit vs formation can imply that you can choose which of the units in the formation count for garrison or transport. A unit is a subset of a formation, it is simply saying that every unit that wants to deploy in reserve has to be an aircraft, be inside aircraft, or teleport - re-iterating what is already stated in the teleport and war engine transport rules, and a simpler way of saying "Formations kept in reserve must be wholly composed of units that are aircraft, deployed in aircraft, or teleporting".

Even the second paragraph (which by the way has nothing to do with garrisons) reverts to usage of formations again at the end of it - they are clearly used interchangeably, because they are clearly meant to be exactly the same (i.e. if the units can be in reserve, then the formation can, and vice versa - the units in the formation are fixed). The emphasised sentence makes total sense even with the current wording - units DO have to either be aircraft, deployed inside aircraft or entering by teleport - and the rules for determining which units can do that are elsewhere (i.e. the war engine transport and teleport rules).

Just as another example that emphasises this rather well I think:

2.1.17 Teleport

Formations where all of the units have this ability may be kept off the table, and can appear at the start of any turn.

That is directly contradictory to any idea that it is units that are kept in reserver rather than formations.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I think we are deluding ourselves if we accept the original rulebook as a device of precision. The core rules were written by people who:
1. Couldn't edit a High School newspaper, and
2. Were anticipating Epic to have a living rulebook where things would be updated as they went.

Falling back to the rulebook as a way of supporting any side of this argument seems pointless; IMO they never anticipated this level of scrutiny. In the end we need to decide as a community what we wish to do, if anything at all. If we do nothing, then it becomes a point added to the 5-minute warm-up and we wash our hands of it.

Somebody can easily throw up a poll with some options (allow it, disallow it, make it optional, something else?), have the community vote on it, the ERC can use that information to gauge our decision, we make a decision, and then we move on.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:26 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
Moscovian wrote:
Somebody can easily throw up a poll with some options (allow it, disallow it, make it optional, something else?), have the community vote on it, the ERC can use that information to gauge our decision, we make a decision, and then we move on.


Agreed, but first we need 9 more pages of debate posts and posts saying we don't need debate. Neal, it's your call: poll it or call it one way or the other.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Dave wrote:
Moscovian wrote:
Somebody can easily throw up a poll with some options (allow it, disallow it, make it optional, something else?), have the community vote on it, the ERC can use that information to gauge our decision, we make a decision, and then we move on.


Agreed, but first we need 9 more pages of debate posts and posts saying we don't need debate. Neal, it's your call: poll it or call it one way or the other.


Great idea. That way we can blame it on Neal and not have to worry about having any responsibility. I second this! ;D

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Ok, good comments all; please keep them coming in.

To amplify Mosc's point about the quality of the text, the Marine list has the following statement
Quote:
"Space Marines are organised into small formations called detachments. Each detachment is made up of three or more units, and may also include a number of extra units called upgrades."
This tells me that should I feel inclined to, I need only field three tacticals - not that I can imagine many players paying 300 points to do so :)

BUT, does this mean that the Marines may discard down to three units in order to comply with some other in-game requirement? :P

However, I think madd0ct0r has presented a reasonable alternative; perhaps each list should state the minimum unit size for a formation as well as the maximum. Note, we would still need to determine whether the player makes this decision when building the army, or before the start of each game.

So, for Mosc's proposed poll, perhaps the following options:-

  • Discarding units at the start of the game is unfair and should not be allowed
  • Discarding units at the start of the game should only be allowed where specified in a list
  • Discarding units should only be allowed to permit a formation to Garrison
  • Discarding units should only be allowed to permit a formation to fit in a Transport
  • Discarding units is fair and may be done at the start of the game
  • Other option (please specify)
  • No opinion, other than Epic is a great game


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I think the only other instructional thing at this time before a vote would be to hunt down Jervis' original comments on the issue in the SG forum archive.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I think the only other instructional thing at this time before a vote would be to hunt down Jervis' original comments on the issue in the SG forum archive.


I'm not convinced it would help. Anyone staunchly for or against the idea will simply dismiss Jervis' comments as out of date or hold them high over their head as a trophy. And who is to say Jervis would not have changed his mind when presented with a good argument?

We've been on our own for a while out here - I think we can get by on this one. ;)

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I just think that his words on the subject could be taken to inform our current decision, and I don't think it would hurt to have all info available.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
If you can find it, chuck it into the mix and press 'puree'. I'm only expressing doubt that it will change anyone's perspective.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Ain't got time myself right now, prepping for house move in two weeks and trying to work & look after a baby around the edges.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 4:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Apropos of nothing, here's a quote I found from the Epic playtest rules by digging in the Wayback Machine.

Jervis Johnson wrote:
The barrage table tells you the hit roll required to hit each unit under the barrage template. Roll to hit all units (friend or foe) under the template with the appropriate to hit values. If formations other than the main target formation suffer any casualties then they receive one blast marker for each unit lost. In order to speed dice rolling we recommend rolling to hit all units of exactly the same type together, and then removing any casualties from those closest to the enemy first. For example, if you ended up with an Imperial Guard Commander, six Guard infantry stands, and three Fire Support stands under a set of bombardment templates, I’d roll once to see if the commander was hit, then roll six dice all together to see how many of the Infantry stands were hit, and three dice altogether to see how many fire support stands were hit. You get the idea, I’m sure!


Circa 2003. >:D


Just imagine if there's a post by JJ on the SG forum that says "Rug's a dummy, don't do it that way, only do it in this very specific instance!"... it'd settle my mind on which way to vote anyway (I may be the only swing voter here).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unconventional ideas
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 4:30 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Neal: I assume that Jervis' reasoning is available on the old SG forum archive?

I kind of doubt it. There were 3 or 4 versions of the SG forums during development. Only the one that went through post-release was captured, afaik.

===

Kyrt wrote:
I think the RAW are clear once you actually analyse them objectively... so far I am pretty convinced that if the "call" that is made is to make units optional, it would be a change to the rules and not a clarification.

You realize that the SM ability to remove/change units during deployment is never stated explicitly in the rules, right? The wording of the SM Transport rule is written solely in terms of choosing the formation composition, which is done before setup. At no point does the transport rule state that SMs can use transport selection to make any sort of deployment decisions.

If no one else can do it, neither can the Marines.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 15  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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