|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 2, 2012 20:37:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I do see what you are saying. I guess the Guard stat accounts for defending skill in some abstract way, in that the defender is quick and nimble on their feet and skilful at avoiding the enemies strikes. But you're right though, the defenders skill at arms doesn't seem to be taken into account during the assault resolution... ...and there are 2 people standing side by side. ...and this reminded me of the question we had about free attacks against disengaging models. If a single attacker is in base to base with 2 defending models, and the defending squad loses the assault and disengages (but this single attacker is still in base to base with the 2 defending models), does the single attacker get a free attack at both the disengaging models, or does he only receive a single free attack and must choose which disengaging defender to allocate it to?
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Nov 3, 2012 12:37:15 GMT -5
I have to say after playing a handful of games with the new assault rules, I'm with Mango to an extent on this. I feel like a HTH conflict should be some sort of simultaneous scrum. I have no issue with the attacker having some sort of bonus due to the charge but basically if I miss my mental check I have no chance of inflicting any damage on a unit that charges me, which to me doesn't feel right.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Nov 3, 2012 12:48:01 GMT -5
Hits caused by shooting at an assaulting unit are counted as to who wins the assault. If you have a higher shoot stat you have more chance of hitting the target.
Not getting a reaction means those bugs jumped out on you when you weren't expecting it. You didn't have time to have your unit prepare by going into overwatch. You failed to get fire off the cuff. I have seen this a million times in films.
Bit pressed for time tonight but can expand tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 3, 2012 21:58:19 GMT -5
I've been having a think about this and have a couple more thoughts on this; 1) I think it must be kept in the back of our minds, that some players will want to use the very creative friendly Gruntz rules to create a vast array of differing troops, some of those will be pure assault only troops. These types of troops will be punished badly on their approach to their enemy, having to survive heavy fire and in many cases bringing their squad level dangerously low. So, when they finally do make it into base to base contact to assault, they should be able to dish out a similar level of punishment to their enemies in return, as this type of combat is their speciality. 2) The Defender does get a chance to fight back. You can choose to react fire, which is an attack at those assaulting you, or you can react assault if you prefer that option. So there is definitely the opportunity there for the defenders to fight back. As mango has pointed out though, the chance of fighting back and/or running is the part that seems to be a little odd. So two suggestion which may help; 1) Remove the mental test for react fire/react assault, and/or 2) Make it so a condition brown check is made only if they have lost half or more of their current squad strength in the assault. timsnoddy - the point you raise about the attackers casualties received from shooting being included in the decision of who has won or lost the assault isn't mentioned anywhere where I can see in the rules, are you sure on this point....do you mean specifically, from react fire during the assault? I may have missed this in the rules or in a question answered on the forum somewhere... If the casualties received by react fire are added into the calculations for who wins or loses the assault, this could certainly have a favourable effect on the result for the defenders.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 3, 2012 23:11:53 GMT -5
Step 1 There are a couple of things I think we need to keep in mind 1 - The rules apply to all models It can be easy to give examples of how aliens are lightning fast and can engage the enemy before they know it but the rules must represent all troops from the ultra fast sneaky camoflage aliens to lumbering 'cannot run' zombies. From elite human SAS teams to green fieldworkers armed wth hoes The rules must represent the wide gammut of gruntz types 2 Advantages and penalties for specialization As 2GB mentions, units that have spend points on being combat monsters do need to have an advantage. On the flip side, green troops armed with fists should have some negative placed on them Currently those combat monsters have a great advantage when assaulting an enemy. But their no difference between the skills/armament levels when they are charged. To me this is a problem
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 3, 2012 23:24:38 GMT -5
Step 2 What currently works and what doesnt 1 - Assaulting troops Overall I think the assaulting part of the combat generally works. Their hit rolls are determined by their skill (they arnt modified by defender skill but they still have an advantage in having higher hth skills). Their damage rolls have the reroll to represent their initial assault which I think represents their momentum well. 2 - Defenders This is where the problems start I think A) reaction fire Normal player turns go like this: Player a shoots in his turn player b shoots in his turn player a shoots in his turn etc In an assault it goes like this player A shoots in his turn player B chargers player A (possibly) gets to shoot in opponents turn player A (possibly) then gets to shoot in his turn. So this out of turn shooting is quite powerful, giving the charged unit a chance to shoot an extra time in the game for every time he is charaged. the % of being able to do this is quite low (as per OP). But only half of the squad can fire (lets ignore overwatch for now) B) reaction assault generally most units if they pass their reaction test are going to select reaction fire over reaction assault due to the prevalence of shooty weapons and the higher chance of actually killing models with those weapons. Once again though unless they are in overwatch only half of the defending unit actually gets to attack. Overall reaction assault is extremely weak and to me an ineffective rule. So what are our options? Step 3 next
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 3, 2012 23:35:28 GMT -5
Step 3 OPTION 1 - I think is the best option Proposed changes Attacker Assault - no Change Defender React Fire - no change (suprised? see notes below ) Defender React Assault - No matter whether the defending unit has react fired or not it will defend itself against all attackers with no Mental test. Any defending model that is in base to base contact with an enemy models after the assault movement will defend itself with its full compliment of attacks.* - this means that overwatch has no bearing on hth at all Notes - Defender reaction fire is hard to do but in the context of the game is quite powerful. I think that if we allow models to always defend themselves in HTH then this rule can remain the specialty of elite troops whom play for the privlidge. Changing the HTH to always letting the defender respond to attacks gives all models of all quality an opportunity to defend themselves from the attackers. Even if elite troops do get to React fire and then defend in HTH I dont see that as being overpowered as the models would have to pay a premium to have a high HTH, a good HTH weapon plus the high Mental stat to do all of the above. OPTION 2 keep the rules as they are but reduce the difficulty of the Mental test (currently +2). I still dont think that completely represents models being able to defend themselves though and so i think Option 2 is the poorer option
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 3, 2012 23:44:11 GMT -5
There is still a problem that we havent resolved. That is the issue of having only 1 attacking model contact a defending squad and having a resolution based on a draw and having full squads flee from individual models. 2) Make it so a condition brown check is made only if they have lost half or more of their current squad strength in the assault. To me this would be too powerful as hth should be more about phychology but I think I have a mid way suggestion that could work. From reading peoples responses i think we can all agree that HTH is a tough situation that sorts the men from the boys. Models freeing without defending themselves doesnt sit right, but models fleeing after they have given their best in hth but still being beaten sounds right. they gave it a go, the enemy did more damage (or equal) so time to fall back. In theory I think the above sounds great. How about this: The squad with the most number of waxed models is the loser and must make a Mental test at +* where * is the number of waxed modelsHows that? Simple huh? your squad got smashed with 4 waxed then their liklihood of sticking around is slim (+4). If your squad only lost 1 then they are more likely to stick around In the event that both attacker and defender have the same number of waxed they both test at +*Now what do we do if there are no waxed? Do we a) both test at +/-0? b) no test for both sides? I think i prefer A as each side might have had expectations "were gunna kick their arse....what we didnt? heck they might be tougher than we thought". If we agree with A then the above rule can simply read In the event that both attacker and defender have the same number of waxed (or no waxed) they both test at +*
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 3, 2012 23:47:52 GMT -5
Sorry about the long multiple posts but I thought it valuable to explain my proposed rules, the effects behind them and also the reasoning as to why they are suitable and also why they would work
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 4, 2012 1:17:33 GMT -5
I think I feel I know where you are going with this but I'm not exactly sure. Before I can bounce it around in my head, I have a few questions. 1) In your first Step 3 post, you mention that ALL should be able to React Assault, however React Fire should only be for those models that have paid a premium for it. How do you propose it is decided who does and doesn't have React Fire? In regards to the above, I still think it's probably unfair on pure Assault troops to allow the defender 2 x attacks at them (React Fire AND React Assault) when the defender has already used his speciality mode of attack (shooting) against the assaulter's whilst they've been approaching the defenders...during this approach, they're likely to be severely mauled and their effectiveness significantly reduced. Essentially what is happening, is that the "defenders" are getting to attack the "assaulter's" with shooting for maybe 2 or 3 turns before the "assaulter's" have the opportunity to get an attack...and when they do, they still have to accept the possibility of the "defender" getting two attacks (React Fire and React Assault) against them in the assault when they only receive a single attack. In the bigger picture, it seems unfair, especially when you consider a good pure assault squad may very well cost several points more than a basic shooting squad. 2) In the sequence of assault you have suggested, would the defenders React Assault after the models assaulting made their attack? 3) Your proposal for the Assault resolution sounds ok and would be more reflective of the psychological effect on the squad when they take casualties. However it still doesn't deal with the problem of a single defending model on the end being killed by a lone assaulting model. The defenders will still lose and are forced to take a mental check at +1. Also, would you see React Fire casualties being included in this resolution? 4) How are free attacks allocated against multiple disengaging models...does a single model get an attack against each model disengaging from base to base with it? 5) If both squads disengage, are there any free attacks? Just trying to get my head around your proposal so I can fully consider how it would work
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 4, 2012 2:19:49 GMT -5
1) In your first Step 3 post, you mention that ALL should be able to React Assault, however React Fire should only be for those models that have paid a premium for it. How do you propose it is decided who does and doesn't have React Fire? by 'Paid a premium' I mean paid the cost of having the higher Mental stat In regards to the above, I still think it's probably unfair on pure Assault troops to allow the defender 2 x attacks at them (React Fire AND React Assault) when the defender has already used his speciality mode of attack (shooting) against the assaulter's whilst they've been approaching the defenders... thats understandable but I dont see it as a problem as long as the Mental Stat is appropriately priced. At this stage the mental stat has 6 levels 4 - Green 5 - Trained 6 - Seasoned 7 - Veteran 8 - Expert 9 - Elite The pricing of these levels should reflect that on average the troop Mental stat we see on playtest battlefield is around 6/7. If playtest armies are lopsided and everyone is taking 8/9 then the points are too low. A gut feel for the points for skills should be: 4 - Green - 0 points or 0 points 5 - Trained - 1 point or 1 points 6 - Seasoned - 2 points or 3 points 7 - Veteran - 4 points or 6 points 8 - Expert - 7 points or 10 points 9 - Elite - 10 points or 15 points Edit - points depend on how the rest of the points are assessed in the new rules but you can see how they should be a sliding scale, base levels have minimal points differences then scaling up to the highest levels. If people are paying a premium to have elite troops, then elite troops should act like elite troops. Also take into consideration that for the HTH ability to be effective they also have to pay for higher stats in that area and also better weapons. Overall if you want it and you pay for it then thats all good but I think once you tally up a 100+ point 'god' squad, people will start to tone them down. 2) In the sequence of assault you have suggested, would the defenders React Assault after the models assaulting made their attack? I would say simultaneous, you could have it in descending weapon quality order though maybe? but that could be making it too complex 3) Your proposal for the Assault resolution sounds ok and would be more reflective of the psychological effect on the squad when they take casualties. However it still doesn't deal with the problem of a single defending model on the end being killed by a lone assaulting model. The defenders will still lose and are forced to take a mental check at +1. Also, would you see React Fire casualties being included in this resolution? I think it is the best we are going to get without having too many additional rules, it doesnt solve every situation but at least that lone guy who got contacted fought back and if there was no waxes from the contact there is no modifier to the roll (whereas it was +2 previously) I would possibly have the following statement in there to prevent tricky players "during the charge move all models in the assaulting unit must attempt to get into base contact with an enemy model" Edit - Also remember that the attacker risks a standoff and possibly fleeing himself if he only engages a single model. Also, would you see React Fire casualties being included in this resolution? Good question......I think it would work best if the answer was no. The defenders get the free kills on the way in, but they are forgotten as soon as fist vs claw vs powersword kicks in 4) How are free attacks allocated against multiple disengaging models...does a single model get an attack against each model disengaging from base to base with it? Each model would get an attack up to its maximum standard attacks. I dont know if any moels have multiple attacks (we had that question about commander bases) but if they do I think they should be able to attack multiple models that are fleeing its base 5) If both squads disengage, are there any free attacks? No attacks both sides crap themselves and just run Just trying to get my head around your proposal so I can fully consider how it would work Nah thats great mate, the more questions and situations you can ask of a system the more refined it will become and be able to encompass a greater bredth of situations
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 4, 2012 3:43:01 GMT -5
Ok mate. I'll run it through my head tonight and see what I come up with. I guess the thing that really stands out to me and what I don't like is the bit I mentioned before; "Essentially what is happening, is that the "defenders" are getting to attack the "assaulter's" with shooting for maybe 2 or 3 turns before the "assaulter's" have the opportunity to get an attack...and when they do, they still have to accept the possibility of the "defender" getting two attacks (React Fire and React Assault) against them in the assault when they only receive a single attack. In the bigger picture, it seems unfair, especially when you consider a good pure assault squad may very well cost several points more than a basic shooting squad."I just don't think it's going to work for assault based armies. My Aliens army would stand up better than most, because I've made up a special army rule Utterly Fearless (auto pass mental checks). If I didn't have this, I'd likely not make it into an assault very often at all (due to condition brown checks and suppression), and when I did, my squad would be significantly reduced in effectiveness. So finally having reached a point where I can get a single attack in, I'd be faced with two attacks back from the defender during my own assault...one of those happening before I even get to roll attack dice and the other happening simultaneously....I just can't seeing that being fair in any way at all. I'll run it through my head though
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 4, 2012 4:54:14 GMT -5
I'll run it through my head though Have a thunk about it, let me leave you with one comparison though using your aliens and your commando's just for interest sake Rules as they are now: 41.66% chance of react fire due to mental 8 no hth attacks if lose assault they flee 58.33% of the time due to mental 8 Rules suggestion 41.66% chance of react fire due to mental 8 hth at assault 4 vs Guard 13 then Dam 6 vs Soak 11 overall 23.14% to kill 1 model.* if lose assault by draw - flee 27.77% 1 - flee 41.66% 2 - flee 58.33% 3 - flee 72.22% * noticed that the range of hth weapons is quite limited str 4 - hands - costs 0 - kill chance in this example 16.2% str 5 - dagger - costs 0 - kill chance in this example 20.05% str 6 - basic - costs 1 - kill chance in this example 23.14% str 7 - energy - cost 2 - kill chance in this example 25.45% Why would anyone elect to have str 4 hth weapon when it is the same cost as str 5? I was actually suprised that you had such a strong dam hth weapon but for 1 point you have the 2nd best category. Interestingly enough a projectile weapon only has strength 5 and classified as "machine gun, assault rifle, gauss rifle..." I know swords and maces are good but more damage than a machine gun? I dont mind having strong hth weapons, things like powerfists/monowires/industrial arc cutter might even be strength 8 or 9 at an appropriate cost. Interesting comparison basically 1 kill for every 4 commandos in btb. that poor alien soak does hurt
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 4, 2012 6:29:12 GMT -5
Thanks for working out those percentages for that comparison, mango. I'm pulling a night shift tonight, so I'll put some more thought into it during my shift You have the str 4 and str 5 weapons at the same % to kill. I see your point about why anyone would take a str 4 weapon over a str 5 weapon. Perhaps it would be useful for creating civilians in a scenario setting or perhaps even if you wanted to have a very thematic force that were highly skilled at shooting but incredibly poor at the old fisty cuffs I think it may be purely thematic because if you were designing a force for max efficiency, as you say, you would never choose str 4.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 4, 2012 6:39:22 GMT -5
You have the str 4 and str 5 weapons at the same % to kill. Durr me, fixed
|
|