|
Post by timsnoddy on Nov 4, 2012 9:46:01 GMT -5
Under assault attack roll the 1.1 assault rules talk about counting the total number of waxed models including casualties taken prior to the assault attack roll. I assume this means casualties taken during react fire.
Personally I think the rules work well. Slower moving types such as zombies should have a lower guard stat making them easier to hit. The actual terms used for the mental stat are misleading. My interpretation of the stat is as follows:
Mental Stat: Green 4 Civilians and colonists with no military experience or enthusiasm. Trained 5 Enthusiastic mobs with no military experience or just formed militias without experience or training. Seasoned 6 All militia types with some military experience and or training but lacking professionalism. Veteran 7 Regular troops with professional training but limited or no combat experience. Expert 8 Regular troops with special training and or selection process. Or regular army units with notable combat experience. Elite 9 Regular troops belonging to elite units.
So a a regular army unit would have a mental stat of 7 giving it a 42% chance of reacting to being assaulted. That seems about right to me.
If you are playing an assault focused game yes you probably do want your own rules to cover the type of game you are playing.
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 4, 2012 10:52:46 GMT -5
Under assault attack roll the 1.1 assault rules talk about counting the total number of waxed models including casualties taken prior to the assault attack roll. I assume this means casualties taken during react fire. HMmmm, I can certainly see how you would assume this, it can certainly be taken that way. My assumption was that the line "models already in a waxed condition prior to the assault" was referring to models from the defending squad who had received fire from another enemy unit who was supporting the assaulting squad. So, one team A unit shooting at the team B defenders to soften them up for another team A squad to assault that softened up team B defender. It would be good to get some clarification in this?
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 4, 2012 11:16:36 GMT -5
I like some of the ideas you've got there mango, especially the modifier for condition brown being reliant on the amount of waxed models. However I just can't come at the defenders getting two attacks vs the assaulter's one attack...it just seems odd.
The way I prefer to see it is that the defending squad chooses to react against an attacker in the way they feel most comfortable fighting. For squads good at shooting, they use their ranged weapons to the last, firing away at oncoming enemies as they close and reach close combat. For squads good at close combat, they drop their projectile weapons and draw or prepare their close combat weapons and prepare to receive the enemies charge. For squads good at both, the commander of the squad orders his squad to either continue firing or draw weapons depending on what he thinks is going to give him and his squad the best combat outcome.
I think a choice should be forced upon the defender to choose one type of combat in reaction to being charged.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 4, 2012 17:39:58 GMT -5
Tims, thanks for your reply its interesting to see how you view the stats and what they mean, I have one clarification though So a a regular army unit would have a mental stat of 7 giving it a 42% chance of reacting to being assaulted. That seems about right to me. So you are quite happy for a regular army unit to be assaulted (by anyone from elite monsters to farmers) and only have a 42% chance of fighting back (in any way) and then (when they draw/lose which is highly likely) fleeing combat 72% of the time(allowing for the enemy to make more attacks on their backs). Note: this isnt an attack on your opinion, I just want to make sure that you are happy with the rules as they are or only on a select part of the rule. Either way thats great its good to get a wide range of opinions on the rule
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 4, 2012 17:48:31 GMT -5
However I just can't come at the defenders getting two attacks vs the assaulter's one attack...it just seems odd. Well my thinking with react fire is that it is not happening at a specific location i.e. It is completed when the assaulting unit make themselves visible to the defender. However for ease of play, I would mark the models hit and wounded by reaction fire with waxed markers at the origin of their assault at the defending unit to represent them taking fire as they assault the defender. OK so you could feasibly have a situation where the attacker might be hidden from the defender, however the attacker does need line of sight to be able to make the defender. Given that currently Gruntz have 360 vision and no rear arc, it is likely that in most use cases you will find the defender able to see them coming and take that shot. With regard to the two actions - Shooting at the attacker and then fighting them HTH. I was aiming for two things here. First I think a hand to hand is a little different in that most humanoids would engage hand-2-hand in a joint "fight" rather than it being a complete surprise. It is not an opposed roll, but it does at least reflect a brief foray where the two parties jostle about and both have an opportunity to whack the opponent. The assaulting unit does have the benefit of momentum with the additional re-roll of the D6 giving them an edge. I also wanted some realism during the assault, on the basis of the fact that running at solider who have automatic rifles trained on you can be hazardous and most defenders would try and shoot you. So yes there is an advantage to defenders. Although I would caveat this thought with the fact that there are other units on the battlefield which can either suppress the target or soften them up with some casualties before you resort to "Fix bayonets and charge" situations. So hopefully it is a relatively rare situation for a ranged weapon armed squad in the open to decide to assault move when they still have the opportunity to fire. It has mostly worked for me so far, in both the alien vs troop games with my Khurasan models and the squad vs squad scenarios. I am very keen on the feedback though, this has been something I have been working on for the last 6 Months and is now the standard for the new rules but adaption and changes are very welcome.
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 4, 2012 22:27:59 GMT -5
How does react fire work in relation to cover, line of sight etc? React fire says that it is done before the assulting models are moved, what happens if they are behind a building etc? Yeah, I remember talking about this. Maybe this is one instance where overwatch could be useful. You can't see the enemy in your previous activation, so you go on overwatch, which, following the current rules, gives you the opportunity to interrupt the enemies movement and you get to shoot them on the way in as per the overwatch optional rules. Maybe react fire should be done after movement? This would give the following benefit though - Killing models in btb to prevent assault attacks In some ways I dont mind this, it represents a model creating a cone of destruction in front of him BUT if there are 5 models behind the killed model waiting to enter combat then what happens do they just sit there and not contribute? seems silly Perhaps after movement for the charge is complete, the react fire takes place, and casualties are first removed from those not in base to base. This would represent the chargers being gunned down on their way into close combat but those behind them still pushing forward over their dead comrades to reach the defenders...and to keep overwatch in the loop, those on overwatch get +1 to their shoot in this react fire... Should react fire be done after movement but simultaneuos with attackers attacks? Effectively you do react fire or react CC at the same stage of combat just using diferent stats? It reduces the theory of killing models on the way into combat but could reduce the argument of 'they alreay had a shooting phase last turn anyway' BUT if the option is one or the other there is no reason for models to have any HTH capability at all. If you have the choice though, and close combat is your better skill, it wouldn't be redundant...if you take my Aliens models for example, who don't have anything to shoot, in defence their assault stat for react assault would be vital in them returning casualties to the attackers... Then we go back to the original problem. Who can react fire and who can react assault? and Why cant all models defend themselves? HMmmm, I don't see the lack of actual close combat as a defender not defending themselves, as long as they get the chance to defend themselves with react fire. EDIT - Maybe the reaction test gives the squad the option of shooting over hth, but even if they fail the test they still get to have hth? The reaction test is simply to see if they had enough time to react with their ranged weapons and if not they fight with whatever hth they have? That solves these problems- - 2 attacks, either option (but not both) can be selected pending pass/fail roll but not both - troops standing there getting slaugghtered (even on a fail roll they can fight in hth) HMmm, yeah I think I like this. Its really not much different to what currently exists except that if you choose to react fire but fail, you still get the back up option of close combat. Seems like a good compromise...
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Nov 5, 2012 8:54:41 GMT -5
EDIT - Maybe the reaction test gives the squad the option of shooting over hth, but even if they fail the test they still get to have hth? The reaction test is simply to see if they had enough time to react with their ranged weapons and if not they fight with whatever hth they have? That solves these problems- - 2 attacks, either option (but not both) can be selected pending pass/fail roll but not both - troops standing there getting slaugghtered (even on a fail roll they can fight in hth) HMmm, yeah I think I like this. Its really not much different to what currently exists except that if you choose to react fire but fail, you still get the back up option of close combat. Seems like a good compromise... I actually like this quite a bit as well.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Nov 5, 2012 13:00:04 GMT -5
Tims, thanks for your reply its interesting to see how you view the stats and what they mean, I have one clarification though So a a regular army unit would have a mental stat of 7 giving it a 42% chance of reacting to being assaulted. That seems about right to me. So you are quite happy for a regular army unit to be assaulted (by anyone from elite monsters to farmers) and only have a 42% chance of fighting back (in any way) and then (when they draw/lose which is highly likely) fleeing combat 72% of the time(allowing for the enemy to make more attacks on their backs). Note: this isnt an attack on your opinion, I just want to make sure that you are happy with the rules as they are or only on a select part of the rule. Either way thats great its good to get a wide range of opinions on the rule This is not correct though. If they go into overwatch they have a 100% chance of reacting to being assaulted provided they don't get suppressed. If they lose an assault yes a 72% chance of fleeing is about right. Assault should be deadly and scary. The trick is not to lose the assault by shooting as overwatch or react fire and the number of casualties to exceed the number caused by the smaller number of enemy who make it into combat.
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Nov 5, 2012 19:49:27 GMT -5
This is a bit unrealistic as you can only react fire with half your unit so purely from a number of attacks perspective you will likely inflict less casualties.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Nov 5, 2012 20:04:47 GMT -5
This is not correct though. If they go into overwatch they have a 100% chance of reacting to being assaulted provided they don't get suppressed. Tim, it is correct. Overwatch is a seperate rule (and an optional one at that), so any odds/results from overwatch should be taken into consideration but also set aside as a seperate scenario. If they lose an assault yes a 72% chance of fleeing is about right. Assault should be deadly and scary. It should be, but it is lopsided in favour of the attacker. I am sure you have read my previous comments about squads fleeing without any casualties being inflicted and not even fighting back. Full 8 am squads fleeing after being assaulted by individual models that cause no damage and squads in defensible cover routing from it with no chance to defend.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Nov 6, 2012 15:02:00 GMT -5
This is not correct though. If they go into overwatch they have a 100% chance of reacting to being assaulted provided they don't get suppressed. Tim, it is correct. Overwatch is a seperate rule (and an optional one at that), so any odds/results from overwatch should be taken into consideration but also set aside as a seperate scenario. If they lose an assault yes a 72% chance of fleeing is about right. Assault should be deadly and scary. It should be, but it is lopsided in favour of the attacker. I am sure you have read my previous comments about squads fleeing without any casualties being inflicted and not even fighting back. Full 8 am squads fleeing after being assaulted by individual models that cause no damage and squads in defensible cover routing from it with no chance to defend. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Overwatch is an optional rule but is referred to in the 1.1 assault rules. As I said in my initial post IMHO using overwatch is essential if you are using the 1.1 assault rules. It seems odd to me to be complaining of imbalance and yet ignore, an all be it optional rule, that gives the balance you seek. Were you counting casualties caused by defender fire when deciding who won the assault? If both sides take no casualties it is a draw and both sides make a condition brown check. Technically condition brown is a fall back rather than a complete rout. I just have not seen instances were the defenders in an assault seemed unfairly treated. We must be playing very different style games.
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 6, 2012 19:59:06 GMT -5
Were you counting casualties caused by defender fire when deciding who won the assault? If both sides take no casualties it is a draw and both sides make a condition brown check. @tim - I agree with you Tim that counting casualties taken from React Fire would certainly change the outcome of determining who won the Assault. I'm just not 100% sure that is the correct way to play that rule out. I also admit that I may be absolutely wrong I thought it was more along the lines of what I mentioned earlier; "My assumption was that the line "models already in a waxed condition prior to the assault" was referring to models from the defending squad who had received fire from another enemy unit who was supporting the assaulting squad. So, one team A unit shooting at the team B defenders to soften them up for another team A squad to assault that softened up team B defender."
I might pose this question in the rules part of the forum and see if we can get some clarification one way or another from Robin.
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Nov 7, 2012 3:26:11 GMT -5
@tim - baldlea has just pointed me towards the video that Robin did for the V1.1 assault rules. The way you have been playing it is indeed correct and the way I have been playing it is incorrect, my apologies for doubting you @ Mango - mate, I think this significantly changes the situation in that with casualties received by the attacker due to React Fire being taken into account when determining who has won the assault (or casualties taken during React Assault if you are good at assaulting and choose that option), then the outcome for the defenders won't be as bleak as we first thought. This does bring one more question to mind however, and that is, does a model that has been waxed by a hand to hand attack from an assaulting model in base to base get to React Assault?
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Nov 7, 2012 12:46:46 GMT -5
@tim - baldlea has just pointed me towards the video that Robin did for the V1.1 assault rules. The way you have been playing it is indeed correct and the way I have been playing it is incorrect, my apologies for doubting you @ Mango - mate, I think this significantly changes the situation in that with casualties received by the attacker due to React Fire being taken into account when determining who has won the assault (or casualties taken during React Assault if you are good at assaulting and choose that option), then the outcome for the defenders won't be as bleak as we first thought. This does bring one more question to mind however, and that is, does a model that has been waxed by a hand to hand attack from an assaulting model in base to base get to React Assault? Pure luck on the assault thing. It just seemed the right way according to the 1.1 assault rules that were publicly released. Thanks for the stuff on swarm and assaulting. Until Saturday I was convinced you could not move and assault with the swarm perk for no good reason whatsoever. Assaulting from transports as you suggested now seems perfectly viable and a good way to use those seemingly expensive assault only troops.
|
|
|
Post by celtofkernow on Nov 21, 2012 12:33:22 GMT -5
Hi, I have to agree combat issues. My opinion is the new flow chart version is too complicated, in what is a fun, Basic ruleset.
What i have thought of is this; Remove defensive fire... It's not needed, if you want it simply use overwatch to interrupt the assault.
All models, must try and get into base contact (unengaged defender may move up to 4inches to get to b2b). All models in base contact make an attack both attacker and defender. This allows units that are designed for combat win out, also the charge damage bonus is applied to the attackers (re-roll lowest die on damage).
Unit which waxed the most wins, loser taking cb check modified by the amount they lost by. In a draw both test.
To me that gives some balance. If you wanted you could have units defending barricades count as having cause +1 waxed model.
Just my thoughts
|
|