Switch Theme:

We played our first game! Did we do it right?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

Ok, so Panic and I played our first game last night - just a small 70pt game to get started. Panic had a few squads of Contractor Engineers, a Journeyman and a squad of Firefly drones. I had a squad of Karist Troopers, a squad of Tempest Elites with super-mortars, a Kaddar Nova, and a small squad of Minnows. We played the Assassination/Excavation mission on a board comprising of some Area Terrain, some Obstacles and lots of Impassable, LoS blocking Buildings (though we didn't use the building rules).

After three hours of play, we got to the end of Turn 3. Generally, the game seems like it's going to be really interesting - once we figured out the ST mechanic it all started to make sense, including how difficult it is to actually inflict any damage on an enemy unit. So the game becomes one of attempting to suppress enemy units for most of the game in the hope that you can get into a position to actually hurt them. We only got to Turn 3 but it felt like, once we know the rules, it's going to be very tactical to play.

The rulebook is very concisely written - you can tell that a lot of effort has been put into covering every possible situation and the rules are separated into sections that make sense. However, this quite legal writing style makes it quite difficult to pick up from a straight read-through. For example, you're on the 'Turn' page. First thing in the turn - activate a unit. Flip forward a few chapters to the 'Activating a Unit' section. A unit must be activated with a discipline check, which is a 'versus roll'. Flip back to the start to find the page on 'Versus Rolls'. The roll seems to be Unit Discipline vs STs. Ok, what's Unit Discipline? No idea. We both spend five minutes looking through our books before finding the bit of text that tells you that it's the WP of the squad leader, etc

It seems that the book is arranged in a really good way if you already know the rules, and are using the index to clarify something, but a really bad way for actually learning the game step-by-step. I understand this decision, and it will be really useful once we know what we're doing, but flipping back and forth was the main reason our game took three hours! I'd really love to see a quick-start guide, for one or two units per side, that takes you through the rules in the order you encounter them rather than the order that makes the most sense for reference.

Anyway, that aside, we had a little list of things we *thought* we might be doing wrong. Could someone clarify?

COVER - It seems that units are almost ALWAYS in cover. To be in cover, a model must just be touching a piece of terrain. This counts even if the firer can clearly see all the model. They don't have to be 'behind' the terrain? If half the unit are in cover then the unit is 'taking cover' and are Fleeting, thus harder to hit. This means that pretty much everyone, all game, is hitting on a 5+, because all the double EVS scores are higher than most of the SKL scores. The only way we really got better than this was when we opted to focus fire. Does that sound about right?

TEMPLATES - We couldn't find any text that states what is counted as 'covered' by a template. Does the template have to completely cover the base, or does partial coverage count?

LOS - If the squad leader can draw line of sight to a target, then everyone in the unit can shoot. Even if models in the unit can't actually see anything. The only thing that matters is the Squad Leader? Similarly for allocating wounds, it's irrelevant which models in the unit can be seen - if you can see one model, you can kill all of them?

CHARGES AND ARCS - I had to do a little diagram for this one as it seemed very counter-intuitive. If the unit starts it's charge in the target's front arc, then it counts as attacking from the front EVEN if it has to go around terrain and attack from the rear and even if it's starting position can't be seen by the target unit? We had some Angel Minnows (purple) charging a unit of Firefly drones (green). The Angel Minnows starting position was behind a building, completely invisible to the Drones, but technically in their front arc. Even though the Minnows moved around the back of the building to attack the Drones, and were only visible once they got around the building (by which point they were in the rear arc), because they started the move in the front arc, the defensive fire is resolved as if the attack is in the front arc. Seems weird - were we doing it right?



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/11 13:41:19


   
Made in nl
Sure Shot Scarecrow Sniper






Cover: correct, however, in the case of obstacles, a unit's cover may be denied if the enemy squad leader can clearly see at least 50% of the target unit, with clearly meaning 'completely', even though they're all touching an obstacle, see p. 55. This means that you do kind of have to be behind the terrain.

Templates: any portion of base covered counts, see p. 42.

LOS: yes, the position of the units is abstracted to just the squad leader of the firing unit and then any part of any model in the target.

Charge arc: correct, even a charging unit that is invisible half the way would still count as starting in the front arc. As I understand it, the idea is that units have an 'awareness' towards their front that goes further than just line of sight, hence you might say in this case the target would have had some idea that a charge might be coming from that direction and thus not be totally surprised? I dunno, that's how the abstraction works anyway

The rulebook is indeed more reference than tutorial style, which will be nicer in the long run but a bit harder at first. An additional 'quick start' would be good, I agree.

Edit: the unit discipline thingy is on the gameplay summary sheet as well

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/11 14:08:26


   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:
Cover: correct, however, in the case of obstacles, a unit's cover may be denied if the enemy squad leader can clearly see at least 50% of the target unit, with clearly meaning 'completely', even though they're all touching an obstacle, see p. 55. This means that you do kind of have to be behind the terrain.


Yeah, we didn't use many obstacles, but the idea that a guy just standing next to the wall of a building, but in full view (not 'behind' anything) still gets to count as 'in cover' was what was confusing us.

We actually used those gameplay sheets, but didn't notice the discipline check thing! I guess that's what we're talking about - in a more linear gameplay sheet, 'activating a unit' and ALL things you need to know to do that would come first. Then the actions it can take. Then Movement, Shooting, etc...!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 14:58:37


   
Made in nl
Sure Shot Scarecrow Sniper






Well, buildings are obstacles, so a guy touching a building but in full view would not count as being in cover.
Any insight from your game as to clever tactics or good list combos?

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





Oklahoma City

ArbitorIan wrote:
COVER - It seems that units are almost ALWAYS in cover. If half the unit are in cover then the unit is 'taking cover' and are Fleeting, thus harder to hit. This means that pretty much everyone, all game, is hitting on a 5+, because all the double EVS scores are higher than most of the SKL scores. The only way we really got better than this was when we opted to focus fire. Does that sound about right?

Sgt. Oddball wrote:
Any insight from your game as to clever tactics or good list combos?
This makes me think that marksman (and thus, targeting drones for the Journeyman) is going to be very important for Epirians. With focus fire you can get your hit rolls to 3+ against fleeting targets.

Fireflies also paint targets so that hits can't be discarded due to cover. Doesn't do anything for dodging or field units, but it can help to make your other, bigger guns deadlier.

Proud supporter of


It is human nature to seek culpability in a time of tragedy. It is a sign of strength to cry out against fate, rather than to bow one's head and succumb.
-Gabriel Angelos 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

 ArbitorIan wrote:
The rulebook is very concisely written - you can tell that a lot of effort has been put into covering every possible situation and the rules are separated into sections that make sense. However, this quite legal writing style makes it quite difficult to pick up from a straight read-through. For example, you're on the 'Turn' page. First thing in the turn - activate a unit. Flip forward a few chapters to the 'Activating a Unit' section. A unit must be activated with a discipline check, which is a 'versus roll'. Flip back to the start to find the page on 'Versus Rolls'. The roll seems to be Unit Discipline vs STs. Ok, what's Unit Discipline? No idea. We both spend five minutes looking through our books before finding the bit of text that tells you that it's the WP of the squad leader, etc

It seems that the book is arranged in a really good way if you already know the rules, and are using the index to clarify something, but a really bad way for actually learning the game step-by-step. I understand this decision, and it will be really useful once we know what we're doing, but flipping back and forth was the main reason our game took three hours! I'd really love to see a quick-start guide, for one or two units per side, that takes you through the rules in the order you encounter them rather than the order that makes the most sense for reference.


At first, I tried to write the rules similar to how Fantasy Flight does things now...begin with a 'starting to play' section and then have like a second section that is pure reference/keywords. But as I tried to make that work, I realized it was really, really tricky with these particular rules because so many of them play directly off each other. For example, to do anything with a unit, you have to activate it first, and in order to activate it, you need to know what a VS roll is and how it is calculated, then you also need to know what unit discipline is and what STs are, and so on and so forth...and that's even skipping past generating and using command points at the start of the turn!

So ultimately I had to scrap that idea and go with a more linear progression of setting up the 'bedrock' of the rules and then expanding upon those throughout the book.

I definitely agree that a separate 'getting started' booklet would have been lovely, but to be perfectly honest, that book would have featured a ton of pictures/diagrams and a whole lot of graphic design layout, etc. In other words, it would have probably been the most difficult aspect of the entire rules writing process...not to mention the additional cost of printing it and the additional shipping cost (as it would add a bit of weight to the boxed set).

HOWEVER, all those things are just excuses that ultimately don't diminish the fact that you're right. But since making such a 'learning to play' book wasn't a realistic possibility in the timeframe & budget we had to work with, our plan is, at some point, to release a series of videos that kind of explain how to play precisely how you describe. I know some people don't really care for video tutorials, but they really are the best and easiest way to get the 'basic' information across.

COVER - It seems that units are almost ALWAYS in cover. To be in cover, a model must just be touching a piece of terrain. This counts even if the firer can clearly see all the model. They don't have to be 'behind' the terrain? If half the unit are in cover then the unit is 'taking cover' and are Fleeting, thus harder to hit. This means that pretty much everyone, all game, is hitting on a 5+, because all the double EVS scores are higher than most of the SKL scores. The only way we really got better than this was when we opted to focus fire. Does that sound about right?

TEMPLATES - We couldn't find any text that states what is counted as 'covered' by a template. Does the template have to completely cover the base, or does partial coverage count?

LOS - If the squad leader can draw line of sight to a target, then everyone in the unit can shoot. Even if models in the unit can't actually see anything. The only thing that matters is the Squad Leader? Similarly for allocating wounds, it's irrelevant which models in the unit can be seen - if you can see one model, you can kill all of them?


Sgt. Oddball nailed all the answers to these questions, so I won't rehash them except to say that: yes the rules do suggest you should categorize your buildings as obstacles. If you don't then you will definitely run into the odd situation where models seem to be standing out in the open but count as being in cover!

CHARGES AND ARCS - I had to do a little diagram for this one as it seemed very counter-intuitive. If the unit starts it's charge in the target's front arc, then it counts as attacking from the front EVEN if it has to go around terrain and attack from the rear and even if it's starting position can't be seen by the target unit? We had some Angel Minnows (purple) charging a unit of Firefly drones (green). The Angel Minnows starting position was behind a building, completely invisible to the Drones, but technically in their front arc. Even though the Minnows moved around the back of the building to attack the Drones, and were only visible once they got around the building (by which point they were in the rear arc), because they started the move in the front arc, the defensive fire is resolved as if the attack is in the front arc. Seems weird - were we doing it right?



Yep you played it right. Its a bit of an odd circumstance to be sure based on your particular terrain.

Originally in the rules, the position of where the models finished their charge move determined whether they charged the front or rear of the enemy unit, but this quickly proved to be way, way too powerful (as fast moving models could simply move 'around' the enemy models they were charging to get into their rear arc). Next we tried making all kinds of specific rules on charging, about how you had to only contact the closest enemy model you could reach, etc, but ultimately that proved to be a little too fiddly and confusing.

So we ultimately settled on something that works pretty well 95% of the time, and that is that charge moves have to be by the shortest route to the enemy model you're contacting, but you can choose to contact any enemy model you want in the target unit (provided you maintain unit coherency with your own unit).

But since whether your charging unit was attacking the enemy's front or rear arc would often end up depending on just the slightest margin of error, it simply made the most sense to have CQ arcs determined by the starting position of the charging models, even though in an extreme case (like yours) it doesn't make a ton of logical sense.

Just try to think of it this way...All the units on the table are roughly aware of the position of every enemy unit, even if they can't actually see them. However, the 'front arc' of a unit represents the area they are mainly focused on covering. So in your example, the Firefly drones knew/heard the Angels gearing up to charge them, and they lit them up through the walls of the building as they charged their rear.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

Thanks for the responses!

 yakface wrote:
HOWEVER, all those things are just excuses that ultimately don't diminish the fact that you're right. But since making such a 'learning to play' book wasn't a realistic possibility in the timeframe & budget we had to work with, our plan is, at some point, to release a series of videos that kind of explain how to play precisely how you describe. I know some people don't really care for video tutorials, but they really are the best and easiest way to get the 'basic' information across.


Yep, I can see how that would be a ton of work. I might actually try and put something together a bit like my 40k Reference Sheets, as I find that it helps me learn the rules correctly! I can imagine the rulebook will become very useful at some point once we're familiar with it all - much like we currently use the 40k Rulebook.

Sgt. Oddball nailed all the answers to these questions, so I won't rehash them except to say that: yes the rules do suggest you should categorize your buildings as obstacles. If you don't then you will definitely run into the odd situation where models seem to be standing out in the open but count as being in cover!


Right, that makes sense. I think we missed that part, and treated the 'obstacles' (low walls) as Obstacles and the buildings as 'Impassable Terrain'.

Yep you played it right. Its a bit of an odd circumstance to be sure based on your particular terrain..... So we ultimately settled on something that works pretty well 95% of the time, and that is that charge moves have to be by the shortest route to the enemy model you're contacting, but you can choose to contact any enemy model you want in the target unit (provided you maintain unit coherency with your own unit).


All makes sense. Interestingly, does this means that, since Minnows can move Dynamically, then they would have to use this method of movement to get into contact? Since, by making a Dynamic Move, they can charge directly across the building?

We actually couldn't find a good reason to use Dynamic Movement with our Minnows or Fireflies - what is the advantage of Dynamic Moves on Mobile units? They can already move double, shoot without being Wild, and use the benefits of cover. It seems that, if they move Dynamically, they can ignore the terrain but have a much harder time using cover? Is it something that is much more useful for non-Mobile units?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/12 09:58:38


   
Made in nl
Sure Shot Scarecrow Sniper






Re: dynamic moves: interesting question. The rules do state that "A model making a forced move cannot be made to use any special movement they may have access to." However, a charge is not a forced move. "A Charge action allows the models in the unit to make a standard double move", however, no open ground bonus. Models must attempt base contact and must move by the shortest route. Generally a dynamic unit 'may elect' to move dynamically. I would say, by analogy, that since 'forced moves' cannot force dynamic movement, the 'must move...' clauses in the charge rules also cannot force you to move dynamically. Not certain though.

Also, the advantage of moving dynamically seems to be a speed due to ignoring otherwise impassable terrain, vertical terrain, etc.

   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:
Re: dynamic moves: interesting question. The rules do state that "A model making a forced move cannot be made to use any special movement they may have access to." However, a charge is not a forced move. "A Charge action allows the models in the unit to make a standard double move", however, no open ground bonus. Models must attempt base contact and must move by the shortest route. Generally a dynamic unit 'may elect' to move dynamically. I would say, by analogy, that since 'forced moves' cannot force dynamic movement, the 'must move...' clauses in the charge rules also cannot force you to move dynamically. Not certain though.

Also, the advantage of moving dynamically seems to be a speed due to ignoring otherwise impassable terrain, vertical terrain, etc.


Cool. Interestingly, the Minnows had failed their activation check and this were charging as a result of Bloodlust. Does that mean it's 'forced'? I guess I could have chosen another 'failed your check' action...


   
Made in nl
Sure Shot Scarecrow Sniper






Forced move is generally described as 'compelled to be moved'. I don't think a failed activation check can compel you to move unless you must retreat, and retreat is already specifically described as a forced move (so, even if you choose to retreat). Drag unit, slow projectile and suppressive fire also cause forced moves, not sure if there are others.

So, I don't think the 'forced to perform a compulsory action' as written under the Bloodthirsty ability necessarily leads to a forced move: only when the compulsory action taken is 'Shaken' ánd a retreat is performed as part of this action, because a retreat is specifically determined to be a forced move.

   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA


The plan is to always have the rules specify when a forced move is a forced move (as in 'drag unit', 'suppressive fire', etc).

Besides that, even when a charge is caused by the Bloodthirsty ability, as you pointed out, you still have the option to choose the standard failed discipline check action instead of the charge (so its never even absolute in that case).

In general, when charging, a unit always has the option of whether or not they want to make that charge a dynamic move or not. Although since charging prohibits any open ground bonus movement the only thing you're getting from making a dynamic move is the ability to pass over terrain/models freely (which certainly can be useful in some cases).



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/13 07:19:44


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in ca
Mutilatin' Mad Dok





 yakface wrote:
But since making such a 'learning to play' book wasn't a realistic possibility in the timeframe & budget we had to work with, our plan is, at some point, to release a series of videos that kind of explain how to play precisely how you describe. I know some people don't really care for video tutorials, but they really are the best and easiest way to get the 'basic' information across.


Speaking for myself, I think this is a great idea. I've gotten a lot of newer board/card games that offer 'how to play' videos online and it does make learning the essentials a lot more intuitive. As an example, Netrunner's tutorials are superb.
   
 
Forum Index » Maelstrom's Edge General Discussion
Go to: