View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 19th, 2017, 10:45 pm



Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 2.0 Beta questions/catches/suggestions 
Author Message
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 316
Location: Australia
Some of the things here need to be in the rules section or referred via feedback.x

_________________
Australian Soda Pop Community On Facebook
South East QLD Relic Knights on Facebook


March 15th, 2017, 12:30 am
Profile WWW
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 481
I know they're checking all the forums, so it's good to keep an ongoing thread. It would be a good idea to break some of the items that require or prompt discussions off to the Rules section, or preferably, a Beta-specific subforum.


March 15th, 2017, 2:06 am
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 481
As a possible suggesting to the issue of scoring victory points:

Why not, instead of random flips, adopt a system used in some sports (such as volleyball), wherein you not only need to achieve a set number of points to win, but you must also win by a certain amount. This means that combat is still a viable option, but would also bring back the race for objectives, as keeping pace with your opponent will matter.

Another idea, that could be used in tandem with the above or on it's own: When the active player achieves the necessary number of victory points needed to win, the 'losing' player marks the last card in their queue. (This happens before the queue is reset for the active player). Play then continues normally, including the scoring of victory points and adding units to the queue. When the losing player activates the marked unit, whoever has the most victory points at the end of that turn is the winner, in the event the game is tied at that point, play continues until one player scores, causing a repeat of process. Eventually, one player should be able to claim victory, if by no other means than a total cadre kill.

For both of these suggestions, the value of objectives and kills may need to be re-examined; I have not run the numbers to see if the current values would allow for close and competitive games, or if similar 'mate in 3' situations would still occur at the same frequency as they do in 1.5


March 18th, 2017, 5:14 am
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 316
Location: Australia
A simple solution is make Secondary Conditions give 2 VP, and Primary Conditions give 4. This makes them effective ways to advance towards a win, but not possible to achieve a win with solely. (With no random element.) If less than 8 VP is needed for a game those values should go down proportionately, or left unchanged as a factor of game length (eg tournaments).

_________________
Australian Soda Pop Community On Facebook
South East QLD Relic Knights on Facebook


March 18th, 2017, 7:57 am
Profile WWW
Minion
User avatar

Joined: July 11th, 2015, 10:54 am
Posts: 81
Major Glitch wrote:
As a possible suggesting to the issue of scoring victory points:

Why not, instead of random flips, adopt a system used in some sports (such as volleyball), wherein you not only need to achieve a set number of points to win, but you must also win by a certain amount. This means that combat is still a viable option, but would also bring back the race for objectives, as keeping pace with your opponent will matter.

Another idea, that could be used in tandem with the above or on it's own: When the active player achieves the necessary number of victory points needed to win, the 'losing' player marks the last card in their queue. (This happens before the queue is reset for the active player). Play then continues normally, including the scoring of victory points and adding units to the queue. When the losing player activates the marked unit, whoever has the most victory points at the end of that turn is the winner, in the event the game is tied at that point, play continues until one player scores, causing a repeat of process. Eventually, one player should be able to claim victory, if by no other means than a total cadre kill.

For both of these suggestions, the value of objectives and kills may need to be re-examined; I have not run the numbers to see if the current values would allow for close and competitive games, or if similar 'mate in 3' situations would still occur at the same frequency as they do in 1.5


I feel like this would actually exacerbate the game slowdown issue. It's not unusual for both players to stay relatively close in points until one can pull ahead for the win by hitting the arbitrary goal number (at least in my experience of 1.0, 2.0 it remains to be seen how it shakes out over time) so you'd quite easily end up in a situation where the goalposts just keep moving foward, with no one ever winning until you hit whatever time limit has been set, or someone just gets fed up and killboxes the opposition into submission,


March 19th, 2017, 10:50 am
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 481
A follow-up on engagement: how does engagement work with Act as One? Let's say one model engages an enemy. Given that the other models in the squad must move into engagement, what happens if the shortest path causes them to engage a second enemy? Unlike regular squads, the Acr as One squad doesn't need to worry about being broken. Does the squad have to choose one unit to engage, and therefore attempt to disengage from the other unit(s) in order to have all models engaged to the same unit (meaning the opponent can purposefully tie down the squad), or can the squad act normally, choosing one enemy unit to attack with their action.

And since it hasn't been addressed yet and is relevant, I'll repeat the question: How does a squad handle disengagement when it is engaged with multiple units? Is disengagement handled differently depending on whether or not the engagement zones overlap?


May 3rd, 2017, 6:00 am
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 481
Re-reading the Order of Operations, 2.a states "hero unit or placeholder". Perhaps Cypher should be added to that list as well. Also, unless I missed a rules change, you can't use minions with a placeholder, correct? If that's still true, 2.a.ii should be worded to make that clear (as is, it suggests you always have the option to move a minion to the linked slot).


May 8th, 2017, 9:10 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: September 1st, 2012, 1:04 pm
Posts: 131
Act as One seems that it doesn't play well for purposes of engagement. Would probably be better to add a clause to Act as One that each model counts as a separate unit for purposes of engagement. Otherwise what's the point of the ability? I have one of the prefects in 3 different table quarters doing their thing, one of them gets engaged and a magnet gets turned on dragging them out of the position where I wanted them? Seems to be on overly easy way to just shut down the entire concept, as I imagine it, for Act as One.


May 9th, 2017, 5:40 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 481
Fetid Strumpet wrote:
Act as One seems that it doesn't play well for purposes of engagement. Would probably be better to add a clause to Act as One that each model counts as a separate unit for purposes of engagement. Otherwise what's the point of the ability? I have one of the prefects in 3 different table quarters doing their thing, one of them gets engaged and a magnet gets turned on dragging them out of the position where I wanted them? Seems to be on overly easy way to just shut down the entire concept, as I imagine it, for Act as One.


I second the rules change suggestion. While it is somewhat thematic to have the partners drop everything to try and help the engaged member, the impact on gameplay is too strong. (i.e. the counter-play to Act as One is something any unit can accomplish, and it is something that is unbalanced in the favor of the opponent - the Act as One squad will very likely wind up exposing itself to additional fire or engagements (We still need to know how to handle multiple engaged units) in the course of moving toward the originally engaged model.)

However: If Act as One counts each model as a unit for the purposes of engagement, do the other members still get to take two full movement actions? What if a disengage was attempted and failed? Can a non-engaged model from the squad take a non-melee action? If they can take non-melee actions, can the engaged model contribute to a press that requires the engaged model to have LoS to the target? Could an engaged model benefit from an AoE another member of the squad was in?
It's clear that treating Act as One as any other squad avoids many rules issues. That doesn't mean that doing so is what's best for balance. In this case I agree that Act as One needs a special carve out, but I think it will require more explanation than simply making each model count as a unit.

It's also clear that Engagement as a mechanic needs some additional clarification for how to deal with situations over than 1 to 1 engagement.


May 9th, 2017, 7:52 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.