Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Jörgen Andreasson
ParticipantYes… in such an instance I think it is perfectly alright to treat it as Enhanced Sensors if everyone who fire have them equipped.
So the best way is basically to ignore them unless all of individuals that fire on a specific target is equipped with Enhanced Sensors or at leas MORE than half I could agree with as well could be alright.
ParticipantMy problem is that ACOG is not really defined and very few squads/fire-teams have every member equipped with them, therefore it is in my opinion to house rule it in some way. I feel the DMR rule make a bit more sense, not that they are “snipers” but the general effect it has… you can increase the optimum range as well if that is your choice, but I feel it is a bit too powerful in general. In most cases I would likely not give them any special effect at all as too few in each fire-team have them.
ParticipantLate to respond to this but I think it is as much a training thing as anything else… to be honest I don’t think it should effect optimum range at all… I would just treat such teams (more than half have ACOG) as having a DMR. I think it would be the best simulation of the effect of that equipment.
I would decide this on a case by case basis…
ParticipantI actually make the exact same thing if two fire-teams share the same location or defensive terrain and at least half of the teams are overlapping in some way (close enough). As in these situations are very similar to units occupying buildings. It probably does not come up very often but it can sometimes do that and just make sense.
It also make sense that you can activate and move vehicles or fireteams which are close enough and move “in formation”… but that is also a house rule.
Although, in these cases (and buildings) I might consider counting such fire-teams as ONE unit for the purpose of initiative as they are much less flexible and limited in it’s use of firepower.
ParticipantI find the Force on force morale system a bit simplified. Has anyone made any modifications or house rules to morale in their games? Regards – Lumpy.
I think you would get a better answer if you explain what you find lacking in the rule system so we can break down why that is and what possibly could be done better?
ParticipantYes… I think that sums it up pretty good.
I also thought it was a bit awkward at first and actually have done it wrong a couple of times as well when I did not understand it properly. But it works quite well when you get used to it.
ParticipantAnother important point to consider is that if you allow the winning non-initiative unit to go first (in a chain reaction scenario) then things actually will be harder for the initiative unit from a mathematical perspective. If you on the other hand allow the initiative unit to resolve the rounds of fire where it wins first and then where they loose they have a better chance to survive.
ParticipantThe point is that the dice you throw and in what order they are done does not really matter. In the Narrative you can imagine the fire team who won the initiative to be the one doing all the casualties since they also fire… the dice you throw does not matter to which team it belong to. It is like having 100$ in your pocket and half is for buying food and the other half for buying clothes. It does not matter exactly which of the dollar goes to which… more or less.
The point here is that the initiative team needs to resolve the round of fire against the fire-team it win against before the one it looses against. The winning reacting non-initiative unit are suppose to have the best conditions possible which means the initiative team have now lost a few fire dice. The loosing reacting team are suppose to get the worst if the initiative teams fire. It is also important when you consider lost movement from the initiative team using time to fire before reaching its destination and engaging with the non-initiative team that is the most threatening.
This is why every action is resolved in reverse order. It might seem counter intuitive at first but once you are used to it you will find it actually produce a very realistic simulation to these engagements. There is a perfectly valid reason for why they decided to use this method of resolving the actions. When playing a game where time is a fluid and abstract concept we need to let go of the old I go You go mentality.
ParticipantYes.. I agree that it sometimes can be confusing.
First of you have to understand that everything happens at the same time and it is abstracted. Since all units will be able to attack it will not really matter in what order you resolve the engagement from a mathematical perspective.
You just have to get over the logical urge of thinking in game terms and instead of the simulation.
If the initiative unit can’t claim cover against the unit they loose the reaction test to but can against the one they win against that is how you solve it. Which enemy bullet makes the casualty and in what order does not really matter. All units in the engagement will count as if they fired anyway.
Let’s say that the initiative unit takes fire against three non-initiative units. The initiative unit win two reaction test but loose one. The initiative unit can claim cover against the first two rounds of fire but not the third. But what happens is that they take one casualty in each of the first two rounds of fire and loose the morale roll on both occasions. Thus might then lead the unit out if sight of the third and last unit… which unit do which casuilty does not matter. They all contributed to the result in an abstracted way anyway. The initiative unit simply retreated before they received too much casualties.
It is an abstraction of the events and the end result is just that… the result of that action.
If the case are that non-initiative units will not be able to fire if they loose the reaction test… then that is what happens. If the initiative unit is wiped out it will not move and the point is moot for the ones who don’t get to fire at the final destination. If the case is that the initiative unit is pinned and still end up in line of sight the ones who lost the reaction test will get a chance to fire after all… This would be like a unit reacting to someone moving into their line if sight at a later point in the turn… at least that is the way I interpret what would happen. In this instance I might remove a firepower dice though because they lost the reaction first and might treat it as a second reaction.
Hope that helped.
ParticipantProblem is that the rule for stress say that you only fail if you roll less than half successes. So on equal roll you can argue the same for both failure and success but which one is it suppose to be?
My main problem with the mechanic is how different the likelyhood of failure or success is depending on an odd or even number of dice you throw. This is also the problem with adding or removing a dice for a leader. A +1 leader can potentially make the roll worse since rolling odd dice is better then rolling an even amount of dice. I rather roll 3 dice than 4 if I need to roll more success than failure.
If you have a small team of two and get one casualty you roll one die for morale… This is far easier to pass than getting one casualty in a team of three models and roll two dice.
That is why I think just rolling a single die make more sense from a game mechanic perspective…. It also is faster and more transparent.
ParticipantTher are some wrongs in how reactions work here. A failed reaction roll does not mean you may not fire. A failed reaction roll might just mean you failed the opportunity to fire since the acting unit moved out of line of sight or something. So yes… If you roll less than the acting unit you fail to react and may only fire if fired upon, but you may still fire on the Acting unit if it ends its movement still in LOS of the reacting units. The Acting unit will on the other hand fire first in the “round of fire” that will play out between the two units.
Although you loose one FP dice if you fail the reaction roll and never get to fire. A failed reaction roll also mean you may no longer react this turn on another acting unit.
Once there is a “round of fire” then both sides get to shoot unless one side is irregulars who only may fire once per turn.
If you fail the reaction roll as part of a “round of fire” you still get to fire. You just fire last in that instance.
ParticipantIf the Initiative unit win all reaction tests then it perform its action before any reaction take place.
It only take one Reacting unit to win the reaction test for the Initiative unit to face one or more Rounds of Fire before they can actually perform their action.
That is how we play it.
ParticipantAll in all I don’t think it matters all that much.
Rolling one dice might produce a bit more extreme results while rolling reaction in each situation will tend to roll a lower median result. But the average over the long term would be the same.
ParticipantYeah… I forgot to make it clear in my example above that you always roll reaction dice on both parties during an exchange of fire or some kind of reaction like movement or whatever.
ParticipantI can answer your first question.
The order you solve the fighting between the units are the following…
Initiative unit roll 5 for reaction die
Reacting unit A roll 6 for reaction die
Reacting unit B roll 4 for reaction die
Step 1
Resolve one round of fire between Initiative unit and Unit B (the loosing reaction unit)
Initiative unit fire (-1 die for moving)
Reacting unit B fire
Step 2
Resolve one round of fire between Initiative unit and Reacting unit A
Reacting unit A fire
Initiative unit fire with (-1 die for moving, -1 die for second round of fire this turn)
It might seem odd but that is how you solve it. This give the winning reactive unit the greatest chance to inflict damage and survive. Actual rounds of fire is resolve from bottom up in this case, over-watch fire function a bit differently.
ParticipantNo meaningful command structure for regular units. Higher Headquarters personnel were pointless and contributed nothing meaningful in-game.
To be honest I don’t think that leadership on a higher level play much role on the level this game is played. Regular troops can easily have almost anyone act as a squad or platoon leader, these troops are trained to easily replace chain of command for temporary solutions. Combat in TW are just too short and direct for higher up leadership to be relevant.
The Reaction Player being able to continue to potentially react fire throughout the turn with the same unit while the Initiative player could only shoot once with an activated unit. The whole Action System was rather vague with few hard limits on what a unit could do in a turn. Stargrunt 2 had a limit of 2 actions per unit which makes sense and puts a limit on what can be achieved in a turn.
Not really sure what really is the issue here. Initiative troops may always fire back in a Round of Fire as long as it have firepower dice and initiative side can use over-watch for suppression or interference firepower.
If two acting units activated in front of two reactive units and they both shot at both acting units then all involved units will each be able to shoot two times each, even the initiative units. Unless someone is pinned, suppressed or broken that is.
This is why I think this game are so great, it is very realistic and dynamic in that sense. You obviously don’t want to draw too much reactive fire with one and the same unit unless you have good over-watch fire as cover.
Close Combat ambiguities (eg: what is the TL of the close combat weapons of the human troops in the book? Are US marines TL3 (lightsabers) in close combat or are they TL1 (bayonette?)
Close Quarters combat in this game is not reflecting hand to hand combat as it does in most other similar games. It just mean that units are so close that weapons killing power increase exponentially and cover becomes more or less irrelevant. I guess most soldiers just use their primary weapons or things like grenades more than bayonets and laser swords. In my opinion a Space Marine Bolt pistol or Gun are more dangerous than a chain- or power- sword, the sword are just a “what if” weapon, much like a knife would.
Models armed with a Bolt Pistol and a Sword such as a Space Marine I would mostly just treat as any other soldier and assume he is also armed with a regular assault rifle (Bolt Gun). I see no reason why all Space Marine standard issue weapon would be a Bolter, Pistol and perhaps each leader in a half squad have a ceremonial sword with no particular bonuses.
But that is just me… 🙂
The Morale system is very bland, with only Pinned or Pulling back as a game effect during fire combat. There is almost no meaningful way to reduce a units morale and cause them to break other than by Close Combat. There should be specific events which if occur can reduce a units Morale over time (loss of the unit leader, excessive casualties, abandoning casualties, ect) and ways to inspire units which have had their Morale reduced.
I agree with this to a degree, the problem is that high quality troops are VERY difficult to pin down or suppress effectively in my opinion so some sort of degradation here would be good. Something in the line of if half squad is seriously injured or dead you degrade quality/confidence one step for moral purposes. Or something along those lines would be fine.
This would also give some good incitement to offload wounded soldiers to be transported to a safe area so your front line soldiers morale can be boosted to normal again.
Stress Test System too cumbersome. To use the system one has to track each unit and record what occurred to them throughout the turn. This is unfortunate since this is the only real way to effectively reduce a units Morale and potentially cause them to flee the field.
Agreed, this system need a revision. It is great if you care to use it.
Confidence System broken. High Confidence troops are impossible to suppress while low confidence units are almost always suppressed. This whole system seems to have been a modified version of the Mission Motivation System from Stargrunt 2, which was better IMO.
Agreed… this is a problem with how higher dice value increase the chance non linear. For suppression I think that any casualty on the suppression roll should degrade the roll to resist suppression.
Small arms combat too effective at long range. Perhaps making the target number for the attacker higher the farther the target unit is would be an answer? (eg D8 units within optimum range hit on a 3+, at 9-16″ they hit on a 4+, 17-24″ 5+, and so on). Heavy Weapon teams could be allowed to double their effective range according to their TQ, making them more effective at killing. Or, rather than changing the target number a reduction in Firepower would be in order?
Do not agree at all with this. Small arms combat effective range are way beyond engagement ranges in this game, distances in this game are very short. I think that Optimum range as it is works just fine, especially for support weapons it is rather powerful.
ParticipantI certainly agree this community could be bigger because Tomorrow’s War is just a superb game that almost none knows about. Not sure why people are so reluctant to try it over the more commercialized rather boring alternatives.
In regards to leaders then leaders do impact troops since they pass on their morale value and can impact the stress level of troops if you use that rule. Both negative or positive effects.
I guess that leaders add rather little because regular troops are trained to replace leaders when they are not present or out of commission. The fact is that they are much less likely to be affected by a temporary breakdown in leadership in the type of scenarios TW represent.
That is how it is worded in the book and I’m inclined to agree with that assessment.
-
AuthorPosts
