Main
Registration
Login
Welcome Guest

RSS
 
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 1 of 212»
Archive - read only
Forum » Archives » AT-43 - Club, News & Gossip » Mount Serenity : Phase 2
Mount Serenity : Phase 2
zellakDate: Saturday, 27-Aug-2011, 6:05 PM | Message # 1
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
The victory conditions for this scenario look wrong...or the map has stuff missing.

There have been things missing on previous maps we have played in other sectors, for instance the Mines in Red Fields have an inspection point missing.
Which was detailed on the old AT-43 Rackham forum.

So perhaps there are two altars missing from the Mount Serenity map. ?????

The victory conditions say the first player to 20 VP is the winner.
But there are only two objectives (altars) which can be destroyed for 5 VP each.
Which would mean only 10 VP can be scored ?????

And why would the defender destroy them. ????
And if the defender can destroy them .....the game will be over in turn 1 ????

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Monday, 29-Aug-2011, 10:53 AM | Message # 2
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hey Z ... First headache of the day ... where do the defenders deploy in this sector?

I noticed the map has a drop point Y & Z, so I would guess these? Also, a bunker on the map ... can that be used as a drop point too?

Looking at the FB campaign rules, it mentions that each sector should have "one or two deployment" zones, so I'm guessing that this is def missing from the Mount Serenity map, and looking at the FB Aid PDF, so are others? Has anyone done a compare between the printed & PDF in case the printed has been updated?

Walts
 
zellakDate: Monday, 29-Aug-2011, 4:18 PM | Message # 3
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
There is no deployment zone in the book either.

In the rapid deployment box it says the defender deploys in the central deployment zone.

I would guess this is one or both of the two middle tiles. But its a guess.

There are no drop points listed in the scenario.

Added (29-Aug-2011, 4:18 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Good news i checked with Lupus from the Red Dragon forum.

He says he helped with the translation of the Operation Frostbite book and added.

"Yes it would be the attacker like you said, if it was the defender it's going to make their life far too easy." happy

So problem solved.


DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Tuesday, 30-Aug-2011, 0:54 AM | Message # 4
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (zellak)
Added (29-Aug-2011, 4:18 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Good news i checked with Lupus from the Red Dragon forum.

He says he helped with the translation of the Operation Frostbite book and added.

"Yes it would be the attacker like you said, if it was the defender it's going to make their life far too easy."

So problem solved.

Hey Z ... not sure what you mean here? Do u add in two more alters then or? ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Tuesday, 30-Aug-2011, 5:15 PM | Message # 5
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
Yes my answer is a bit obscure now i read it again.

(I should have quoted my original question to Lupus as well. My bad.)

The end result is this :

Only the attacker can score VP for destroying the altars.

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Wednesday, 31-Aug-2011, 6:41 AM | Message # 6
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hey Z ... That sounds right, so only VP's for attackers if they destroy the alters, but how do the defenders get their VP's? There's no other Prim Objs with VP's associated with them, so Defenders have no way to capture VP's?

I'm guessing they get VP's for controlling the alters? Maybe go back to your contact and put it too him?

I would go with deployment zone in the central tiles ... 100%! ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Wednesday, 31-Aug-2011, 5:00 PM | Message # 7
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
The defender wins by preventing the attacker from destroying the two altars.

The winner gets 20VP.

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Wednesday, 31-Aug-2011, 5:48 PM | Message # 8
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (zellak)
The defender wins by preventing the attacker from destroying the two altars.

The winner gets 20VP.

So, the defender gets no VP's for controlling the alters?

Just a simple case of protecting the alters for the whole game until one player is destroyed and cannot continue or retreats? That doesn't sound 100% right. Here's a section from the MS rules ...
    The game ends when one of the players reaches 20 VP. If none of the players can score any more VP,
    victory goes to the player who accumulated the most. If they have the same number of VP, the game is a tie.

    A player cannot score more than 20 VP for this mission. If his company is the only one remaining on the battlefield,
    he automatically wins this maximum.

The two highlighted sections show a chance of both Attacker/Defender being able to collect VP's? Any more thoughts on this? ... Walts

PS. What happens when there's a "tie" in a game? Both factions go back to HQ?
 
zellakDate: Wednesday, 31-Aug-2011, 7:58 PM | Message # 9
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
Yes, in a tie both companies return to HQ.

So if the game runs out of time and no one has scored any VP...its a tie.

But most probably, someone will run out of troops before that happens.

It WILL be a bloodbath....but all the winners companies will have nerves of steel as long as they hold the sector.

So it is worth dying for.

Dont read to much into the wording of the victory conditions.

After all its impossible to score 20 VP when there are only 10 VP on the board.

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Wednesday, 31-Aug-2011, 9:09 PM | Message # 10
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
The lack of being able to win 20 VP's is my stumbling block with the MS "cease fire" rules; and the fact that the defenders can't win any VP's is just confusing?

Have u guys every played any other scenarios where the defender can't win any VP's and is only set the task of repelling invaders?

The scenario does sound like a bloodbath ... and it is simplified if we ignore the "cease fire" guidelines, which seem generic (roughly) from battle to battle, so might have been copied/interperted badly ... yeah, it's possible that VP's for attackers only if they destroy the objectives .... mmm, yeah ... this is def an odd one! ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Wednesday, 31-Aug-2011, 9:22 PM | Message # 11
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
If it looks to dangerous for you....then stay away.... and leave the hard ones for us. cool

Quote (Balrog)
Have u guys every played any other scenarios where the defender can't win any VP's and is only set the task of repelling invaders?


There is a spaceport scenario where the attacker must destroy the containers.
Almost impossible to win as the defender.

There is also a scenario called South Prospecting Base which is impossible to win as the attacker if entering from Colony.

There are a few duff things in frostbite which need to be ironed out by the players.

I always used to laugh when Americans would come on the old Rackham forum and say " what is the correct way to play this ...by the rules as written."

And Jean Bey would reply "Have fun, play it as you will." ..............SO FRENCH !!! biggrin

He was a breath of fresh air.

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 8:09 AM | Message # 12
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Guys ... I've a vague memory that when the ONi attacked the Karman last time in the MS sector, that the ONi just retreated off the table? If so, shouldn't the ONi faction have been totally destroyed? Ref in FB rulebook, Page 77 ...
    "At the end of any control phase, a player may call a “Retreat!”. The units deployed
    are immediately eliminated. The company returns to HQ."
... OR, did u have a gentleman's agreement that the ONi could retreat without any loss?

For me, retreating with no threat of loss kills off the game, completely. If this has been going on before, it explains why it takes longer to set up the table than to battle on till the death! If a player knows he has to fight to the end or lose all his units with their medals, civvy's, etc, then they'll get on with fighting! ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 2:34 PM | Message # 13
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
There was a gentlemans agreement........in most campaigns it is perfectly acceptable to avoid the battle if one side is keen to retreat.

If you read a lot of military history, there are many instances of armies refusing battle.


Quote (Balrog)
For me, retreating with no threat of loss kills off the game, completely. ... Walts


Just as well you dropped out the campaign then ! tongue

DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
BalrogDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 3:04 PM | Message # 14
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (zellak)
There was a gentlemans agreement........in most campaigns it is perfectly acceptable to avoid the battle if one side is keen to retreat.

Yeah, that's true, but not in the FB campaign. Gentlemen's agreements are OK when all four army players agree, not two players on their own terms!

The FB campaign clearly states that ...

    ... a player may call a “Retreat!”. The units deployed are immediately eliminated.
... so any units that had been deployed on the table should be eliminated and then replaced with MP from the army's pool, depleating their reserves for the overall campaign. Once again, making decisions table-side with no thought of the effects on the overall campaign, especially the voice of the other two army's.

AT-43 battles are made to be fought.

If players know they can retreat at any point without considering the campaign rule to lose units that retreat, and then have to pay AP's for new units, then their always going to retreat. Like I said, the rules clear, fight or lose those units anyway ... it's designed to make players fight rather than run away! ... Walts
 
zellakDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 3:35 PM | Message # 15
Generalissimo
Group: Member
Messages: 1542
Reputation: 65
Status: Offline
Its a game ....its fun. (or is supposed to be tongue )

Quoting rules at people is not everyones idea of fun.


DEMON : " When next we meet, i shall tear you limb from limb...there will be no escape. "

Hero: " You bring balloon animals and i'll hire a clown..... we can make it a regular party. "
 
gerrywithaGDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 5:57 PM | Message # 16
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Okay gents.

THIS IS A CEASE AND DESIST NOTICE.

Any rules queries should be directed to the umpire by PM un the first instance and I will make the appropriate posting concerning it.

Da'Umpire:-)

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 7:06 PM | Message # 17
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Soz Da' Umpire .... I thought as the games on Sunday I'd bring the "gentlemen's agreement" to everyone's attention. Whether they see the ramifications of players making decisions table-side is another matter! wacko ... Walts
 
BanksiDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 8:01 PM | Message # 18
Major general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 417
Reputation: 33
Status: Offline
Hi guys,

The only problem i have with this scenario is that the defender only has one way of winning the game, by destroying all the opponents on the table, The attacker can win by destroying only one objective and so getting 5vp. This scenario is badly flawed.

It does say the the attacker is the only one to get vp points from the alters but it doesnt state that the defender cant destroy them to prevent him doing so.

Can De'umpire have a good look at the scenario.

Just a post to put my gripe forward like the rest of you

Of course I know your name, it's your face I can't remember - Parahandy
 
pavlovDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 10:38 PM | Message # 19
Major general
Group: Member
Messages: 289
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Hi

Does this mean Walter that you do not consider such offers valid, I ask since you were very kindly given back troops and transport when that realy should not have been the case.

Alan

There is f&*k all cool about 10+ civil engineers running around every battlefield
 
BalrogDate: Saturday, 04-Feb-2012, 11:27 PM | Message # 20
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (pavlov)
Hi

Does this mean Walter that you do not consider such offers valid, I ask since you were very kindly given back troops and transport when that realy should not have been the case.

Alan

Hi Alan ... What's in the past is in the past. I'm only interested in the future games now that we have an umpire to guide the campaign, that's why I brought it to everyone's attention in case it happened again ... Walts
 
Forum » Archives » AT-43 - Club, News & Gossip » Mount Serenity : Phase 2
Page 1 of 212»
Search:

Copyright MyCorp © 2017