Main
Registration
Login
Welcome Guest

RSS
 
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 2 of 2«12
Forum » AT-43 Discussions » AT-43 - Frostbite Sectors » Ice Floe Indy: Black Fortress battlefront
Ice Floe Indy: Black Fortress battlefront
gerrywithaGDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 11:34 AM | Message # 21
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Hi Walts,

No, forget about the jump system rules for a minute. The troops are moved 2.5 cm away from the charging unit if they can be. It doesn't mention that you have to take into account if they move up or down. That is your interpretation of it. The container is the last hope for those troops and they'll take it.

A different example would be if a unit was in a room and were charged . If they couldn't move 2.5cm away from the charging unit then they're dead. If the base of the charging unit is so big that it blocks the entrance to the room then there is no escape and when it moves into the room then the troops would indeed be killed.

If we are going to apply the logic of the the container height, then we use the same logic that The Warrior disadvantage applies no matter what and therefore Marks Hecats would be forced to charge no matter what and they would have drowned as more than half their base would have been in the water so the whole question becomes moot.

I have tried to apply common sense to this but it is something that seems to be lacking in a lot of stuff that is going on with the posts here

Cheers

Da'Umpire

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 12:26 PM | Message # 22
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Gerry ... I'm not interested in the warriors faction???? I'm talking ONLY about troopers being run over.

Some of my thoughts to your comments ... soz for going on about it, but the last thing we need is another inHouse Rule! ...


Quote (gerrywithaG)
Hi Walts,

No, forget about the jump system rules for a minute. The troops are moved 2.5 cm away from the charging unit if they can be. It doesn't mention that you have to take into account if they move up or down. That is your interpretation of it. The container is the last hope for those troops and they'll take it.


The rule states ... the survivors are moved to the sides and 2.5 cm away from any opponent by the player controlling them ... 2.5cm is a fixed distance that the trooper is moved too. A container is 6cm high. To me, it's too high for them to scramble up to, so they die. If your now saying that vertical distance is ignored, then troopers can escape on top of double containers, platforms, etc, which is outwith their normal ability to do so, unless they have a "jump system" of some sort.

Quote (gerrywithaG)
A different example would be if a unit was in a room and were charged . If they couldn't move 2.5cm away from the charging unit then they're dead. If the base of the charging unit is so big that it blocks the entrance to the room then there is no escape and when it moves into the room then the troops would indeed be killed.

I don't believe the rule says that. My image example above has TWO afv's, so the first one automatically kills the back two troopers as they can only be moved 2.5cm under the second attacking afv.

If a single afv attacks and a trooper saves from being run over, regardless of the AFV type (base size, etc) and his position under the afv, they are moved 2.5cm away from the attacking afv. NOT "they move" 2.5cm from their current position. It clearly states that the trooper who saves is placed 2.5cm away from the attacking afv, wherever the player wants, if possible.


Quote (gerrywithaG)
I have tried to apply common sense to this but it is something that seems to be lacking in a lot of stuff that is going on with the posts here

Cheers ... Da'Umpire

Common sense is the worst thing you can apply to any game! AlanB made a brilliant comment that if we applied our "common sense" to chess, the game would never have been invented! There's no common sense to any of the moves chess pieces make, just like there's no common sense to 90% of the AT-43 rules! It's a game like any other, WITH IT'S OWN RULES. Applying common sense, and rule conceptes from other games, is causing more inHouse Rules to crop up every week. We'll have a bible before we know it!

Walts
 
gerrywithaGDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 12:36 PM | Message # 23
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Walts,

I don't appreciate the tone of your comments. On that note this discussion, on my part, is over.

I will be making one further post

Cheers

Da'Umpire

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 12:50 PM | Message # 24
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Gerry ... I'm just disappointed that inHouse Rules are taking over the whole game, with players now questioning everything in the AT-43 rulebooks and army books, with the intention to change things based on common sense and/or other gaming concepts, rather than accepting the rules of the game as their written.

Obviously, as your Da 'Umpire for AT-43, whatever decisions you make are final. I thought we where allowed to get our points across before you made decisions, that's all ... signing off for the day ... Walts
 
CRUSAD3RDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 5:19 PM | Message # 25
Lieutenant
Group: Member
Messages: 58
Reputation: 23
Status: Offline
Post has been removed for obvious reasons, sorry folks. wink

Cruz
Message edited by CRUSAD3R - Monday, 09-Apr-2012, 12:10 PM

'Cowards die many times before their actual deaths,' Augustus Gaius Julius C├ęsar.
 
BalrogDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 7:43 PM | Message # 26
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hey Cruz ... As u don't know the rules, here's the extract from the core rulebook about climbing over containers ...
    By default, moving through a terrain element is impossible.
    In certain cases, it is necessary to take some risks and jump over a wall or climb a container blocking the line of sight.
    An infantry unit performing a combat movement can move over a low wall or end its movement on top of or on the other
    side of a container. In this case, its members can cover half of their Movement, in the same way as they would when disengaging.
As you can see, the rules are clear and precise ... it cost half (6cm) of the troopers movement to get on top of the container ... so we don't need an interpretation based on another games rules. Your making the exact same mistake other players have been making with the inHouse Rules ... interpretations based on other games! The AT-43 rule clearly states that it costs movement to climb over the container. Our rule of thumb is that the container is 6cm high, so it cost troopers 6cm of their movement to climb up onto the container. End of story!

AT-43 is a futuristic-fantasy game with it's own rules. We don't need interpretations from other rules, or players using "common sense" to understand what the game designers created. Rule understandings based on any AT-43 book is the only place players should be looking for inspiration and rule understanding.

Of course, no rules are every 100%, and as Rackham is defunct, we do need to give some thoughts to problem areas and create our own inHouse Rules when needed ... BASED ON THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AT-43 GAME.

As a suggestion, read the rules before passing comments next time, please! ... Walts
 
gerrywithaGDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 8:17 PM | Message # 27
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Rule understandings based on any AT-43 book is the only place players should be looking for inspiration and rule understanding.

Hi Walts,

That's a bit rich coming from you considering the number of times that you've quoted or gone to other forums and bear in mind the tone of your comments when you're posting please as that whole post isn't doing you any favours at all on any front.

Cheers

Gerry

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BanksiDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 8:57 PM | Message # 28
Major general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 417
Reputation: 33
Status: Offline
Well done to all those who participated to another thread that deserves to be closed, what started out a simple check on understanding of the rules/ scenario lead to our Umpire quiting.

I thought we would have learned from the DK thread that going overboard gets us nowhere.

This is a game, yes it has some flaws, yes it needs a little discussion to sort out bits that are unclear, BUT going on like this is driving people away from AT-43.

We have spent a lot of time, effort and money to get to were we are but some of you cant see the woods for the trees

We need players, we need people to want to play but your efforts are having the opposite effect.

I'll put my hands up and say yes I did get overly passionate about the DK thread but I knew when enough was enough.

Guys... Cease.. desist.. STOP.. before we dont have a game to play.

Of course I know your name, it's your face I can't remember - Parahandy
 
BalrogDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 9:29 PM | Message # 29
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Soz Banksi ... I didn't get any Easter Eggs, so I'm one unhappy bunny, but I guess you & the other guys can tell from my rantings!

But, let us not forget, it's just my opinions. I'm not the AT-43 bible. You are allowed to "agree to disagree" if u want!

Oh, and don't forget the most important thing .... It's just a game! ... Walts
 
ZealyotDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 10:32 PM | Message # 30
Lieutenant colonel
Group: Member
Messages: 106
Reputation: 16
Status: Offline
By default, moving through a terrain element is impossible.
In certain cases, it is necessary to take some risks and jump over a wall or climb a container blocking the line of sight.
An infantry unit performing a combat movement can move over a low wall or end its movement on top of or on the other
side of a container. In this case, its members can cover half of their Movement, in the same way as they would when disengaging.
As you can see, the rules are clear and precise ... it cost half (6cm) of the troopers movement to get on top of the container

@Balrog: where are you getting that it takes 6cm of movement to climb a container because as you've already pointed out it takes HALF the units allotted movement to cross a container or low wall
So going by that logic, which you have already argued for, a unit that can only move 2.5cm should instead move 1.25 if moving across a wall or onto a container

"In brightest day,
in blackest night,
no evil shall escape my sight,
let those who worship evil's might,
beware my power,
Green Lantern's light!"
 
BalrogDate: Sunday, 08-Apr-2012, 10:55 PM | Message # 31
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Zealyot ... 6cm is the measured distance from bottom-to-top-move-across of a container, which is roughly right, that we seem to play at the club. I would agree that the ruling does say half, but the players have always played by measuring ... another "unspoken" inHouse Rule!

Your slant on things does seem viable ... I wonder what the other players think? ... Walts

Edit: Of course, the "half movement" is based on a units Combat Movement, which usually means it has a movement of 10cm or more depending on the unit.
 
CheDate: Monday, 09-Apr-2012, 2:05 PM | Message # 32
Lieutenant general
Group: Member
Messages: 517
Reputation: 58
Status: Offline
I'm late to this debate and it appears to me that too much attention is being paid to the letter of the rules rather than the spirit. I wonder what has happened to the camaraderie among the club members. As you all probably know I was not happy with the last campaign and this one's gone the same way. No more campaigns for me except with carefully chosen opponents.

Wargamers like to paint their privates!!
 
BalrogDate: Monday, 09-Apr-2012, 2:58 PM | Message # 33
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Che ... This campaign was going exactly the same way as the last ... players out to wangle advantages for their armies and pointless inHouse Rules, with no thought on how it benefited the overall game! So it's no wonder this one broke as well. It's a shame a campaign on the rules as their written can't be considered, with no add-ons! It is but a dream I have ... Walts
 
pavlovDate: Monday, 09-Apr-2012, 7:04 PM | Message # 34
Major general
Group: Member
Messages: 289
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Hi

Quote
It's a shame a campaign on the rules as their written can't be considered, with no add-ons!


The rules as written have more holes than a Turkish brothel a fact that everyone was well aware of.

Alan

Added (09-Apr-2012, 6:04 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Hi

Could everyone who has participated in the pre-campagne play testing please put there hands up as it would seem it's your fault that the upcoming campagne has folded and not Walters for harrasing the umpire with regards to the at43 faq document.

Alan


There is f&*k all cool about 10+ civil engineers running around every battlefield
 
BanksiDate: Monday, 09-Apr-2012, 7:16 PM | Message # 35
Major general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 417
Reputation: 33
Status: Offline
Quote (Che)
I'm late to this debate and it appears to me that too much attention is being paid to the letter of the rules rather than the spirit. I wonder what has happened to the camaraderie among the club members. As you all probably know I was not happy with the last campaign and this one's gone the same way. No more campaigns for me except with carefully chosen opponents.



I must fully agree with Che's sentiments, too many rules lawyers spoiling the game-play!! I did think that discussing rules in this type of forum was a good thing but I'm rapidly finding that it sucks big style when personal agendas creep into things.

I think face to face discussions should be the only way to bring changes to the campaign, this format has had it's day, It's got to a point where meaningless rants have overtaken the useful discussions. 1000 word entries that bring nothing to the debate.
Message edited by Banksi - Monday, 09-Apr-2012, 7:17 PM

Of course I know your name, it's your face I can't remember - Parahandy
 
BalrogDate: Monday, 09-Apr-2012, 11:45 PM | Message # 36
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Hi Banksi ... You could be right, again!

Give the forums a complete body swerve and do the old "face2face" thing at the club? Maybe that would suit Gerry better than having to listen to me ranting in the forums?? How about it Gerry ... fancy taking on "Da Umpire" again with ONLY face2face meetings from now on? I know the guys would luv to have you back!

Walts
 
gerrywithaGDate: Tuesday, 10-Apr-2012, 0:24 AM | Message # 37
Major general
Group: Confirmed
Messages: 251
Reputation: 19
Status: Offline
Hi Walts,

Thanks but no thanks. The bed has been made and now it's time to lie in it!!!

Cheers

Gerry

P.s. now have a healthy distrust that people can behave themselves when it comes to AT-43 as this isn't the first time we've had problems and would echo a post that zealyot made about the fact that the Kids in the club are better behaved than the "Big Kids" when it comes to their gaming.

And I am watching YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
 
BalrogDate: Tuesday, 10-Apr-2012, 5:55 AM | Message # 38
Aun Va III
Group: Member
Messages: 667
Status: Offline
Quote (gerrywithaG)
P.s. now have a healthy distrust that people can behave themselves when it comes to AT-43 as this isn't the first time we've had problems and would echo a post that zealyot made about the fact that the Kids in the club are better behaved than the "Big Kids" when it comes to their gaming.

Guilty as charged, me'lord ... sad ... Walts
 
Forum » AT-43 Discussions » AT-43 - Frostbite Sectors » Ice Floe Indy: Black Fortress battlefront
Page 2 of 2«12
Search:

Copyright MyCorp © 2017