Page 1 of 2

Cumulative Loss of Actions

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:44 pm
by GhostWolf69
So... Loss of Actions from Suppression AND Loss of Action from Being out of Command/Killed Unit Leader.

Do they stack?

According to the rules you can never lose more than TWO Actions from Suppression... but what if you lost your Unit Leader in the same go?

Do you lose 4 Actions?

/wolf

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:59 pm
by The Old Soldier
Can't find the thread, but one turns worth of actions is all you can loose. Makes it simple to keep track of.

In other words they don't stack. Max you can lose is two actions.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:04 pm
by GhostWolf69
Simple enough.
Only whish rules like that were included in the text. :cry:

/wolf

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:29 pm
by retaf33c
It is, see page 19 of the Main Rule Book under suppression. It's stated in the last sentence in the section.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:40 pm
by GhostWolf69
retaf33c wrote:It is, see page 19 of the Main Rule Book under suppression. It's stated in the last sentence in the section.
I don't have the rule book... I only have the rules... and there it says you cannot lose more than two actions FROM SUPPRESSION.

It doesn't say anything about losing Cumulative loss of Actions from other sources than Suppression.

/wolf

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:43 pm
by The Old Soldier
retaf33c wrote:It is, see page 19 of the Main Rule Book under suppression. It's stated in the last sentence in the section.
Good Eye retaf33c! page 19, second column, second paragraph, under the heading Suppression.Here is the quote:
Models out of command range (see page 7) may be ignored for he puropes of alloctaing Damage Dice to work out Suppression - in effect, you need only worry about allocating Damage Dice to models that are still in command in order to Suppress them. However, you may choose to Suppress out -of-command models if you wish, though a model may only ever lose a maximum of tow actions, even if both Suppressed and out of command.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:52 pm
by Paladin
excellent.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:53 pm
by cordas
That answers that quite nicely.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:55 pm
by GhostWolf69
Very good.

Too bad you can't really play the game with Basic Rules only... *mumbles* yeah I'm old and bitter I know... don't mind me *curses* :P

/wolf

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:07 pm
by Paladin
Sure you can. just a few minor tweaks.

p.s. The basic rules are free.... kind of hard to give you a refund if you don't like them. It's enough to get you hooked and looking for more which is their purpose.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:47 am
by bigtmac68
as free basic rule sets go they did a heck of a job, wanna see some pure crap basic rules,,, take a look at that mess in the AT-43 box set. Game is almost unplayable and does not even slightly resemble the actual game from the advanced rules.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:42 am
by GhostWolf69
I think there is a conspiracy at work here...

I think game manufacturers deliberately produce rule with lots of holes in them to "feed" the Community of players with things to talk about on their forums. This creates activity, and activity spawns new fans, and new questions and discussions.

Honeslty folks. In my opinion the best rules ever written for Miniature Wargames usually were for games that died within a couple of months. Why? Because every one was bussy playing and having fun, and close to no one was bitching at the forum.

/wolf

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:12 am
by Pietia
This could explain the immense popularity of WFB and 40K :D .

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:36 am
by GhostWolf69
Pietia wrote:This could explain the immense popularity of WFB and 40K :D .
EXACTLY!

It would also explain why Rackham now follows suit and delivers a crap game next to the brilliant Confrontation... according to rumor there is a new crap-version of Confrontation also in the pipe cause AT-43 sold alot lot better than expected... I'd say this is due to it being full of holes and a lot worse than their preivous game... what do you think?

Honestly... there has to be a Economy Nobel Prize in this...

/wolf

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:36 am
by Pietia
Yes, there is a crap-version of Confrontation in the works. Somebody had a brillant idea to combine two very good rule sets - Ragnarok and Confrontation into one, which obviously will not be a good ruleset at all. (combining a skirmish and regimental combat rulesets into one simply cannot give good results)

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:19 am
by cordas
Pietia wrote:Yes, there is a crap-version of Confrontation in the works. Somebody had a brillant idea to combine two very good rule sets - Ragnarok and Confrontation into one, which obviously will not be a good ruleset at all. (combining a skirmish and regimental combat rulesets into one simply cannot give good results)
It does sound like a recipe for disaster, but we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt... afterall they have in your very own words already given us two very good rule sets. Maybe they will come up with an intresting system that mages to do what its meant too...

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:30 am
by GhostWolf69
cordas wrote:It does sound like a recipe for disaster, but we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt... afterall they have in your very own words already given us two very good rule sets. Maybe they will come up with an intresting system that mages to do what its meant too...
No we shouldn't! It's a trap! Once they get you to buy a game only half as good as the rest they made you'll be hooked for life in never ending discussions on their forum and cursing rules you cannot make heads nor tails of and... Spending more and more money to buy new stuff cause you think it might help... and ... wait... :oops:

oh bollocks... :?

/wolf

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:39 am
by Pietia
cordas wrote: It does sound like a recipe for disaster, but we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt... afterall they have in your very own words already given us two very good rule sets. Maybe they will come up with an intresting system that mages to do what its meant too...
I hope you're right... Unfortunately my experience with game designers made me a realist*...

*Pessimist - sees a long, dark tunnel
Optimist - sees a long, dark tunnel and a light at the end of the tunnel
Realist - sees a long, dark tunnel, a light at its end and knows it is the headlight of an incoming train

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:31 pm
by cordas
GhostWolf69 wrote:
cordas wrote:It does sound like a recipe for disaster, but we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt... afterall they have in your very own words already given us two very good rule sets. Maybe they will come up with an intresting system that mages to do what its meant too...
No we shouldn't! It's a trap! Once they get you to buy a game only half as good as the rest they made you'll be hooked for life in never ending discussions on their forum and cursing rules you cannot make heads nor tails of and... Spending more and more money to buy new stuff cause you think it might help... and ... wait... :oops:

oh bollocks... :?

/wolf
I have some nice pills that will help...... They are really tasty and will take away you para.. er.. worries :wink: :lol: 8)

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:32 pm
by GhostWolf69
cordas wrote: I have some nice pills that will help...... They are really tasty and will take away you para.. er.. worries :wink: :lol: 8)
Are they legal? :wink: ... my medication is way overdue...

/wolf