Soulmage said:
Yes!
Clarification on Skinnies in SST Evo.
- Thread starter cordas
- Start date
Yes!
Xorrandor said:
If you have armour and agility saves to make, the models are still on the table. Play the rules as written, literally. Bring your Raiders on at the point you raise, and you may avoid Shattering. If they are hit by weapons that do not allow Armour saves and they have no Agility saves, and it wil be too late. In other words;
1. You can bring your ambushers on at _any_ time.
2. You cannot wind time backwards to compensate for models already removed.
3. If the number of models on the table drops to your Shatter point you lose.
4. If you can stop that happening, more power to you!
cordas said:
You are absolutely right on this point.
However, I believe the problem is that you haven't grasped the rule yet - which is fine, and makes us look at how it is worded on the unit card (itself a worthwhile exercise).
What concerns me is that you are not 'trusting' the rules as written. You have hit a theoretical problem and come to the conclusion that it cannot be right and, thus, is broken. You (and others) have then tried to find a work around to the perceived problem.
My point is that it works as is, if you take the rules absolutely literally.
Now, this is an interesting situation, and it is something we have been aware of for quite some time - and it is not the fault of gamers, but of many (most?) miniatures games rules writers out there.
Once you move away from a grid/defined board, there are natural discrepancies that crop up in miniatures games and many rules writers (we have been guilty here!) go with the flow. You have heard the excuse 'no rules system can cover every eventuality,' right? It therefore becomes something bred into gamers, that rules (by necessity) cannot be absolutely complete, that there is a margin for debate and clarity.
With the Evolution games and CTA 2e, we are trying very, very hard to remove that. In other words, we are trying to build systems whereby players find that they are able to put 100% trust into the rules they read, as written. Are we going to be successful in this?
Mostly, I think. The vast majority of questions raised about BF Evo thus far can be answered with the phrase 'play the rules as written'. What people are looking for, therefore, is confirmation that they have read things right - and usually, they have. This is also, incidentally, why cover works the way it does in the Evo games - there is no room for argument. Cover becomes a binary state (either something is in or is out), with just one very simple rule to verify that state.
CTA 2e will be another kettle of fish, as they say, because the rules are more complex (or, rather, there are more of them). But this is one of the principle areas we are working on with those rules, above and beyond game balance.
It is not going to happen overnight, but our aim is to get you guys trusting the rules as they are written.
The Legend
Mongoose
cordas said:
The Legend
Mongoose
msprange said:
I agree fully. The first couple of readings of any games system is always frought with misinterperatations and hyperbole but If MGP is saying take the rules writen in the most literal sense then that does make things much easier.
Court Jester
Mongoose
cordas said:
That is exactly what I said...
You fail to shatter the skinnies because suddenly there are more of them on the table and they do not reach their break point, and then the ambushing skinnies that turned up react and shoot your unit shattering your army.
This result will be the same wether the skinnies ambush in reaction to you declaring the action, or they ambush in reaction to having to make their agile saves.
The Legend
Mongoose
Court Jester said:
Ouch reaction from Skinnie Raiders jumping out in Ambush is pretty nasty.
:twisted:
cordas said:
If skinnie player actually uses this rule then he has disadvantaged himself whole game(he would have been better of bringing those out lot sooner...) and is about to lose the game anyway.
If somebody actually uses this rule like this and manages to win then worry.
Don't hold your breath though. Hell is going to freeze up sooner :lol:
Not to mention SST vXXX has come out by then.
tneva82 said:
I agree if a skinnie player is holding his ambush for precisely this situation.
However I can quite easily see a scenario where a skinnie player at the start of the opponents turn is fine numberswise and still has a bunch of raiders in ambush, then before the end of his opponents turn would have been shattered if he didn't deploy his ambush. If this is not a possible scenario then I am sure you will agree that the game is broken, if its even an unlikely scenario.....
My beef is just how, where and when these ambushes can be revealed.... I now understand what the rules say regarding this and accept that, I just happen to think its over powered.
When I play with skinnies I will look for oppotunites to deploy raiders during the opponents turn as it will give my force significant advantages in some situations (a free shoot action that can NOT provoke a reaction from 7 - 17 raiders with possibly 2 constrictor cannons is in my book significant, then a 2nd shot from the same in my own turn at the possibly the same squad before it can even react......).
This according to the rules isn't broken, cheesy or unsportsman like. Nor does it mean I will choose not to deploy in my own turn looking for a possibly greater advantage in my opponents turn, it simply means I will have an extra string to my bow. As has been advised by Matt this should be played with more before we finaly make our minds up.
cordas said:
Possible yes but he would have been better off bringing them LOT sooner...
If he has to bring them out just to save himself from shattering game is already as good as in MI players bag...
By deploying them lot sooner he could even win the game. Unlike in your case where he's just delaying the inevitable.
About only time where it might actually be REALLY needed is first turn nuke barrage(multiple pee-wee's). Then you have your ambushers vs remaining MI's.
Skinnie player delays the inevitable shattering is over powered?
So opponent has to do bit more work. Oh dear...Turn here or there doesn't matter.
msprange said:
Excellent, this resolves my problem. Thank you! I'm a little concerned that SAS guys that Ambush in BF:E might lose out to an inordinate number of Killshots, since their friends in the infantry don't have Agility, but that's an argument for another day, and even less likely to come up than the Skinnie example.
tneva82 said:
Why would he be better off bringing them on earlier? By bringing them on earlier in the opponents turn he just turns them into potential targets, or has to deploy them in deep cover so they are out of LOS, and will need to be moved before they can fire, that is unless you bring them on earlier to do one of the things I talk about below.
Brining them on in his previous turn is a moot point with this arguement. If there is a good ambush available, then the player can take it, or decide to hold off for a better chance later in the game, if there is no sutable ambush then its pointless to reveal it, you might as well have just deploy raiders at the start of the game.
tneva82 said:
Go and read the whole thread, I think that being able to deploy raiders during an opponents action is over-powered. There are multipul examples of what could be achieved by doing this.... only 1 of those examples is avoiding being shattered. In fact the very post you selectively quoted from states exactly one of those uses of raiders. To me it appears such a powerfull tactic that its one I would be looking for oppotunities to use, even actively trying to force my opponent to give me that chance, and thats just one of the possibilities.
I think it would be a failure by the skinnie player to deploy an ambush at any other time than during an opponents action given a suitable oppotunity, as the acting unit has already declared their action and this can't be changed, the raiders could then react to this and if the "ambush" is carefully planned will get to act again before being able to be acted / reacted against. Yes I know this is what the rule states, and accept the rule, I just happen to feel its over powered. If your going to tell me I am wrong ignoring my arguement to do so really isn't helpfull.
Ambushes in real combat are hugely effective when they work, but when they go belly up it tends to be the ambusher who pays for them very heavily, the gaming rule has the 1st element of this but completely ignores the 2nd at the moment, IMHO. It maybe that later waves of cards or the advanced rules will have units, equipment or some special rules, trait / skill that deals with this issue, who outside MGP and the play testers know.
cordas said:
Because if they are just waiting in ambush to do your useless "let's delay the defeat by 1 turn" trick they are doing nothing. If they are on board they can...Oh I don't know...SHOOT things?
If they are just waiting in ambush until rest of skinnie force is about to shatter they aren't contributing anything. You are effectively playing with less points than your opponent...That's not good if you want to win...
But maybe you think skinnie players value fancy tricks more than winning?
tneva82 said:
By your arguement you might as well not bother with an ambush. The game isn't an Either OR situation. If you have no plans when using Skinnies to use Ambushes then you don't need to read further, just don't be too upset when an opponent using Skinnies against you does use ambush, and use the ambush when it will work to its greatest effect, not as soon as he can deploy it.
Assuming the Skinnie player is going to use an ambush, and not deploy it untill it is actually usefull, this oppotunity may not occur until the opponents turn (it may not even happen until the opponents turn 10 or higher as the game lasts untill 1 side is shattered. Given the games we have had in ST:EVO and BF:EVO we often have numorous turns where each side is just manouvering for advantage and no shooting happens). Its at that point I feel what I feel about ambushes (see previous posts as I can't be bothered to rehash the arguement again).
Or am I missing something here.... I don't think that any Skinnie player should / would keep his raiders in ambush simply to play the ohhh I am nearly shattered, oh no I am not trick. (Or if they do purely for that reason they should be beaten black and blue). There is much more that they can do than just that.
cordas said:
Which, at the end of the day, is the point - it is designed to give you more options when playing what is otherwise a relatively standard unit. However, there are some dangers present in using ambushes, not least that even when using them to react to an enemy in his turn, you are often placing them in a very vulnerable situation, _unless_ you have already moved forces up to support them in expectation of their attack. In which case, you may just tip your enemy off as to where the ambush will take place. . .
Swings and roundabouts!
msprange said:
Yet too experience that, also we are limited to fairly small battles at the moment due to the numbers of figures we have stats for.....
Hurry up and get wave 2 cards out
so we can play bigger battles and see how this works *GRIN* (Please just do the pics of better quality than the last lot so they can be blown up and printed and still readable, some of us have dodgy eyes).Major Chaos
Mongoose
I had an Arachnid example of this this weekend. On turn 2 I made a great roll and brought my second warrior swarm out of their hole about 3 inches from a LAMI unit. They killed half on the charge and the other half after reacting to their fire.
This left them between the 3 Exo's and other 8 LAMI the MI had. That was more than enough to wipe all 10 Warriors out and break the Arachnids (who had failed to bring their Tanker bug up from it's hole..)
The moral of the story? Even though I had a great ambush it fed my army to my oponent one wave at a time. This can be a quick way to lose even if you are waiting for shatter point. Odds are no matter how sneaky you are you will be outnumbered then.
This left them between the 3 Exo's and other 8 LAMI the MI had. That was more than enough to wipe all 10 Warriors out and break the Arachnids (who had failed to bring their Tanker bug up from it's hole..)
The moral of the story? Even though I had a great ambush it fed my army to my oponent one wave at a time. This can be a quick way to lose even if you are waiting for shatter point. Odds are no matter how sneaky you are you will be outnumbered then.
Major Chaos said:
Not quite the same as the Raiders and ambush, with them assuming the bugs tunneled from terrain that provides cover... The raiders could have jumped out (with the flexability to deploy trying maximise FF casualties, or with as much blocked LOS as possible) as as those LAMI completed their 2nd action, and got 1 shoot reaction in. If they where within 3 inches of the LAMI any return fire would also have more than likely caught the LAMI (due to available positions of FZ), then in your turn the raiders would have got to fire again before the LAMI could have reacted to your 1st shooting.
There is also the fact that the Raiders would be in cover (they have to be to Ambush) so would have been getting +2 to both target and kill (+1 against the exos) which means that if there are LAMI in the FZ and not in cover they get hit even harder by friendly fire...... Also if the MI thought about charging you rather than shooting you would get to react before their CC attacks hit.
I think that an ambush would have been far more successful than your tunneling attack. That said the deployment conditions (Raiders having to be in cover, tunnels being best used in the open) mean that its really a moot discussion, they are different armies and have different strengths and weaknesses, I just feel.............................
Major Chaos
Mongoose
cordas said:
Like you should try playing it? :wink: 4 or 5 games and let us know! My Skinnies are not painted so Im not sure if we will play with them or not tonight. When I do Ill tell ya.
