Reaction Question

[The Old Soldier]

Well, I like the rules as written presently. There is nothing murky about reactions.

What It seems is a couple of you guys just don't like the rules as they are presently written. That is fine, but dont expect them to change. Just make up your own and be done with it.

Now there are a couple of points in the rules I do wish were changed, but I have no delusions they will be. I just make my own and leave it at that.

My biggest complaint btw, is buildings that are destroyed with one luck hit by a tank. Just plain rubbish. So for My game I changed the rule. For every target made, but not saved 2 hits are given the building. Saved target hits cause only 1, and Kill results give 1D6 hits by a tank or 1D3 by AT weapons without saves. Once the ignore hits are used up, down comes the building.
Artillery barrages cause 1D6 per target, and heavy artillery cause 2D6 with saves as per normal rules.

The only other one I dislike is Command Models in a squad. Losing two actions when the leader is killed doesn't seem right when there is more than 1 leader in a group. So I change that so if there are two command figures in 1 team, and one gets it, the other commands without penality.

Also the idea that a readied MG needs to take both a move action and another ready action to face a different direction, even though they didn't move. I just force them to take another ready action to change facing.

Finally, I like to give suppression AFTER the casualites are removed, just seem more realistic. Well those are my big 4 problems I have with what is a really decent set of rules. To each thier own.......

 

[GhostWolf69]

What It seems is a couple of you guys just don't like the rules as they are presently written. That is fine, but dont expect them to change. Just make up your own and be done with it.

I'm sorry but, to me, that is bollocks.

If you understand the rules perfectly and think they are so well written and explanatory, count youself lucky and go on playing your happy game. I will not hold this against you.

But don't throw mud at us for not reading it the same way or fidning difficulties understanding what the rules realy mean.

I have to understand a rule to be able to like it. Understand, in a sense that I need to know what happens in different situations during my game. Especially the complicated and messy ones.

And since I'm not the only one who seem to have a problem with this particular part of the game I'd say it is pretty vague, poorly written and exemplified in the text. And that I don't like.

Cut us some slack here will you? We're trying to learn. Not complaining about a bad rule... cause like I said, I'm not even sure what the rule is supposed to be like yet, so how can I disslike it?

/wolf

 

[cordas]

I have to agree with Wolf, its not that I have a problem with the rules persay, its that they aren't clear as to their meaning. (This is then compounded by possible inconsistancy issues.) Both myself and Wolf where able to come up with simple wordings that expressed clearly what the apparant rules intended, and mine took me less than a minute...

Yes I will grumble when we get a defined reading from Matt when I disagree with him, but I accept it and get on with the game, such as the issue that TOS flagged regarding facing and readying and move / re-readying MGs.

 

[Paladin]

Now there are a couple of points in the rules I do wish were changed, but I have no delusions they will be. I just make my own and leave it at that.

My biggest complaint btw, is buildings that are destroyed with one luck hit by a tank. Just plain rubbish. So for My game I changed the rule. For every target made, but not saved 2 hits are given the building. Saved target hits cause only 1, and Kill results give 1D6 hits by a tank or 1D3 by AT weapons without saves. Once the ignore hits are used up, down comes the building.
Artillery barrages cause 1D6 per target, and heavy artillery cause 2D6 with saves as per normal rules.

The only other one I dislike is Command Models in a squad. Losing two actions when the leader is killed doesn't seem right when there is more than 1 leader in a group. So I change that so if there are two command figures in 1 team, and one gets it, the other commands without penality.

Also the idea that a readied MG needs to take both a move action and another ready action to face a different direction, even though they didn't move. I just force them to take another ready action to change facing.

Finally, I like to give suppression AFTER the casualites are removed, just seem more realistic. Well those are my big 4 problems I have with what is a really decent set of rules. To each thier own.......

Those would be new threads. This one is complicated and confusing enough.

 

[Paladin]

So if you are double suppressed and lost the team leader and are out of command (i.e. stuck for 4 actions) and board an APC, do you have sit in it for 3 actions before you can come back out?

 

[cordas]

So if you are double suppressed and lost the team leader and are out of command (i.e. stuck for 4 actions) and board an APC, do you have sit in it for 3 actions before you can come back out?

Hmm the post before this you complain about this thread being difficult to follow, then you send it off in a new direction :lol:

As far as I am aware suppression and loosing a leader penalty do not stack, so no.

 

[The Old Soldier]

You say your trying to learn ghostwolf, but everytime I explain how it works, you balk at it. Which means to me, you just don't like HOW it works. That is fine by me. I'll step away, there is no reason for me to try to help you, if you reject the help.

 

[The Old Soldier]

So if you are double suppressed and lost the team leader and are out of command (i.e. stuck for 4 actions) and board an APC, do you have sit in it for 3 actions before you can come back out?

Paladin, I ask this question way back when. The answer from MP was that the most you could loses is 2 actions. No stacking. And you never split your lost actions between different turns. Makes it very simple to remember and use.

 

[GhostWolf69]

You say your trying to learn ghostwolf, but everytime I explain how it works, you balk at it.

Define "balk".

Everytime you explain it I still don't understand it. That much is true.

But I think I'm getting close now acctually and this thread has helped me, your answers included.

Call me thick, why don't you?

/wolf

 

[Paladin]

So if you are double suppressed and lost the team leader and are out of command (i.e. stuck for 4 actions) and board an APC, do you have sit in it for 3 actions before you can come back out?

Paladin, I ask this question way back when. The answer from MP was that the most you could loses is 2 actions. No stacking. And you never split your lost actions between different turns. Makes it very simple to remember and use.

Ok. I thought ages ago Matt said if you lost your leader and were double suppressed you were in a world of hurt for 2 rounds. I must be confused.

 

[Paladin]

Ok. The question was never actually answered.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=344684&highlight=leader#344684

Unless I'm reading the rules wrong there is nothing to say whether they stack or not. The only limit I see is you can't lose more than two actions from suppression. There is no mention of it's interaction with "out of command". Help me out please.

 

[GhostWolf69]

Ok. The question was never actually answered.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=344684&highlight=leader#344684

Unless I'm reading the rules wrong there is nothing to say whether they stack or not. The only limit I see is you can't lose more than two actions from suppression. There is no mention of it's interaction with "out of command". Help me out please.

Let's open up a new thread for this one, shall we?

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27974&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

/wolf

 

[The Old Soldier]

Ok. The question was never actually answered.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=344684&highlight=leader#344684

Unless I'm reading the rules wrong there is nothing to say whether they stack or not. The only limit I see is you can't lose more than two actions from suppression. There is no mention of it's interaction with "out of command". Help me out please.

Wish I could, but when I went back to find the post, it seems MP deleted the huge original thread for BFE rule questions. When I ask for a search I get nothing. Meh, just ask again.

 

[BuShips]

I've got the answer, gentlemen.

It's called an FAQ.

We need an FAQ for BF:E, especially if threads are disappearing that had answered old questions.

Well, it looks like it will even be a better idea to have a vehicle nearby to hop in, since you could lose your leader while being double-suppressed and get away clean on a Reaction by using a Move action to board a transport. Now all that I have to do is to paint the phrase "Mum's Skirt" on all of my transports. :wink:

 

[retaf33c]

Ok. I thought ages ago Matt said if you lost your leader and were double suppressed you were in a world of hurt for 2 rounds. I must be confused.

..., though a model may only ever lose a maximum of two actions, even if both Suppressed and out of command.

Since losing the leader results in the unit being out of command, the Rulebook quote I think answers that question.

Just remember that a leaderless unit can only react (which is why it would make sense to mount them in a transport if possible as a reaction) and only after missing its next two action can you nominate a new leader. So you leave them in the transport for your next turn, after which you nominate a new leader and be able to dismount them.

 

[cordas]

A faq would be nice....

 

[BuShips]

Just remember that a leaderless unit can only react (which is why it would make sense to mount them in a transport if possible as a reaction) and only after missing its next two action can you nominate a new leader. So you leave them in the transport for your next turn, after which you nominate a new leader and be able to dismount them.

You should be able by the rules to condense that a bit by beginning the dismount proceedure using that same turn that you are out of command. Just make sure that you dismount the transport on the opposite side that caused you to mount the transport leaderless. :wink:

No, scratch that, as it is not the same thing as ducking from Suppression. You do in fact lose the next two Actions and therefore would have to wait a turn to act. So they spend the next turn drawing straws. :lol: