SST:Evo ... Can Arachnids be Shattered?

[Mage]

Trying to steer back on track:

Okay. Say you are playing a game, and your army is shattered. Are you going to get annoyed at the rules hiro? Or do you think the army should play on. Or do you think the shattering rule should be taken out of Starship Troopers Evolution altogether?

 

[Alexb83]

Morale rules... egh. They suit general games but don't suit specific scenarios more often than not - in my games of SST with my local group, the game fell flat because of the way in which units reacted to losing squad leaders, especially more elite units like Marauders and Pathfinders, and restrictions on certain units' command radius.

I can just see squads of SAS in BF:Evo running around like headless chickens because their sergeant got hit by a stray bullet... or did they fix those rules?

Obviously the bugs aren't /as/ subject to morale problems as humans - hence their command structure, where lost individuals in a swarm make no odds. However, the Brain bugs are big, fat, smart bugs - they know when they're in trouble, when battles are being lost, and when to withdraw and regroup. Shattered is a good rule - in a playtest we did way back last year at an open day, it made a huge difference to a Skinny vs. MI game. The skinnies wiped out masses of MI with a Cabal and heavy/light raider, but because their soldiers were all hidden on turn one, killing one raider and a few cabal lost them the game.

 

[Hiromoon]

The game worked fine without the shatter rule, Mage. Heck, the game just needed a revision in wording to clear up any misconseptions and we would have been good to go.

 

[Mage]

Well, do you think it is better than losing a leader model and the sqaud being screwed or would something as follos work better:

when the leader dies, roll a d6. On a 1 the unit cannot act for two more actions.

I think the general thought here is that shattering sucks, regardless of what would happen in 'real' life.

But, is shattering better than the old moral rules, or is it good for 'game balance'. Or does this so called 'game balance' = no fun.

 

[Hiromoon]

Well, the old system worked fairly well. I don't recall anything more than a brief discussion over the implications of it.

And the new system seems to be more of a way to get people to get games over faster....

 

[Mage]

I supose it would help in tidying up a tournament quick, but maybe it should be used on low priority armis, since they are small resources, etc. Maybe 1 P1 MI platoon on a planet is all they have to spare when an insane marauding PL3 arachind force comes astompin' to town.

 

[Aniyn]

Honestly, I think the whole rule is stupid, even in BFEvo. After reading the battle report in the last S&P, it pretty much cements it for me.

If any part of my army were to suddenly become a liability instead of a weapon, I certainly wouldn't use that unit anymore. I don't care if your infantry outnumbers my tank 20 to 1, because if they can't kill me then I win.
I don't care for this "supply lines and logistics" excuse either; if I wanted to play "Risk" I'd play Risk. This is a platoon based skirmish game. If losing 1 platoon (sorry, make that 3/4 of a platoon) was all that prevented your country from losing a war, I'd say you probably lost already.

I see room for some sort of "mercy rule", but shatter point certainly isn't it.

 

[MaxSteiner]

Ok, weighing in here from a fluff point of view (I've already said before I think Shatter seems a bit weird...):

Aren't the MI hypnotically indoctrinated?
And it doesnt matter how many bugs you have in your army, from the point of view of a hive its nothing.

Maybe in very specific scenario cases (Or as part of a campaign) it might make sense to have the shatter rule, but like has already in general been said it seems to contradict what Andy Chambers said in his design notes, as well as the fluff and in some cases sense.

 

[tneva82]

I don't care if your infantry outnumbers my tank 20 to 1, because if they can't kill me then I win.

I don't think it's particulary fair to compare rule yet without seeing the big picture...ATM even WITHOUT this rule infantry are hard pressed if they can't hurt the tank(if you can't hurt enemy winning is "bit" hard...). See how things work out when you play bigger battles with more units...

Problem with any game where it's possible unit A cannot hurt unit B.

But sorry to inform that in real life soldiers don't keep on going forever even if commander wish...People have bad habit of fearing to die...

 

[Hiromoon]

And yet, even with that fear of death, you have people willing to run out into the middle of a street which might have hundreds of rounds flying around to either rescue someone or assault a position.

It's more appropriate to say that soldiers become Fatigued, but that's not a fear of death.

 

[Ragnarok]

I want to thank all of you who have participated and will participate in the discussion. I'm bringing up some of these issues I'm sensing in the SST:Evo rules so there'll be discussion and so Mongoose can get some feedback. I try to review the latest discussions so duplications don't clog the site.

I kinda feel alone here in Tidewater with the SST situation, having committed a couple of months ago to the system and then - surprise a new edition, just as I'm almost feeling comfortable with the original rules. :?

My point in posting this question, from the Arachnid communal viewpoint, is that the Shatter point of SST:Evo seems contradictory to the spirit of the book, the films and the Roughnecks ... that is, all the "canon."

Does anyone remember any of these sources showing/relating a retreat by Arachnids? In the film warriors allowed themselves to get surrounded by LAMI, no less! I've seen Arachnids grilled, blown apart, disintegrated and generally abused, but I don't remember a single instance showing them giving up or running away.

Thanks again for the continuing discussion!

 

[MaxSteiner]

Hmm... the Arachnid Queen retreated at the end of the Roughnecks chronicles... although that was actually an attack on earth...
Oh and the brain bug was kinda scared at the end of th movie...
But the way I see it only the big smart bugs are affected by anything like a self preservation drive.

Shatters not in effect for every battle though in the V2 rule book is it?

 

[Col_stone]

Remember, there's a difference between *Losing*and being wiped of the board, you may very well lose so many men or bugs in the fight that even if you take the objective you won't be able to hold it, so you lose..

 

[Poko]

i think it's only a simple "basic objective", kinda like "Pitched battle" in WHB-we all know that not every battle is pitched,but 9/10 the game concentrates on killing enemy anyway, so it's ok for a very simple Victory condition in basic rules.

however,i do hope that proper,objective driven missions will be present in the big book

 

[Makoto]

Remember, there's a difference between *Losing*and being wiped of the board, you may very well lose so many men or bugs in the fight that even if you take the objective you won't be able to hold it, so you lose..

Although that part can be truly simulated only in a campaign game with limited reinforcements, so that every battle and objective has to be judged for being worthy of loses. In one-off battle it's impossible to get the same effect even with a sophisticated set of rules.

 

[Col_stone]

makoto,, True, but i must say i prefer the shatter rule to 2 guys holding an objective against a tankplatoon just cause they're standing closest on turn 6 :lol:

 

[Makoto]

Touche, then again:
1. no ruleset is perfect.
2. find it very hard to find something as irritating as the turn limit
3. in this case there should be no reason to even bother checking who controls the entire battlefield

 

[Hiromoon]

Actually, what are those two soldier packing? If it's a nuclear bazooka....

 

[Makoto]

Even then tankers won't ride bunched up.

 

[Col_stone]

makoto, i agree with all three points

Hiro, you and your Davy crocketts :lol: