SST:Evo ... Can Arachnids be Shattered?

[cordas]

However I do have one problem with the Shattered rule over all. No one has verified if tunneled bugs count as being in play. By the old rules many players said underground bugs were not in play. Same with ambush units/models.

How do you account for those models?

If I have a an all tunneling bug army, I might lose before my first turn. (since I have more then 75% of my army off the table) Skiniess, I think, can have the same problem.

My real questioning of the rule is purely a game mechanic.... "Does shattered limited army choices/tactics too much in SST?"

There is a thread here called a muppets reading of the victory and defeat conditions, this is fully explored there.

Yes you can deploy your army so that you instantly loose the battle... (apart from the advantages of not fighting some odious people at tournements) all you do by doing this is grant HUGE bragging rights to your opponent.... So don't do it.

Shattered is a simple rule that allows for a fairly balanced game using the units that are available. I am sure (even certain) that the Advanced Rule book will give a large number of different V & D conditions, and if you want to you could always come up with your own in the mean time....

 

[Turtle]

And once again I have to reiterate that when the rules for drop capsules and full tunneling comes out, so will all the advanced rules, and likely scenarios that don't use the shatter rules.

So then the idea of using an all drop capsule, or a bug army that starts off completely underground is still viable, but not in the basic rules.

 

[Ragnarok]

Thanks, Turtle in particular for your first reply of 3/21 ... it's meaty and satisfying

If you had just written the first sentence ("Accept it as a game mechanic for the basic game."), then not so. But the rest of your post told me what I needed to know.

Your statement, "ANd honestly, the shatter rule is more just one kind of objective you can play for. It's a simple, quick and dirty objective that focuses you on killing the enemy" puts the issue in perspective.

You see, your depiction of the Shatter Rule as one of several objectives places that rule in any entirely different light ... one that the basic BFO:EVO rules can't even begin to shine.

When Matt said to download the BFO:EVO basic rules to find the basic rules for SST:EVO, I for one took him literally (oh, Damn My Eyes!).

Those rules say that one wins by Shattering (see my last post for the exact wording).

Perhaps if the truncated SST:EVO rules were a bit more explicit. For Example: "In this basic game, the objective is to Shatter your opponent's forces (other objectives will be discussed in the Advanced Rules)." What a difference! My initial question might not have even been raised.

Again, thanks for the clarification ... and all that came with it!

 

[Ragnarok]

msprange brought up an interesting point: "Arachnids are numerous beyond human understanding - but running an effective colony is all about resource management. You have warriors that will die for you, sure. But if you get thousands butchered achieving every objective, you are going to lose the war. In short, Shattering works just fine for bugs, for while they have different concerns to humans, they _do_ still have concerns."

Matt, it seems like, in answering the issue, a very major point was lost. In the main rule book (p. 105), the V1 rules state "For Arachnids, Priority Level is tightly linked to the Force Value for the game. To the bugs, if something is important, you send more bugs."

It seems that you are considering resource management from a human point of view (which of course is eminently explainable!). You state "But if you get thousands butchered achieving every objective, you are going to lose the war." Correct, but the resource management is not in conserving warriors ... it's in the choice of priority for each objective. So a lower priority objective won't have "thousands butchered" because only hundreds will be assigned, as the rules quoted above state. The fact that the Arachnids participate in a 6,000 point battle means that they are fully prepared to expend 6,000 points to achieve the objective. If they were NOT willing to expend 6,000 points, then it would not be a 6,000 point game! If the bugs were "only" will to expend 4,500 points for the objective -- which the Shatter rules indicate -- then, to the Bugs, it would be a 4,500 point game.

I very much appreciate your perspective on this, Matt, because I see a possible meeting of the minds for this Shatter business. I suggest that the Arachnid shatter point is a M.I. objective. It is a victory condition for this scenario, the objective of which for the M.I. being to reduce the bugs to 25% of the original forces (I'd include the entire force, though, for this objective). Therefore, even if the bugs keep coming and even if the bugs eventually achieve their objective, the M.I. have achieved their shatter objective.

As I said in my last post to Turtle, the concept of objectives was completely lost when you stated that we just had to download the BF:EVO basic rules to get a leg up on the SST:EVO rules. I did and the questions I've posted came from trying to understand how the BF:EVO rules would work in an SST context. My reaction might be common to others as well.

Perhaps, Matt, a rewording of your reference to the BF:EVO rules might have eliminated a lot of confusion and angst that has arisen in the ranks.

I was going to initiate another thread on this site asking about what happened to objectives in SST:EVO ... if you look at the BF:EVO rules, there ARE no objectives per se ... the game ends when one side is reduced to 25%, and the other side gets ... bragging rights.

My suggestion is that Mongoose make a concerted effort to write their basic SST:EVO rules firmly within the context of the Advanced Rules, and then you make a concerted effort NOW to clarify those BF:EVO rules in a SST context to those of us trying to figure out early 21st century warfare in a much later context.

I'm being selfish here, because I want to convert some gamers around here to SST so I'll have local opponents. I can't do that the way BF:EVO is now. Can you help me in my efforts to spread your game system to others?

 

[Aniyn]

<sigh> fine. If you guys don't want to listen, then don't. Hey, we're just the guys that buy the stuff, what do we know.

 

[Galatea]

The fact that the Arachnids participate in a 6,000 point battle means that they are fully prepared to expend 6,000 points to achieve the objective. If they were NOT willing to expend 6,000 points, then it would not be a 6,000 point game! If the bugs were "only" will to expend 4,500 points for the objective -- which the Shatter rules indicate -- then, to the Bugs, it would be a 4,500 point game.

I think in a similar way. Any arachnid unit that is going to get enemy contact is already deleted from the army rooster.
If a large number of them survives it's a nice thing, but not necessary.

Also I want to fight a match to the death (or at least to the last turn) and I know many players who think exactly like this.
We don't need any rule that tells us to end our game when one side has 78% of it's troops lost and the other one 73% and nothing is decided at all.

 

[Makaiju]

No one has verified if tunneled bugs count as being in play.

check the NEW rules for tunneling. only the models on the board count for the shatter treshold. new tunneling bugs aren't on table till they come up. ergo, they don't count.

seriosuly, 3/4 of the rules query can be solved by reading the rules carefully

For my sake let me be very clear on a couple of points.

One, I apologize up front if I seem dense but so far your comments are just as half thought out as anyone's.

Two, I apologize for being rude. I know that's how I come off (I have been told so many times) but that really isn't my goal. What I am trying to do is stop people from talking about things they can't back up in writing (a minor issue on forums) and more importantly, to stay on topic. To many times people "assume" they know what's going on and they say things that just don't apply to the conversation.

Since I still don't hear a decent reply to my question (either questions to me about 'why' I am forming an opinion or 'where' I might have miss read a rule) I'll start by clarifying things myself.

I have 0% desire to have anything to do with Battlefield:Evolution. Please don't be offended Mongoose, this is not a snide comment or an insult towards you guys... I just don't care to play the game. Therefore I will "not" buy a Battlefield:Evolution rule book to get an idea of the basic rules that "might" be used in SST:Evolution.

The only rules I have for the core Evolution system are the core rules listed on the website. They are 2 pages long. They look like a market flyer. (Flyers are great for letting me know milk is on sale but not good for detailing complex issues) The core rules make "zero" reference to tunneling. I thought I was just stupid or blind after reading Poko's comments so I did a search of the document. Needless to say Adobe can't find it either. So if you have any inside knowledge of the rules, please let me know.

If on the other hand you are just 'assuming' that the shattered rule that says "any non deployed unit counts towards being shattered" means that a tunneling unit is not deployed... why? In the old rules you did deploy them. You used tunnel markers but you did deploy the markers. In the wording of the new card they say "Write down the exact location where you intend the unit to surface before any models are deployed". That wording can easily and fairly be taken two ways... either tunnel units aren't decided during the normal deploy phase so they aren't considered deployed OR tunnel units are deployed in secret before any other units are deployed.

So where is this clear cut rule I'm not reading?

As far as Shattered, I'm not sold on it but I don't hate it.

If I put 100% of my army on the board and my opponent kills 75% of my units, I lose. I like that and feel it's a fair game mechanic.

If I put a portion of my army in reserves (again I won't guess at percentages since the core rules don't even talk about reserves being a part of the game) and I shatter because the percent I have in reserve has just added up with my loses to be 75%, I'm not sure I like that but I certainly don't hate it.

If it does turn out that I can have 75% or more of my army underground at the start of the game and lose first turn (either because I am not ready to spring my trap or because I can't rule a 5 or better on any of my tunnel units), then I do think shattered is a rule that should be in SST. Period.

Well.. maybe a comma instead of a period.

Cordas and others have said "other victory conditions will exist" but that's not spelled out either.

In fact I really do hate bringing up other games but I think it's the only way to spell this out to everyone.... Necomunda.

Shattered reads "just" like the bottle check rule in Necromunda.

That means no matter what scenario I play, that no matter what Victory Conditions I can achieve... I still have to avoid losing to the Shattered rule.

Again if the core rule pamphlet said "Treat all fights like it's a PITCH Battle scenario and when doing that you loose if you are shattered" then I would go... 'oh, so Shattered is a condition just for that one kind of scenario/mission/etc.' Instead the core rules make zero reference to playing a special scenario. The rules just say "if you have 75% of your army not in play, you lose."

While this is a Mongoose game and not a GW game, if the rules Mongoose puts out reads like another game and sounds like another game... players are going to sense something familiar and base their rule interpretations on other other games.

That is why I am asking for clarification.

If Shattered only applies to basic pick up games, then fine. (My opinion on SST:Evo will still have to wait for the advanced rules)
If Shattered applies to all scenarios/battles, that's fine. (My opinion on SST:Evo is all but made depending on one clarification of how tunnel units work. Again this may be fixed in the SST:EVO Advanced rules but in the core system, they kind of suck.)

For the good people at Mongoose I will say again, I am not trying to belittle you guys. I just have a very passionate like for your old game. I have several thousands of dollars of you product my dinning room. Heck, I built a 4 foot by 8 foot gaming table in that room so that I could play a 5k Bug vs. 5K M.I. battles and that doesn't even count all of the skinnies boxes I'm still working on. I want to keep buying more of your stuff and keep playing a great game based off of SST.

Only the way Shattered and Tunnel rules work

 

[MongooseMatt]

If Shattered only applies to basic pick up games, then fine. (My opinion on SST:Evo will still have to wait for the advanced rules)
If Shattered applies to all scenarios/battles, that's fine. (My opinion on SST:Evo is all but made depending on one clarification of how tunnel units work. Again this may be fixed in the SST:EVO Advanced rules but in the core system, they kind of suck.)

Shattering is one victory condition. Once the advanced rulebook is added, more victory conditions are available to replace shattering.

The current tunnel rules are the basic ones. More advanced tunnelling rules appear in the advanced rulebook.

Hope that helps!

 

[cordas]

Also I want to fight a match to the death (or at least to the last turn) and I know many players who think exactly like this.
We don't need any rule that tells us to end our game when one side has 78% of it's troops lost and the other one 73% and nothing is decided at all.

Try playing against the forth in a wipe out the enemy battle and you might be incredibly lucky to win one game in a thousand. The Fenirs is just too hard to kill (afterall it has a target of 9, so simply put it in cover and the only weapons in the game that can hurt it currently are the pee wee and the hole punch rocket for the LAMI) under those conditions, but add in the shattered rules and that 1 almost unkillable unit can be defeated by shattering the army.

That said you are free to ignore the shattered rule in your games if you wish, it will just make defeating some armies far harder (if not impossible).

 

[Galatea]

The current tunnel rules are the basic ones. More advanced tunnelling rules appear in the advanced rulebook.

I think they should be made available only as Command Assets - 'Ambushing Unit' 50p, one per PL.
Because you can make a hell of crap with them, especially if you have 50 Workers popping up within the core of your enemies army.
It gets even worse if you can still attach Guards, Hoppers or Controllers to a Burrower being able to use the new basic tunnelling rules.

 

[Poko]

They are 2 pages long. They look like a market flyer. (Flyers are great for letting me know milk is on sale but not good for detailing complex issues)

they have every rule except flying and indirect artillery that is needed in most games. they also are clear(i had one serious rule qeury,and that was due to language problem rather than writing). but you have to read them as written,not "what you think author meant". if it says "the models X,Y,Z" it means only X,Y,Z not A because it's siommiliar to Y.

The core rules make "zero" reference to tunneling.

yes.they don't because tunneling is race-specific rule,and so it's covered on the arachnid unit cards.they are to be found in this month's S&P,or in the "Wave 1 card transcription" on this forum.sorry for not making this clear first time

That wording can easily and fairly be taken two ways... either tunnel units aren't decided during the normal deploy phase so they aren't considered deployed OR tunnel units are deployed in secret before any other units are deployed.

they are prefectly clear. they start the game underground. undergodund is not "on the board" that Shatter uses,so they aren't couted for shatter number check.

sorry for sounding rude,but seriously, it's 2 pages of rules, and imo the only problem with them is that people try to "interpret" the rules rather than read them.

 

[cordas]

Two, I apologize for being rude. I know that's how I come off (I have been told so many times) but that really isn't my goal. What I am trying to do is stop people from talking about things they can't back up in writing (a minor issue on forums) and more importantly, to stay on topic. To many times people "assume" they know what's going on and they say things that just don't apply to the conversation.

Since I still don't hear a decent reply to my question (either questions to me about 'why' I am forming an opinion or 'where' I might have miss read a rule) I'll start by clarifying things myself.

I have 0% desire to have anything to do with Battlefield:Evolution. Please don't be offended Mongoose, this is not a snide comment or an insult towards you guys... I just don't care to play the game. Therefore I will "not" buy a Battlefield:Evolution rule book to get an idea of the basic rules that "might" be used in SST:Evolution.

The only rules I have for the core Evolution system are the core rules listed on the website. They are 2 pages long. They look like a market flyer. (Flyers are great for letting me know milk is on sale but not good for detailing complex issues) The core rules make "zero" reference to tunneling. I thought I was just stupid or blind after reading Poko's comments so I did a search of the document. Needless to say Adobe can't find it either. So if you have any inside knowledge of the rules, please let me know.

Whilst it doesn't specificly mention tunneling the Victory and Defeat conditions make it very clear:

When working out whether your army has been shattered you may only count models that are actually on the table - models that have not yet been deployed (normally because of special rules that may apply only to them) are not counted.

I have quoted the entire sentance in its entirety, and underlined what I feel are the bits that specifically answer your question and highlighted in bold the key parts of those statements. (I know what it is like to be given grand sweeping answers that don't answer my questions and I know how much it pees me off, I am just giving an answer to your post in the terms I would like to knock things into my thick skull when I am missing something that is obvious to others.)

I can understand that you don't want to play BF: Evo, if it don't float your boat (or your gaming friends) then it is pointless to spend money on it. If I was you I would just stick to playing traditional SST, rather than the Evo version as this is just a taster for the new version of rules which will be released in late summer - early autum. I think Matt has answered the rest of your questions so won't bother to repeat him.

 

[cordas]

sorry for sounding rude,but seriously, it's 2 pages of rules, and imo the only problem with them is that people try to "interpret" the rules rather than read them.

Guilty as charged, but having played other game systems, where it is impossible to play the game without "interpretting" it takes a major headspin to play differently, as the people I game with do exactly the same thing, so we have arguements abouts who's interpretation is correct and in the process miss the point by miles. :lol:

 

[Makaiju]

If Shattered only applies to basic pick up games, then fine. (My opinion on SST:Evo will still have to wait for the advanced rules)
If Shattered applies to all scenarios/battles, that's fine. (My opinion on SST:Evo is all but made depending on one clarification of how tunnel units work. Again this may be fixed in the SST:EVO Advanced rules but in the core system, they kind of suck.)

Shattering is one victory condition. Once the advanced rulebook is added, more victory conditions are available to replace shattering.

The current tunnel rules are the basic ones. More advanced tunnelling rules appear in the advanced rulebook.

Hope that helps!

Matt.... Thank You!

Yes it does help. The core rules are just what I originally thought they were, generic rules that try to apply to each game mythos but can't address each mythos' flavor 100%.

This means that I "Will" use the core rules when I run demos at any local stores. The core rules are like basic training of any art/career. You learn the core components of your new activity. You learn to move, shoot, and die/kill.

With small unit setups and small gaming demos, the core rule lay out makes 100% sense.

Once you know the basic skill, then you learn tactics. That's what a set of advanced rules means to me.

Knowing that the advanced rules expand or change the rules for tunneling and also address if you do or do not use Shattered to determine a victory, that says that the game can still 'feel' like the old SST mythos.

Once again Matt, my faith in your games is renewed.

 

[Makaiju]

[/quote]they are prefectly clear. they start the game underground. undergodund is not "on the board" that Shatter uses,so they aren't couted for shatter number check.

sorry for sounding rude,but seriously, it's 2 pages of rules, and imo the only problem with them is that people try to "interpret" the rules rather than read them.[/quote]

Sorry but I am not just trying to put my own opinion in what the rules mean.

On the board never meant 'litterally touching the surface of the board' in the old game. Flyers were 'on the board' and so where tunel units... even though both of them were not 'touching the board'.

No joke. Check the old rule book and check the forums. It was cariflied more then one time.

Hence my concern that people are reading 'on the board' with the new card and saying 'tunel units no longer count'. that would be a change in how Mongoose has documented their intent/rules. That is why I was asking.

The core rules still aren't clear and still suck when applied to the specific Arachnid units and in no way feel like a real SST game. However they are great for not being a good SST game but rather being a "learn what is needed to play a mini game before you learn to play SST" set of rules.

 

[Poko]

there are no tunneling arachnid MINIS(models) present on board till they tunnel up. thus, they are not on board for the purpose of shatter.

 

[cordas]

On the board never meant 'litterally touching the surface of the board' in the old game. Flyers were 'on the board' and so where tunel units... even though both of them were not 'touching the board'.

Read the V & D Conditions, they are quoted by me above, it says you may only count models that are actually on the table. I would say that means that unless the models are literally on the table they aren't counted. Tunneling models aren't "on the table" so they aren't counted, and we have no cards / stats for flyers and until we do they don't count as you can't use them in SST: Evo.

 

[Makaiju]

When working out whether your army has been shattered you may only count models that are actually on the table - models that have not yet been deployed (normally because of special rules that may apply only to them) are not counted.

I have quoted the entire sentance in its entirety, and underlined what I feel are the bits that specifically answer your question and highlighted in bold the key parts of those statements. (I know what it is like to be given grand sweeping answers that don't answer my questions and I know how much it pees me off, I am just giving an answer to your post in the terms I would like to knock things into my thick skull when I am missing something that is obvious to others.)[/quote]

Thanks. I appreciate your comments and that is exactly what has me in a fix. This is the same kind of confusion Mongoose had with their first rule book.

They stated a rule, then an exception, then and exception to the excecption.

What ended up happening is that someone was 100% correct in how they stated a rule worked, unless you read one sentence 3 chapters later that said 'unless this then do something different'.

To me the core rules read with a blaring conflict. By just saying "unless the card has a special rule" doesn't mean any and all special rules make it off the board. If you have an all hopper army and the all go into fly mode in one round, does that make them 'not' on the board any more? If you say yes, then I really think you aren't reading the rules but just reading the words out of context.

It's badicly a mute point though. It's just my opinion that the core rules suck for SST and that the old rules needed fixing and that I'll have to wait for the advanced SST:Evo rules to see if the game is playable enough to get others back into the system.

 

[tneva82]

I was going to initiate another thread on this site asking about what happened to objectives in SST:EVO ... if you look at the BF:EVO rules, there ARE no objectives per se ... the game ends when one side is reduced to 25%, and the other side gets ... bragging rights.

And out of curiosity: What makes you think there won't be other objective scenarios for BF:Evo AS WELL?

It's not like BF:Evo advanced rulebook is going to be 0 scenarios now is it...

 

[cordas]

Go and read the thread "Clarification on Skinnies in SST Evo." and see my opinions on what can happen, msprange also puts a very good answer in about reading the rule sheet.

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.