SST:Evo ... Can Arachnids be Shattered?

[Makaiju]

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.

I'm droping this but because you have been kind enough to talk about this in a fair manor, I want to make it clear why I'm done and still don't agree.

On the table has never meant "only if it's touching the table" in the past version of SST or other Mongooese game system rules. Flying units are on the table even though they aren't touching the table top. Tunel units were on the table and they were represented by tunel markers.

Since the marker is gone people are assuming that the tunnel unit is no longer on the table. However unlike a reserve unit, the tunel unit can't come on where ever it wants. It has to come on from the spot that was picked before the game started.

That's why I think you are correct in quoting Matt but I feel you are doing just what he said... you aren't trusting the rules, you are over reading the rules.

To fix that I feel confident that Mongoose will release the advanced rules and as with their earlier rules, there will be a clarification that states "Models on the table are any models that.... and not just models touching the top of your gaming surface."

wait... I digress. that's not my point. Why I think the core rules are lame isn't the point any more. I'm just wanted to let you know that the idea of 'on the board' or 'on the table' should only mean "touching the table top" is not what Mongoose has meant in the past when they used the exact same wording. If that's what they mean now, fine.

I'm done. Thanks for talking.

 

[tneva82]

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.

Then do play it...But I suppose you ARE aware that "to the death" games are rarely balanced tournament games...

It's like Epic:A. Basic scenario is designed with sole purpose of being balanced for tournament play. For non-tournament game doesn't really matter what the objective in rulesheet is because(horror of horror) players can determine it themselves! If players want to play "to the death" it's not like Mongoose polices are going to arrest you for doing it :lol:

 

[cOwgummi]

You know Tneva82 "if you don't like it, just ignore it" is one of the lamest arguments ever...

 

[cordas]

You know Tneva82 "if you don't like it, just ignore it" is one of the lamest arguments ever...

Not really, we have often made up our V & D conditions when war gaming. As long as both players agree what will count as victory for each other before they start the game this causes no problems. Yes these are custom battles, I remember one particular in 40k where the Sisters had to hold a Chapel for 6 turns so they could carry out some banishment and the chaos forces had to stop the ritual by killing 4 specified models before those 6 turns where up, or take the chapel from the sisters.

This could be modified so that the MI have to hold a base (objective) for X number of turns so that re-inforcements can arrive, or a certain model can get picked up, the Skinnie opponent has to find and kill that model before X turns are up, or capture the objective and hold it for a turn.

Just use your imagination and agree what will count as a victory for both sides before you start and you can't go wrong (*EDIT* well you might need to be flexable at 1st until you learn what makes for balanced custom conditions). Look at any other war game for examples, the FOW mini rule book gives some nice ideas for objective battles, with different deployments as well (Just double the deployment distances to take the different scales into account).

 

[katadder]

my question is what about the people that prefer the book style of all powersuits? they have maybe 6-8 models and can be shattered that quick. doesnt make for a fun game. and i guess this will also apply to the forth as well. few models means no chance of staying unshattered and so some armies are just not viable.
(I ask this as someone who's looking at starting SST with Evo using the Forth).

 

[cordas]

my question is what about the people that prefer the book style of all powersuits? they have maybe 6-8 models and can be shattered that quick. doesnt make for a fun game. and i guess this will also apply to the forth as well. few models means no chance of staying unshattered and so some armies are just not viable.
(I ask this as someone who's looking at starting SST with Evo using the Forth).

Thats what my MI army is, 6 Grizzlies and 4 Cougars (want 1 more Cougar *GRRR*). You just have to accept we are easy to shatter, but very hard to kill and immune to suppression, it sorta makes up for it. Just want stats for Cougars so I can use them as well without an arguement over what stats to give them.....

 

[katadder]

so small armies like yours and the Forth will still be viable then i guess? better be damn hard to kill if losing 6 minis ends the game when still got 2 left.

 

[cordas]

so small armies like yours and the Forth will still be viable then i guess? better be damn hard to kill if losing 6 minis ends the game when still got 2 left.

Yup they are viable, the forth even more so as the fenris is so bloody hard!!! Its just going to be a bit more all or nothing than taking a more model rich but less hard army.

Not had a chance to play just grizzlies as my mate won't fight that bigger battles yet, so am doing 1 squad grizzlies and a squad or 2 of LAMI. The Grizzlies can be very hard, but can also die really easily if they get a kill result *SIGH*

 

[Xorrandor]

so small armies like yours and the Forth will still be viable then i guess? better be damn hard to kill if losing 6 minis ends the game when still got 2 left.

You're complaining about small armies having problems with the Shatter rule? At least there you know you have to lose 75% of your points to be Shattered. Try a swarm army with one or two big guys for heavy support: the enemy can just avoid contact with your big guys, and Shatter you by killing off 50% of your points. (Numbers are off the top of my head, but look at the point differential between Warriors and Tankers if you don't think it could happen.)

 

[cordas]

so small armies like yours and the Forth will still be viable then i guess? better be damn hard to kill if losing 6 minis ends the game when still got 2 left.

You're complaining about small armies having problems with the Shatter rule? At least there you know you have to lose 75% of your points to be Shattered. Try a swarm army with one or two big guys for heavy support: the enemy can just avoid contact with your big guys, and Shatter you by killing off 50% of your points. (Numbers are off the top of my head, but look at the point differential between Warriors and Tankers if you don't think it could happen.)

Its all part of the game, if someone can run around the table enough to avoid getting pinned down by you...... (Although I do think the forth are maybe a touch to hard at the moment)

 

[Xorrandor]

Its all part of the game, if someone can run around the table enough to avoid getting pinned down by you...... (Although I do think the forth are maybe a touch to hard at the moment)

Oh, I understand that it's part of the game, and the basic game at that. I just consider the Shatter rule to encourage even distribution of points between models, so to complain about such armies being hurt by the rule seemed backwards to me.

I haven't given much thought to the Forth at this point, although I tend to like high-value armies so I may even end up playing them. I would guess they'll clean up against Skinnies in Wave 1, but the other races can in theory hold their own.

 

[MaxSteiner]

Just a thought here...
Couldn't someone just post the mission matrix from the V1 rule book so that newer players could play the game with something other than shatter (Which it really seems is alot like Marmite in that theres a 50/50 split between people who like it and people who hate it)? There was only really four mission types anyway, and for smaller scale games it might help.
Alot of the discussion going on at the moment seems to forget that this is around the time that newer players will start coming in, and I figure showing that theres a bit more depth couldnt hurt.

 

[captainsmirk]

my question is what about the people that prefer the book style of all powersuits? they have maybe 6-8 models and can be shattered that quick. doesnt make for a fun game. and i guess this will also apply to the forth as well. few models means no chance of staying unshattered and so some armies are just not viable.
(I ask this as someone who's looking at starting SST with Evo using the Forth).

MI book style eh? How about MI properly like those in the book...

They wouldn't be effected by shattering at all, if you suffer a casualty the enemy have wiped out your entire army...
The old half-mile interval between troopers strikes again...

:twisted:


Nick

 

[Turtle]

The original mission matrix is always an option.

However, I'm writing some scenarios for my games that encourage more direct conflict.

 

[Hiromoon]

Turtle's scenarios:

You start within 12" of your opponent.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

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.

I'm droping this but because you have been kind enough to talk about this in a fair manor, I want to make it clear why I'm done and still don't agree.

On the table has never meant "only if it's touching the table" in the past version of SST or other Mongooese game system rules. Flying units are on the table even though they aren't touching the table top. Tunel units were on the table and they were represented by tunel markers.

Since the marker is gone people are assuming that the tunnel unit is no longer on the table. However unlike a reserve unit, the tunel unit can't come on where ever it wants. It has to come on from the spot that was picked before the game started.

That's why I think you are correct in quoting Matt but I feel you are doing just what he said... you aren't trusting the rules, you are over reading the rules.

To fix that I feel confident that Mongoose will release the advanced rules and as with their earlier rules, there will be a clarification that states "Models on the table are any models that.... and not just models touching the top of your gaming surface."

wait... I digress. that's not my point. Why I think the core rules are lame isn't the point any more. I'm just wanted to let you know that the idea of 'on the board' or 'on the table' should only mean "touching the table top" is not what Mongoose has meant in the past when they used the exact same wording. If that's what they mean now, fine.

I'm done. Thanks for talking.

The V&C rules specifically state that units in reserve, tunelling or air units that are not currently represented on the table do not count as models in play for the purposes of determing shatter point.