Tunneling Rules and Emplacements in SST:EVO
- Thread starter Ragnarok
- Start date
MaxSteiner said:Ragnarok said:
:lol: I wouldn't really include me amongst the excelent posters, I only sound reasonable because there haven't been any miniatures for me to criticise lately(I wont discuss the BF:E figs because Im clearly not the sort of person they're aimed at...)
==> Cordas, sorry to break it to you (Unless you've already heard), but there aren't any army lists in the book any more... its just rules and fluff...
We'll get the army lists as a pdf though
Well a PDF is free (I HOPE) and if it has the stats in card format even better, mind you I would always just print out the PDF and bind it.... Ponders sweeting talking a mate with a colour laserjet into doing it.... so much better quality for something like that than an inkjet...
Voracioustigger said:
No, VT, I did not "THINK" there was going to be a problem with Tunnelling and emplacements. Rather, I was ASKING how tunnelling will interact with emplacements in SST:EVO.
Voracioustigger said:
I'm pleased to learn that tunnelling will not coexist with emplacements. What does that mean - that there'll be no tunnelling? No, it's on the first wave cards. So that means there'll be no emplacements in SST:EVO?
All I'm trying to point out, VT, is that if the Arachnid player has to plot out the exit point for tunnellers before he/she knows where the opponent's emplacements are, the bug player is at a distinct disadvantage.
This question was asked because, apparently unlike some playtesters, I didn't see anything in BFEVO about when to set emplacements - whether before or after the Arachnid player marks positions.
My hope was that various arguments for both "Before" and "After" could be made, and that these arguments would be considered in the process of finalizing the V2 rules.
From what I understand from posts on this thread is that there's really no need to listen to questions and concerns because the V2 rules are already finalized?
Is this the case - any Powers That Be Who May Be Reading This?
Like I posted before, if this is so, just let me know.
Argh! Ragnarok, have you read my posts in their entirety in this topic?
We already covered this.
Both the full tunneling rules and rules for emplacements come out in the advanced rulebook. With the full tunneling rules superceding the basic tunneling rules on the cards. You cannot, ever, use the basic tunneling rules on the cards and the emplacement rules at the same time.
Therefore, any time you are using the rules from the main rulebook, when the MI have emplacements, the arachnids get the advanced tunneling rules.
Likewise, if you play using the core rules, the MI will never have emplacements (unless via very specific unit special ability), and thus the basic tunneling rule on the unit card won't be affected by it.
So, it's not an issue.
We already covered this.
Both the full tunneling rules and rules for emplacements come out in the advanced rulebook. With the full tunneling rules superceding the basic tunneling rules on the cards. You cannot, ever, use the basic tunneling rules on the cards and the emplacement rules at the same time.
Therefore, any time you are using the rules from the main rulebook, when the MI have emplacements, the arachnids get the advanced tunneling rules.
Likewise, if you play using the core rules, the MI will never have emplacements (unless via very specific unit special ability), and thus the basic tunneling rule on the unit card won't be affected by it.
So, it's not an issue.
Turtle said:
Deep breaths, Turtle - visualize calm thoughts like no more mudslides in California.
I can understand your frustration, and I am reaching out to feel your pain . . . 
I'm trying to determine who speaks ex cathedra on these forums. From the above quote, I take it that your posting that begins with "Well, for one, there won't be any emplacements ..." is a Word from the Powers That Be.
In the darkened past, when I first read that posting, I couldn't be certain, for I had not received a Revelation of such, having only read the Moderators to be Mongoose Old Bear, lastbesthope, Mongoose Doghouse and Mongoose Chris. Matthew Sprange, I have deduced, is also numbered among the Powers.
Now being further Illumined, I will consider your posts to be among those spreading The Word, so when you said it was covered, all I can do is hide myself from your wrath, re-read your postings in the Light, and gather all possible temerity ask you, or any other Power, to confirm a couple of conclusions from your posts:
I didn't read anywhere that the cards contained only "basic tunnelling rules" that were to be disregarded in the advanced game. In the Darkness that gripped me, I thought that the Advanced Rules would build on the Basic Rules and expand them rather than replace them. Oh, Damn My Eyes!
Conclusion #1: Rules written on the cards do not necessarily pertain to the Advanced Rules, and are only applicable to the basic game (unless incorporated into the Advanced Rules, which we'll know when we see them).
Conclusion #2: The Advanced Rules will come with an entirely new set of cards for each of the units released before the Advanced Rules.
Hallelujah - I see the Light! I NOW understand how the tunnelling rules on the cards and the emplacement rules conflicting is not an issue!
The tunnelling rules on the cards are like the earth, which will eventually be consumed and pass away.
The Advanced Rules are like the new earth, which will endure forever and forever. The Emplacement Rules, as part of this celestial realm, will not coexist with the basic tunnelling rules on the cards to come out, for those rules are merely of the terrestial realm.
These cards that coming out with the first wave and perhaps even later waves are themselves merely shadows of What Will Come in the Advanced Rules.
Thank you, Turtle ... I feel as if I have been initiated into an Inner Circle of some Gnostic sect.
All kidding aside, Turtle, if you'd grace us with something that reflects "WHAT IS" from your opinion of something, it would help. And I apologize for not taking your postings as The Word; I didn't know it to be such.
Are Conclusions #1 and #2 valid? Does everybody else know these Truths and I was the only one stumbling in Darkness?
If that's the case, then it's my turn to cry out ....Argh!
tneva82 wrote
Thanks for the insightful reply, tneva82! This is the kind of exchange that I thought could be of use in V2.
Looking back at original sources: Book: no emplacements, therefore no conflict. Movie: emplacements and the tanker bug just happened to be lucky enough to surface inside the outpost. Roughnecks: More amazing luck as the tanker surfaced in front of a patrol on foot (Pluto) and just in front of the emplacements when Alpha Squad rescued Victor Squad (Pluto, or perhaps Hydora).
I guess what I see as the dilemma is that the Arachnids should have something better than blind guessing for where their units will surface, and yet not have the total ability to negate effective emplacements for the MI.
Perhaps a differentiation between field emplacements and fortifications?
Of course, this is all silly, since (apparently) the Advanced Rules have foreseen this and all other questions and have answered them to the understanding and delight of all who will behold them! Have faith, Brother Tvena82! (Aside, in a lower voice) Funny, this is sounding more and more like Paranoia as we go ... the Computer is your friend ... the Computer knows your needs ... the Computer will bring you to joy, peace and love ... trust the Computer ...
Thanks for the insightful reply, tneva82! This is the kind of exchange that I thought could be of use in V2.
Looking back at original sources: Book: no emplacements, therefore no conflict. Movie: emplacements and the tanker bug just happened to be lucky enough to surface inside the outpost. Roughnecks: More amazing luck as the tanker surfaced in front of a patrol on foot (Pluto) and just in front of the emplacements when Alpha Squad rescued Victor Squad (Pluto, or perhaps Hydora).
I guess what I see as the dilemma is that the Arachnids should have something better than blind guessing for where their units will surface, and yet not have the total ability to negate effective emplacements for the MI.
Perhaps a differentiation between field emplacements and fortifications?
Of course, this is all silly, since (apparently) the Advanced Rules have foreseen this and all other questions and have answered them to the understanding and delight of all who will behold them! Have faith, Brother Tvena82! (Aside, in a lower voice) Funny, this is sounding more and more like Paranoia as we go ... the Computer is your friend ... the Computer knows your needs ... the Computer will bring you to joy, peace and love ... trust the Computer ...
Makoto said:
First of all Makoto, I must know ... is this ex cathedra? Are you one of the Powers that Be. If so, let us know ... if not - Turtle, Matt, or any other Powers that Be reading this - illumine us as to the Truth of this statement. Please !?!
Now, so I won't be misunderstood, I am moving forward assuming that the above quote is in fact Anointed.
Can Someone please tell me what "existing terrain" is? I thought that the entire surface of the table was "existing terrain".
There I go, reading things into statements ... sorry.I wasn't here for the preliminary briefing, I guess. The BF:EVO rules to which Matthew referred doesn't address the issue of actually HOW to set up the board.
Do you mean, Makoto, that "existing terrain" is a feature that is other than open terrain that is placed on the board by the players? If that's the case, then we'll never see emplacements on open terrain?
If "existing terrain" includes open terrain, then the whole board is available, so how does one reach the conclusion that "...it's very easy to pinpoint where the emplacements will go"?
Sorry folks, I just want to understand the terms we're dealing with. I'm trying to come up to speed ...
Ragnarok said:...All kidding aside, Turtle, if you'd grace us with something that reflects "WHAT IS" from your opinion of something, it would help. And I apologize for not taking your postings as The Word; I didn't know it to be such.
Are Conclusions #1 and #2 valid? Does everybody else know these Truths and I was the only one stumbling in Darkness?
...
To see that I am not making this up, please see an earlier thread (Still on the first forum page) about the Shattered rule.
Matt replied to a question of mine with this:
"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!"
So yeah, there more advanced rules will appear and it sounds like it does replace whats on the cards or expand upon them to make more sense with new options like emplacements.
While Matt hasn't held each of our hands through understanding things like a pre-school teacher, he has said enough (and repeated him self a few times) that the basic understanding goes like this:
The new Evolution core rules is a fold out that will come with the wave 1 units. This core rule set will let you learn a basic set of miniture rules that allows you to learn the important basics of the game. Rules on the unit cards will allow you to add a few extra rules to add favor of a specific mythos.
This is done so that a complete new player could buy a couple of units, read the rules, and learn to play with a friend. It's to help demo games at stores or stuff like that. It's a simple and basic gateway drug.
However an Advanced Rules book will come out that will expand on some of the basic rules and flat out replace others.
Makoto said:
Sorry, Makoto, but I'm confused here. Are you referring to the Reliant Weapon Emplacement (p. 129 V1 rules)?
If you are, I didn't realize emplacements could be moved.
Are you referring to the Micro Support Platforms? I don't think those are emplacements. Their writeup states: "Micro Support Weapons are an attempt to get heavy firepower into the field without relying on emplacements or machinery such as Marauders."
Again quoting the Micro Support Platforms writeup: "With a choice of Spitball rocket launchers, Scythe laser cannon and Derringer rotary cannon, these weapon mounts allow a single Trooper to hold back large numbers of bugs or defeat much larger units with ease." Only the Scythe laser cannon is also listed as a weapon for Reliants.
Since you said that a "... pair of troopers can relocate even the twin-fifty in a matter of minutes", and since a twin-fifty cannot be mounted on a Micro Support Platform, I conclude that you are referring to the Reliant Emplacement.
Back to page 129, V1 Rules under "MI Emplacement Assets", "Weapon Emplacement" the rules state: "Trained engineers can emplace weapons in under 20 minutes, allowing the MI to quickly establish a fortified perimeter ... the Weapons Emplacements themselves are considered disposable and will usually be stripped of armament and abandoned when the fighting moves." Why aren't the Reliants simply moved by the troopers when the fighting moves? Because they can't be moved!
How does your statement about "pair troopers can relocate even the twin-fifty in a matter of minutes" comport with the rule just quoted?
It seems like, if it take "trained engineers" under 20 minutes (which I take to mean "over 15 minutes", because if it took 14 minutes, wouldn't the rules state "under 15 minutes"?) to "emplace" a reliant weapon, a couple of troopers would not be able to relocate that weapon in a matter of minutes -- unless it was to retrieve the weapon while abandoning the site. In that case, those troopers would be incapable of firing it.
Why? Here's my reasoning: If the weapon did not need the emplacement in order to fire, then the emplacement would not be used and it would be a squad weapon and therefore mobile. The Micro Support Platforms were developed to give squads some heavy firepower, but only the Scythe was able to be mounted on a tripod.
Any else among our readers ever humped a M-2 fifty caliber machine gun (or as the other member of the crew, humped the tripod and ammo boxes)? Despite the Sgt Rock cartoons, a M-2 needs a tripod to fire so as to benefit anyone. What about power armor? So maybe power-armored troopers could move the twin-fifty (over twice the weight/bulk of the M2) when leaving the emplacement.
Look at the picture of the Reliant platforms on this website. The stand is a monster! If SICON could produce a lighter stand so that troopers and not engineers could emplace (we're not even talking about moving), don't you think they would?
So, Makoto, please help me out of my this confusion. What did you mean by that quote? Thanks
Makoto
Mongoose
I've been referring to the Reliant, but only fluff-wise. Rule-wise the emplacement is absolutly immobile in game.
Given the suits and the fact that there is no longer need to build the fifty as a chunk of metal (composites, anyone?) question of carrying both weapon and the stand stops being too much of a problem for a pair of powersuited troopers.
Also quoted example is about changing the terrain from bare ground into outpost w/walls, fixed weapon emplacements and (should conditions and gods be favourable) maybe even a turret or two - something much different from a pair of MI w/their basic technical training, screwdrives/pliers/crowbars/whatever basic tool is neccesary and sergeant barking orders to "move that gun over there, AND MOVE IT NOW!", from one prepped position to another.
The stand itself is no monster - check it carefully, it's just about a meter or so of pole w/probably telescopic legs. Would be more concerned about the gunshield, but then again composite this size would me more unvieldy rather than heavy, do suppose the gunshields have a mysterius tendency of "going AWOL"/getting damaged beyound repair and discarded quickly in the field, at least in fights against the bugs.
As for terrain placements - nothing said so far (don't know how it'll look in advanced rules, but am not expecting any changes) indicates it's going to change. So it's terrain (including buildings, walls, bunkers etc) first, then rest.
As for pinpointing where the emplacements will go - simple deduction, my dear Watson. What they're placed for? Exactly, fire support, and since they're immobile that means having as large firezone as possible. So where they'll get placed? Again correct, elevated areas, valley mouths if terrain within the valley won't interfere to much (naturally "tunnelling" enemies for Stream weapons like the Inferno), covering approach to important objectives and so on. After a game or two (any system, any army using heavy weapons/war machines) You'll know the drill well enough to be able to say that since enemy has "x" emplacements they'll go into those "x" points, just because those points offer best ways to use said emplacements. Just logic and experience
Given the suits and the fact that there is no longer need to build the fifty as a chunk of metal (composites, anyone?) question of carrying both weapon and the stand stops being too much of a problem for a pair of powersuited troopers.
Also quoted example is about changing the terrain from bare ground into outpost w/walls, fixed weapon emplacements and (should conditions and gods be favourable) maybe even a turret or two - something much different from a pair of MI w/their basic technical training, screwdrives/pliers/crowbars/whatever basic tool is neccesary and sergeant barking orders to "move that gun over there, AND MOVE IT NOW!", from one prepped position to another.
The stand itself is no monster - check it carefully, it's just about a meter or so of pole w/probably telescopic legs. Would be more concerned about the gunshield, but then again composite this size would me more unvieldy rather than heavy, do suppose the gunshields have a mysterius tendency of "going AWOL"/getting damaged beyound repair and discarded quickly in the field, at least in fights against the bugs.
As for terrain placements - nothing said so far (don't know how it'll look in advanced rules, but am not expecting any changes) indicates it's going to change. So it's terrain (including buildings, walls, bunkers etc) first, then rest.
As for pinpointing where the emplacements will go - simple deduction, my dear Watson. What they're placed for? Exactly, fire support, and since they're immobile that means having as large firezone as possible. So where they'll get placed? Again correct, elevated areas, valley mouths if terrain within the valley won't interfere to much (naturally "tunnelling" enemies for Stream weapons like the Inferno), covering approach to important objectives and so on. After a game or two (any system, any army using heavy weapons/war machines) You'll know the drill well enough to be able to say that since enemy has "x" emplacements they'll go into those "x" points, just because those points offer best ways to use said emplacements. Just logic and experience
Makaiju wrote
This just gets more and more convoluted ...
Makaiju ... are you Turtle?
If you are, then say so.
If you're not, then why are you pretending to be? I was writing to Turtle, who I respect and with whom I have had great dialogues in the past (the page 7 of the Shattered thread to which you refer). Why did you step into his shoes? If you're not responding as Turtle, why did you use first person in your posting?
Whatever, you quoted Matt as saying "Shattering is one victory condition. Once the advanced rulebook is added, more victory conditions are available to replace shattering."
I've seen that posting ... if you look, I was the one who posted the initial question. If you look on page 8 of that thread, Matt was not responding to a question of yours, but to a comment of yours (it's a small point, but it shows that I've read it! )
Later you state "So yeah, there(sic) more advanced rules will appear and it sounds like it does replace whats(sic) on the cards or expand upon them to make more sense with new options like emplacements."
So what's your point? Matt said that "... more victory conditions are available to replace shattering." That means that victory conditions will be expanded. Shattering will be one victory condition among others. The basic rules will be expanded. That comports with my statement of an assumption that the Advanced Rules would build upon and/or expand the basic rules.
You also quote Matt: "The current tunnel rules are the basic ones. More advanced tunnelling rules appear in the advanced rulebook."
This statement doesn't contradict my posting in any way. Once again, let's remember my statement of an assumption that the Advanced Rules would build upon and/or expand the basic rules. How does Matt's statement provide evidence to show that I should not have assumed the Advanced Rules to build upon or expand the basic rules instead of replace them?
I see where your response to Matt on that thread adds a couple of words that Matt did not say. Ever helpful, I've highlighted your addition to Matt's statements. Let's see, page 8 of the Shattered thread (I took out the spacing to save space):
"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."
Since you referred to preschool teachers, favor the rest of us with a Show and Tell. Show me where Matt has previously stated on any thread that the Advanced SST rules will replace any Basic or Core rules.
C'mon Makaiju - give the quote and I'll be enlightened and thank you profusely. After all, you yourself stated "What I am trying to do is stop people from talking about things they can't back up in writing." BTW that quote of yours came from page 8 of the "Can the Arachnids be Shattered" thread (told you I read it! ).
This just gets more and more convoluted ...
Makaiju ... are you Turtle?
If you are, then say so.
If you're not, then why are you pretending to be? I was writing to Turtle, who I respect and with whom I have had great dialogues in the past (the page 7 of the Shattered thread to which you refer). Why did you step into his shoes? If you're not responding as Turtle, why did you use first person in your posting?
Whatever, you quoted Matt as saying "Shattering is one victory condition. Once the advanced rulebook is added, more victory conditions are available to replace shattering."
I've seen that posting ... if you look, I was the one who posted the initial question. If you look on page 8 of that thread, Matt was not responding to a question of yours, but to a comment of yours (it's a small point, but it shows that I've read it!
)Later you state "So yeah, there(sic) more advanced rules will appear and it sounds like it does replace whats(sic) on the cards or expand upon them to make more sense with new options like emplacements."
So what's your point? Matt said that "... more victory conditions are available to replace shattering." That means that victory conditions will be expanded. Shattering will be one victory condition among others. The basic rules will be expanded. That comports with my statement of an assumption that the Advanced Rules would build upon and/or expand the basic rules.
You also quote Matt: "The current tunnel rules are the basic ones. More advanced tunnelling rules appear in the advanced rulebook."
This statement doesn't contradict my posting in any way. Once again, let's remember my statement of an assumption that the Advanced Rules would build upon and/or expand the basic rules. How does Matt's statement provide evidence to show that I should not have assumed the Advanced Rules to build upon or expand the basic rules instead of replace them?
I see where your response to Matt on that thread adds a couple of words that Matt did not say. Ever helpful, I've highlighted your addition to Matt's statements. Let's see, page 8 of the Shattered thread (I took out the spacing to save space):
"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."
Since you referred to preschool teachers, favor the rest of us with a Show and Tell. Show me where Matt has previously stated on any thread that the Advanced SST rules will replace any Basic or Core rules.
C'mon Makaiju - give the quote and I'll be enlightened and thank you profusely. After all, you yourself stated "What I am trying to do is stop people from talking about things they can't back up in writing." BTW that quote of yours came from page 8 of the "Can the Arachnids be Shattered" thread (told you I read it!
).Well actually I am not that other person and didn’t think you would even come close to thinking I was him/her.
I noticed a conversation that didn’t seem to be going in where but in circles and sounded like to angry chimps smacking each other in the face with a hammer.
Much like your current comments sound like your trying to be funny but instead they make me feel insulted and rather annoyed with you.
I’m not questioning your opinions about liking/disliking something or telling you that you are stupid to ask questions or anything like that.
As you yourself agreed “The current tunnel rules are the basic ones. More advanced tunneling rules appear in the advanced rulebook”
Matt typed that himself. What else does that mean other then advanced rules will expand or replace basic rules? I know I didn’t A+ my way though my English classes as a kid but I don’t see how the words above can be read to mean anything other then… “Basic rules are used at the start up of the game and when Advanced rules come out, you can keep playing basic rules or move to advanced rules.”
So are you going on about all of this because you are expecting the advanced rules to blend the two more seamlessly then “use one or the other”?
Is this just about you wanting to make sure a rule wording in the advanced rules read how you want them?
If that is the case I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the good people at Mongoose and also know many of the people of another gaming company. They both talk about using very similar processes to publish their products. I only mention that because if Mongoose is really going to release SST:Evo advanced rules at Gen Con this year, they are near their cut off date to debate rule changes. Any change will require testing, then documentation, then editing, then review, and “IF” they are lucky that there are no revisions/change/mistakes caught, then they can ship to a publisher for mass production.
So I guess the only thing to really answer your question is to say, “I can’t answer anything until you calm your hyper ass down and ask a fluid question.”
If Mongoose won’t tell us early how the advanced tunnel rules work and how emplacements will work within the advanced rules, then all of us are just guessing about what will happen.
If that is your concern, then please… rant on. I completely support your right to yell and be upset.
If you really wanted to know how the core rules ‘tunneling’ is balanced with the MI’s ability to use emplacements, then I have to say “that concern” is why everyone is saying that you have to wait for the Advanced Rules… you have to wait because you can’t use emplacements with any of the core unit rules sheets or core unit cards.
I noticed a conversation that didn’t seem to be going in where but in circles and sounded like to angry chimps smacking each other in the face with a hammer.
Much like your current comments sound like your trying to be funny but instead they make me feel insulted and rather annoyed with you.
I’m not questioning your opinions about liking/disliking something or telling you that you are stupid to ask questions or anything like that.
As you yourself agreed “The current tunnel rules are the basic ones. More advanced tunneling rules appear in the advanced rulebook”
Matt typed that himself. What else does that mean other then advanced rules will expand or replace basic rules? I know I didn’t A+ my way though my English classes as a kid but I don’t see how the words above can be read to mean anything other then… “Basic rules are used at the start up of the game and when Advanced rules come out, you can keep playing basic rules or move to advanced rules.”
So are you going on about all of this because you are expecting the advanced rules to blend the two more seamlessly then “use one or the other”?
Is this just about you wanting to make sure a rule wording in the advanced rules read how you want them?
If that is the case I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the good people at Mongoose and also know many of the people of another gaming company. They both talk about using very similar processes to publish their products. I only mention that because if Mongoose is really going to release SST:Evo advanced rules at Gen Con this year, they are near their cut off date to debate rule changes. Any change will require testing, then documentation, then editing, then review, and “IF” they are lucky that there are no revisions/change/mistakes caught, then they can ship to a publisher for mass production.
So I guess the only thing to really answer your question is to say, “I can’t answer anything until you calm your hyper ass down and ask a fluid question.”
If Mongoose won’t tell us early how the advanced tunnel rules work and how emplacements will work within the advanced rules, then all of us are just guessing about what will happen.
If that is your concern, then please… rant on. I completely support your right to yell and be upset.
If you really wanted to know how the core rules ‘tunneling’ is balanced with the MI’s ability to use emplacements, then I have to say “that concern” is why everyone is saying that you have to wait for the Advanced Rules… you have to wait because you can’t use emplacements with any of the core unit rules sheets or core unit cards.
Maybe I am just not taking to your communication style and not being fair to you. When you started this thread you presented the following:
To start the process out right, here's the rule from the cards:
Quote:
Tunnelling: This unit may start the game underground, tunnelling in secret towards enemy positions. Write down the exact location where you intend to surface before any models are deployed. At the beginning of every Arachnid turn after the first, roll a dice. On a 5 or more the unit will surface at this point, and may take a single action immediately. You may add a cumulative +1 bonus to this roll for every turn after the second in which you roll.
Here's the question: are M.I. emplacements (walls, bunkers, towers, etc) considered to be models to be deployed?
Here is your answer, you are quoting the core unit card. This is just a basic introduction of the new unit and a basic rule that is unique to that unit.
Then you talk about emplacements. Emplacements are not in the core rules yet. If you want to use Emplacements before the advanced rule book comes out, you offically have to play the first edition rules or make up your own hybrid rules.
When Mongoose releases the Advanced SST:Evo rule book, then players will be able to use emplacments again but in turn, the tunneling rules will somehow change from how they are currently worded on the unit card.
To start the process out right, here's the rule from the cards:
Quote:
Tunnelling: This unit may start the game underground, tunnelling in secret towards enemy positions. Write down the exact location where you intend to surface before any models are deployed. At the beginning of every Arachnid turn after the first, roll a dice. On a 5 or more the unit will surface at this point, and may take a single action immediately. You may add a cumulative +1 bonus to this roll for every turn after the second in which you roll.
Here's the question: are M.I. emplacements (walls, bunkers, towers, etc) considered to be models to be deployed?
Here is your answer, you are quoting the core unit card. This is just a basic introduction of the new unit and a basic rule that is unique to that unit.
Then you talk about emplacements. Emplacements are not in the core rules yet. If you want to use Emplacements before the advanced rule book comes out, you offically have to play the first edition rules or make up your own hybrid rules.
When Mongoose releases the Advanced SST:Evo rule book, then players will be able to use emplacments again but in turn, the tunneling rules will somehow change from how they are currently worded on the unit card.
Ragnarok, I know you are named after the end of the world but seriously take a chill pill. 8)
I know there are some on this forum who take their "advanced" knowledge of the advanced rules and think it gives them a god like power over us lesser mortals and occasionaly this is used like a club on seal pups (as in this thread) generally those play testers don't make sweeping statements and are happy to engage in debate, occasioanly dropping hints and such like.
I really don't know what happened in this thread that got us plebs shouted down the way we where on the 1st page..... but I can say this isn't the norm, all Makaiju (another of us plebs as far as I am aware) has done is repeated some of the things that have come from those really on high (actual MGP staff and not play testers) when certain issues have reached boiling point and they have decided to step in.
I think that tunneling needs to be clarified, but I also understand that MGP aren't going to say what the final rules are months before the book is going to be released and probably not even finalised yet. I would love to have a rational debate about what I and others think of this, and put forward my own suggestions and have them argued over and improved on by the rest of you, but again for some reason this hasn't happened on this thread.
So I suppose I am just saying let it go..... :lol:
I know there are some on this forum who take their "advanced" knowledge of the advanced rules and think it gives them a god like power over us lesser mortals and occasionaly this is used like a club on seal pups (as in this thread) generally those play testers don't make sweeping statements and are happy to engage in debate, occasioanly dropping hints and such like.
I really don't know what happened in this thread that got us plebs shouted down the way we where on the 1st page..... but I can say this isn't the norm, all Makaiju (another of us plebs as far as I am aware) has done is repeated some of the things that have come from those really on high (actual MGP staff and not play testers) when certain issues have reached boiling point and they have decided to step in.
I think that tunneling needs to be clarified, but I also understand that MGP aren't going to say what the final rules are months before the book is going to be released and probably not even finalised yet. I would love to have a rational debate about what I and others think of this, and put forward my own suggestions and have them argued over and improved on by the rest of you, but again for some reason this hasn't happened on this thread.
So I suppose I am just saying let it go..... :lol:
Guys, seriously, stop. Stop taking things so personally.
Tunneling rules don't need to be clarified in regards to emplacements, because in the core rules (pre rulebook) emplacements do not exist.
You can complain about being shouted down, and advanced users "using godlike knowledge to blah blah blah..." but we've covered this issue many times already. Read each post fully and without personal bias or insecurity, ignore the people without useful information and focus on what we are saying.
It really is that simple.
Read the rules as they are right now. There is no mention of emplacements anywhere on any card. There is a form of tunneling, however in the same S&P issue where the SSTE stats are previewed the ad says that the rulebook will contain more tunneling rules. At best, we assume these to be very much like the original arachnid tunneling rules from SST1 they may be simplified somewhat, but the original tunneling rules were great, so I suspect they won't change much.
Tunneling rules don't need to be clarified in regards to emplacements, because in the core rules (pre rulebook) emplacements do not exist.
You can complain about being shouted down, and advanced users "using godlike knowledge to blah blah blah..." but we've covered this issue many times already. Read each post fully and without personal bias or insecurity, ignore the people without useful information and focus on what we are saying.
It really is that simple.
Read the rules as they are right now. There is no mention of emplacements anywhere on any card. There is a form of tunneling, however in the same S&P issue where the SSTE stats are previewed the ad says that the rulebook will contain more tunneling rules. At best, we assume these to be very much like the original arachnid tunneling rules from SST1 they may be simplified somewhat, but the original tunneling rules were great, so I suspect they won't change much.
cordas said:
yep... plebe, right here. No special insight on my part other then and anal retentive need to see people communicate constructively.
I personally put most of the blame of 'why did this get so far off topic' and/or 'shouted down' so fast on poor communication. I don't blame anyone who doesn't speak English as their first language (you know, like us Americans) but even those who can speak the language clearly and eloquently tend to not know how to write. So forum goers have to spend months reading someone's posts to get a feel for what that someone really meant. (Because what they typed is rarely a grammatically accurate picture of what they wanted to say.)
For what you are asking Cordas... maybe if the thread was stated more like "Since we don't know how the rules will work, how do we 'want/hope' the rules will work when SST:Evo Advanced Rules come out in August?" more people would understand that this was just meant as a fun over all topic to debate about. Since the topic was started more with a "Here's my question..." then people aren't looking at it like a debate but a clear cut 'yes/no' answer.
Similar threads
