Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Erloas

  1. Page 21 in the 2.0 rule book. The new rules it should be section 4, not 3. Page 85. 4. The Core Force Type A Force MUST be Armoured, Naval or Aerial in Core Force Type (often referred to as simply Core Force or Core Type). This refers to the main body of the Force and its likely constituents. This Core Force must make up at least 60% of the overall MFV agreed upon by the players. For example, a Naval Core Force with an MFV of 2000 points may not have more than 800 points of Non-Naval Models included. Certain Models are always treated as Non-Core: Infantry (of any type), Fortifications and Allied Squadrons (see later). In short, HEC doesn't have to keep their core force at 60%. So if the theater is naval they can bring 90% of their list as aerial if they wanted. Which is pretty much required since their only naval units are tiny or fortifications.
  2. Its hard to stay productive and be on the forums. (I should know, I'm here at work...)
  3. Because "if they are not at the same Height Level" is the only time they're going to have different 'To Hit' values. If they are at the same height level then they'll have the same "Basic 'To Hit' Value" so you don't need anything to tell you which to pick. If they are both Deep Diving then your 'To Hit' value is RED (6) and RED (6), so you don't need anything to decide which one to use. But if one is at Obscured and one is at Stratospheric then you have "Basic 'To Hit' Values" of "5 or RED (6)" and "RED (6)" so you have to have some way of deciding which to use, which is the point of the second sentence.
  4. I do understand where you are coming from, I can see where it is an easy thing to miss. It could be more clearly stated for sure. The only problem with your interpretation is that you're using the first clause of second sentence to modify the first sentence, rather than as a clause of its own sentence. If it said: "If they are not at the same Height Level,The Basic ‘To Hit’ value depends on the Height Level the Target or Firer is occupying." Then I would agree with you. Or if it said " The Basic ‘To Hit’ value depends on the Height Level the Target or Firer is occupying, if they are not at the same Height Level." Then I would also agree with you, notice the period changed to a comma. But the way it is written you take the first sentence by itself to determine the "basic 'to hit' value" and then you move on to the second sentence. The second sentence starts with a qualifier to say that if they are at different levels, and therefor have different "basic 'to hit' value" the step(s) you need to take to determine which of them to use, in this case the one most beneficial to the target. Page 67 doesn't help clear anything up, but that is because it is keep very generic because 'to hit' is used in a lot of different circumstances in the game. In the case of firing weapons, the section on page 127 is the "Unless otherwise stated," qualifier used in that section. I actually think that a simple change in formatting/order would have made this clearer. Just separating the two sentences so they aren't read together and make it clear the second qualifying statement, is only done after the first sentence is finished. such as: 2a: Determine the Basic ‘To Hit’ Value The Basic ‘To Hit’ value depends on the Height Level the Target or Firer is occupying. BASIC ‘TO HIT’ VALUES Stratospheric RED (6) Obscured 5 or RED (6) Surface or Flying 4, 5 or RED (6) Submerged 5 or RED (6) Deep Diving RED (6) If the Basic ‘To Hit’ values are different, use whichever ‘To Hit’ value is most beneficial for the Target. If you want, I know an actual lawyer friend I could have look over it Of course @Spartan Mike could just give us the "word of god" which would overwrite anything else, in the case that RAW was just written wrong.
  5. I'm not sure how else to put it, but it is right there. If either the firer or the target are in stratospheric you need RED (6) to hit. That is what the first sentence says when you combine it with the table. The second sentence is only applied if they are at different heights, and it is there to decide which number to use in the case of them being different. The first sentence says nothing about the height level difference, it doesn't say to use one "basic 'to hit' value" over another if your at the same height or different. It says if either are in Stratospheric the "basic 'to hit' value" is RED (6), that's it. The fact that both are in Stratospheric just means you're choosing between RED (6) for the Target and RED (6) for the Fire so there is no choice to be made.
  6. Without knowing what you ordered it is hard to say. But at this point all models should be included (unless you got the custom model) and the main rulebooks. The campaign books and nation guides are still being written. And I'm not sure what the situation on the busts is, so they might not be there.
  7. I see how it would be an easy mistake to make, but the numbers are the same if their in the same height band or different. 2a: Determine the Basic ‘To Hit’ Value The Basic ‘To Hit’ value depends on the Height Level the Target or Firer is occupying. If they are not at the same Height Level, use whichever ‘To Hit’ value is most beneficial for the Target. BASIC ‘TO HIT’ VALUES Stratospheric RED (6) Obscured 5 or RED (6) Surface or Flying 4, 5 or RED (6) Submerged 5 or RED (6) Deep Diving RED (6) The two parts have to be applied in the specific order they are listed. Say the Target is at surface and the Firer is at Stratospheric, you take the two "Basic 'To Hit' Values" of "4, 5, RED (6)" and "RED (6)". Clearly they aren't the same, so you have to pick which one to use, sentence two, so you pick the one that is most beneficial to the target, "RED (6)". If they are both at Obscured you take the two "Basic 'To Hit' Values", "5 or RED (6)" and "5 or RED (6)," there is no difference so there is no choice to be made, it is "5 or RED (6)." Because if you are at Stratospheric the "BASIC ‘TO HIT’ VALUE" is "RED (6)," it is not a negative modifier based on difference, it is the basic value for being at that level.
  8. Imagine that, having to choose between two different things and that the "one with the highest numbers" isn't always best in every situation. Its like they're trying to balancing things and give every option pros and cons.
  9. You can only replenish to the starting size of the SAS tray, but once its hit the scrapyard it looses that "memory" and you can build a new one at whatever size the carrier puts out. The Replenish rules specifically state that (pg 188): Casualties amongst SAWs are inevitable and are often numerous! All Carriers have the ability to execute a Replenish Carrier Action, which will see Carrier Model spend a variable amount of Carrier Points Replenishing a Squadron. This costs 1 Point from the Carrier Value per SAW replaced and may not take the SAS above its Initial Deployed Strength. The rebuild rules on page 189 have no such restrictions and no mention of the initial size of the SAS: The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it. And the part about the dice on page 183 only mentions Replenishment Actions: Each SAS is deployed with a die in its Tray that denotes its starting Squadron Size, which is referred to as its Deployed Strength. This does not change in-game and is important for determining how large the Squadron can be when benefiting from a Replenishment Action. It is also true, as you've stated, that the dice is to indicate the type of SAS, but we know that it is possible to change the type of SAS with a carrier action or when the SAS is being rebuilt. So the SAS dice is a very handy way of keeping track of information but it is far from a "fixed and never changing" record.
  10. I'm not seeing the CoA matching that firepower very easily, at least not in RB4. Neither would the FSA, as even the Enterprise only gets AD12 in RB4 if it can line you up on a side where they can get all 3 turrets to bear. EotBS is a very real threat at RB4 with rockets, but the Mandjet has pretty good AA. Now the numbers change pretty drastically at RB3 as there is a pretty big jump in the RB3 firepower of almost every nation. So yeah, RoE either wants to stay in RB4 or move to RB2. But with the Mandjet having 360 on the Eye of Ra that's going to help a lot to allow them to keep range if they want it. I don't think they can win a game staying entirely in RB4 but I think they've got enough threat there to discourage anyone from staying there either. So they should be able to dictate the engagement a fair amount.
  11. I'm not sure about that, there isn't much that can match the Eye of Ra in RB4, I think a long range brawl would be hard for most enemies to win. As such I don't see a need for Egypt to rush forward. To me I think I would start by handing back and using the Eye to force the enemy to close and holding back the smalls and mediums for a classic pincer. While it seems almost too obvious for someone to fall for, I think there are too many nations that wouldn't have a lot of other choices because RoE can put out a solid amount of AD in RB4 and 3.
  12. I guess that brings up an interesting fluff discussion about the drones. Are the drones like how we use the term today, a remotely controlled airplane, or is it more like the traditional "borg" style of AI, where they can think for themselves a bit but can't do much without having a more powerful "computer" to connect to?
  13. Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure how Inventive Scientists come into this? Only place I see Inventive Scientists roll possibly having to do with fires would be with a fury generator, and the most you can get there is 3, no (red) 6 involved in the fury generator nor inventive scientists. I don't see any other generators that could cause fires.
  14. If they wanted it to use a different mechanic than every other set of roles in the game then they would have stated that. They decided to use (red) 6 for a reason, you can't just go ignoring one of the key aspects of (red) 6 just because you don't like it in this one case.
  15. The "only one raging fire marker" would only make sense if raging fire was a binary yes/no, but it is clear from the many other effects that give ranging fire markers that they are intended to be stacked. Fury Generator = multiple raging fire markers, Raging Fire critical hit = multiple raging fire markers, flamethrower weapons = multiple raging fire markers (explicitly states on the 3rd bullet point, page 134). The only place where multiple isn't stated is Incendiary Munitions, which says place one Raging Fire Marker on the target if you beat the DR. So to go back and say that it doesn't make sense for the Fuel Reserves MAR to apply multiple Raging Fire Markers is ignoring the exploding dice mechanic and every other instance of Raging Fire.
  16. I would say for each "success" put a raging fire token. If they didn't want it that way they would have just used a black 6, which is commonly used in other places. The fact that the exploding dice mechanic is very well covered and thoroughly used throughout the book means they don't have to define it in every MAR and other places they use it. If they wanted to be explicit they would say: "If this Model suffers a Critical Hit roll 1D6. On a 5 or (RED) 6 place a Raging Fire Marker on the Model for each success as determined by the Exploding Dice mechanic." But that is being redundant because they've already clearly defined that (RED) 6 means that you use the exploding dice mechanic, which leads to more than a single possible success.
  17. @Jsiegel1983 having just checked, not knowing the Forbes specifically, it actually does not have the strategic value MAR. First time I've seen that too. Although it doesn't actually have any carrier points unless you buy the upgrade. Page 188 says: A Carrier (or Drone Launcher) may only perform Carrier Actions with SAS from their own Nation unless a specific MAR or scenario condition applies. And there is nothing in the allies section even kind of implying that an ally would be treated as the base nation. I also don't see the "Mercenary Combined Forces" option any more, nor anything about close allies, so they would be treated like all other allies. So by default the stipulation on page 188 has to be enforced, that would be the only reason for it anyway, as by default there is no other way than allies to have models from different nations (the multi-player games section has been removed as well).
  18. I believe they said they were at the page count limit before there would have been a big change in the book production. So they took out a few things like that. I'm sure there will be reference sheets made soon enough, and the internet is a better place for them than the book anyway. But as is clear, there are a lot of things that need to be done and a limited number of people that can do them, so not everything can be a top priority. And I'm find with a reference sheet being one of those things because even if they made one the fans would be making their own. I think there are a few reference sheets around the forums already, I know there is at least change-logs between the previous rules and the new ones.
  19. They pretty much have to do it the way they are, release existing ORBATs with just enough changes to fit the new rules, and then go back and do extensive rework and balancing to the rules later. It is all about managing expectations and how people act about changes. If you give them something new or more powerful, if even for a short period of time, and then take it away because it was too powerful, then they'll cry nerf and you'll never hear the end of it. If they put out "playtesting ORBATs" without already having the "baseline ORBATs" out then those playtesting ORBATs will become the de facto 2.5 ORBATs and that will be what people expect. So if they've done a new generator that was just too powerful in combination, and they had to take it out or change it drastically, then everyone that liked that generator would complain. Anyone coming to the game for the first time, or coming back from a long break, and only see the playtesting ORBATs, well then they are going to have to be the baseline ORBATs for them, so if they're changing constantly or the power across them is still very inconsistent, then that will be their impression of the game. There are also a lot of people, especially new people, that don't want to playtest and aren't ever going to give feedback, so a "less interesting but more stable" set of ORBATs is going to be best for them. Did GW start doing FAQ/Errata again? Last I played they basically refused to release anything like that even when there were blatant errors. I'm all for FAQ and Errata because they are important to a game like this. Especially when you've got players with many different language backgrounds so the use of language can be even muddier. Editing is a huge amount of work and it is really easy for a small team to simply not have the resources to do as thorough of a job as possible. One big problem is that they probably don't have anyone on the team that isn't already very familiar with the rules and how to play. It is very easy to read over and miss mistakes because the missing word(s) are automatically filled in by your head because you know what it is supposed to say rather than what it actually says. Then there are also people actively looking for "loopholes" to try to exploit. Even teams of lawyers can't get rid of all of those. So you need a way to address those things when they come up, and reprinting a book is not a practical option (unless you sell school text books and can force everyone to buy your new copy every year).
  20. Page 73. Stratospheric Height Level – This Height Level is as close to the edge of the Earth’s upper atmosphere as it is possible to get! Models may never deploy at this Height Level unless otherwise stated in their Profile. In addition, no Small Aircraft Squadrons (SAS), Small Models or Tiny Models may ever occupy this Height Level as it requires specially adapted propulsion systems to operate this high up. and page 74: Deep Diving – This Height Level is as deep in the ocean as it is possible to get! Models may never deploy at this Height Level unless otherwise stated in their Profile. In addition, no Small or Tiny Models may ever occupy this Height Level as they would be crushed under the extreme pressures that such depths create! That is now the only restriction to entering those height bands. So any medium or larger ship can go Stratospheric or Deep Diving if they can fly or dive respectively.
  21. While logically it would make sense that SAS have to actually get to the carrier to rearm on it, there isn't actually anything in the rulebook stating such. There are no height restrictions on carrier actions. And if that were the case you wouldn't be able to do SAS at Obscured either, because SAS can't enter Obscured, but that was common in 2.0 before most carriers could enter stratospheric.
  22. Click on the link in Varnos's signature, it will take you to the google docs drive where the various nations are stored. All of the files are saved in a .zip file for each nation, open that and it has .png (image) files for each unit. Just print those like you would any other picture.
  23. I actually think the intention was to allow submerged to submerged boarding, but they didn't really write it that way. They seem to expand their statement, and increase restrictiveness, in areas where it isn't intended and leave vague places where more is needed. Assuming all other Boarding conditions are met, this Model MAY initiate an Aggressive Boarding Action against a Model occupying the Submerged Height Level. Equally a Model with this MAR occupying the Submerged Height Level may initiate an Aggressive Boarding Action... At this point we have two choices: Either end it right there, which would allow a submerged model to board another submerged or a surface model, based on both parts being taken together. They couldn't board a flying model even at normal flying height because that would be 2 range bands and not meet the base boarding conditions. Or finish is the way they did: "against a Model occupying the Surface Height Band." in which case they limit boarding from submerged to just be against surface models because it gives one explicit example of what can be boarded when being submerged. Of course if that were the intention Equally should be replaced with some like Or. These are all cases of "proofreaders being too close to the source." They read what they think it says rather than what it actually says because they've read it so many times they've internalized it rather than looking at it fresh.
  24. Prizing does, clearing a prized ship from the enemy just takes the VP away from them, rather than giving you any. I think some people missed what you were asking though, the "add all the points up" part is pretty straight forward, it is the other things like strategic value and prizing that are mixed throughout the rules. Of course scenario specific VP has to be in the scenario itself rather than any overall table.
  25. With the most common games seeming to be in the 1000-1250 range that is only two local air support units, which is at most two units with CAP.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.