slimeball Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Do both forces have to have the same 'core' . for example, if I am playing a naval game, can my core be aerial if that's how I want to fight the enemy ships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Safr Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Do both forces have to have the same 'core' . for example, if I am playing a naval game, can my core be aerial if that's how I want to fight the enemy ships? Yes, both players must have same core. So you cant fight with aerial against naval core Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 No they don't. Both players just have to pick a Core force. So you can play an aerial core vs an armoured or naval core if you really wanted. Look at the important note on page 20 of the digital rulebook. Presidente 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Safr Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 No they don't. Both players just have to pick a Core force. So you can play an aerial core vs an armoured or naval core if you really wanted. Look at the important note on page 20 of the digital rulebook. Ye, you’re right, i just saw the rulebook. But no, just have to pick a core force isnt enough, both player must agreed with both core list. So yes, theoretically you can play with naval against aerial, but your opponent must agreed with that. Thamoz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Does anyone actually agree before playing a game whether both players can use certain Core force? I mean seriously?? Do people actually do that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veldrain Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Does anyone actually agree before playing a game whether both players can use certain Core force? I mean seriously?? Do people actually do that?? In your world, evidently not. Our group does have an agreement that mixing Naval and Aerial core is generally not enjoyable for several of the factions. If you really want to run Air Core make sure before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Wow, what a sad world it must be if the unexpected became such a horrible and frightening thing. Yes Aerial Cores aren't particularly great, true. But actually putting it into the rulebook that both players must agree what each player is allowed to bring to the table?? Agreeing to play on a land or sea scape I can understand, but both players having to agree on what core force each is allowed to bring is just wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presidente Posted March 28, 2016 Report Share Posted March 28, 2016 Only thing that gets agreed on generally is use of allies as it can change fleet balance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazduruk_Bugzappa Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 There is nothing stopping you from bringing a different Core "type" to games with your opponent. Just be prepared for one side to be at a distinct disadvantage (eg a French skimmer fleet against an Armoured force) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thyphs Posted March 29, 2016 Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 Does anyone actually agree before playing a game whether both players can use certain Core force? I mean seriously?? Do people actually do that?? Since its actually the rules...yeah..... Lerriano and Sebenko 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 Does anyone actually agree before playing a game whether both players can use certain Core force? I mean seriously?? Do people actually do that?? Yes, usually as part of asking to have a game- want to play some little boats? 1250? Lerriano 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thyphs Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 I think we all know melin is the kind that asks what his opponent is using...say KOB....then writes an air core list to avoid torps.....fun for him....not so for his opponent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 Why would I care what my opponent brings?? That's the point I'm making. What does it matter what your opponent brings to the table? Why should both opponents need to agree what each other can bring to the table? Other than deciding whether to have an armoured game or a naval game I see no point in that particular stipulation being in the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKinstry Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 We usually have agreed on everything prior to a game. Not just core forces but table size, terrain, and often what we want to see in terms of the other guys units, as in "bring a couple of Eagles, we want to see how they do against nation X" or simply "bring a land core for x with y allies, let's see how they do on a desert table." For us, nobody cares terribly about winning or losing as long as we have fun trying different units and tactics and seeing how they interact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazduruk_Bugzappa Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 Why would I care what my opponent brings?? That's the point I'm making. What does it matter what your opponent brings to the table? Why should both opponents need to agree what each other can bring to the table? Other than deciding whether to have an armoured game or a naval game I see no point in that particular stipulation being in the rulebook. Deciding whether to use a land table, or sea table "decides" (even if only indirectly) the fleet core for the majority of forces. If you choose a sea table, you automatically remove the option to take an Armoured force from the game. If you choose a land table, you remove the option (for most nations) to take a Naval force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleones Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 Why would I care what my opponent brings?? That's the point I'm making. What does it matter what your opponent brings to the table? Why should both opponents need to agree what each other can bring to the table? Other than deciding whether to have an armoured game or a naval game I see no point in that particular stipulation being in the rulebook. Always at the very least a gentleman's agreement before the game. Some units are useless in particular circumstances - Doncasters come to mind; those torpedoes are NFG against an opposing air core but tell a different story against a naval force. There's no honor in whipping someone in a game because you brought some toys to the table that their $200 investment and hours of painting weren't very well matched against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayerr77 Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 I think we all know melin is the kind that asks what his opponent is using...say KOB....then writes an air core list to avoid torps.....fun for him....not so for his opponent As merlins main opponent I can honestly say that's wrong lol we decide on a points size and show up with a list and just play lol we both use an interesting variety of lists including naval and air, as well as I use quite alot of allies. Ps he refuses to use his KoB haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thyphs Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 I think its a fair rule to be honest....what you decide between friends is fine....but toutnaments and leagues need that structure in the rules otherwise people would get frustrated and quit playing BasicBob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted March 30, 2016 Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 Deciding whether to use a land table, or sea table "decides" (even if only indirectly) the fleet core for the majority of forces. If you choose a sea table, you automatically remove the option to take an Armoured force from the game. If you choose a land table, you remove the option (for most nations) to take a Naval force. No, what that also does is allow one opponent, or both to disallow the use of either the Armoured or Naval Core units within a land or sea game. So if your opponent was feeling malicious enough he can force you to take an Air Core based list, because he doesn't have to agree to your use of an Armoured or Naval Core based list. Since the rulebook apparently allows this kind of manipulation, your opponent wouldn't be breaking the rules, or the spirit of the game. Hence, why I cant understand why such a stipulation would be in the rulebook in the first place. Aside from picking a Land or Sea game, the type of Core list you bring shouldn't matter. If you wanted to bring an Armoured Core list to a land game, why should your opponent get a say in the matter? If you wanted to bring a Naval Core list in a Land game, again why should your opponent get a say on the matter?? He shouldn't. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oml Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Why would you want to play against someone like that would be my question?!? Just say no thanks and find someone else to play. doubleones and BuckDharma 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thamoz Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 ... ... okaaaaay... ... Lets just remember that we tend to play within the bounds of reality, with people who are more socially competent that a jellyfish caught in a blender... The rules basically say that you and your opponent should agree on a core type for the game. If you can't manage this step then everything that comes after would be an intransigent mess anyway, so you might as well give up right there. You play this game, therefore you have managed to cope with this aspect. Is it worth getting into a fuss about? Literally the only way I can see this causing even more than a seconds thought is going air core against naval or land, in which case you generally would tell your opponent anyway since it would not be an enjoyable experience to field a KoB sub heavy naval core against an aerial core for example. *edit* seems Oml said it a lot more succinctly than I could. Grey Mage and McKinstry 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Its the principle of it that annoys me. It shouldn't be a condition within the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thyphs Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Its the principle of it that annoys me. It shouldn't be a condition within the rulebook. Merlin....your the most baffling serial oddball ive come across on this forum outside of presedente so you dont like a rule that basically says as human beings decide amongst yourselves what forces you should play and bring to the table. Chaos and anarchy reign supreme!!!! odd....very very odd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presidente Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Never met this Presedente fellow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erloas Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I find the general "this shouldn't even be in the rulebook" part odd. It is a given in any table top gaming environment that I've seen that a local group develops their own preferences that aren't stated anywhere in the rules and that is ok. Just the point value normally played is different in every gaming group and that is never explicitly stated in the rulebook, only that you should pick one for both people to use. You could just as easily play 1387 points as your common list, the fact that everyone generally picks 1000/1250/1500/2000 is not stated in the rules anywhere, just that people like round numbers. And no one has a problem with that, but now going the other direction is suddenly some big deal? It is already possible to bring a very air heavy list into a naval core game, as well as bringing a armoured heavy list in an air core game. And of course there is always the HEC, which gets to ignore the core anyway and can always take an air core force. Scenarios are common too, James even wrote a whole bunch of them, and I don't think a single one of them doesn't break/change/ignore some rules in the rulebook (mostly win conditions) and that is perfectly fine and acceptable. Of course you both have to agree to play the same scenario... it isn't like you can show up to the game and say "I built a 1250 point list to play Scenario "salvage base" and I'm going to play that regardless of the fact that you brought a 1000 point list to play Scenario "defend oilfield"." Those are all things you have to decide before you even start. And if you are playing a scenario you are already not playing every rulebook rule as written. There is nothing stopping you from saying we're going to play with one side air core and the other side running naval core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
