Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
slimeball

Picking a 'core' force

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :P

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

... 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.