Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use

 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: UK
Some interesting points in this thread. Some come down to "That's a gap in the rules — I'm not fixing those because they require new rulings that don't exist in the source".
This one however is a good example of something that IS answered in the source texts, it's just hard to find:
Ginger wrote:
Can the assaulting unit enter the ZoC of a unit from a different formation while in the ZoC of a target unit?

Official FAQ on the 'Zones of Control' passage:
Quote:
Q. If a formation is within an enemy formation’s zone of control can it engage another enemy formation?
A. Yes, so long as it completely leaves the first enemy formation’s zone of control with the charge move.

Compare this with my version (shown here in context, and made bold for emphasis):
Quote:
Leaving enemy zones of control
If you find you have units that are in an enemy zone of control for any other reason then you must do one of the following in your next action with the unit's formation:
*Take an Engage action, and charge the enemy as explained above. You can choose to engage a different enemy formation, but only if your charge move will put all of your units outside the zones of control of the first formation.
*Take an action that allows a move, and leave the enemy zone of control. You need not take the shortest path, but you must move all of your units out of enemy zones of control by the end of your action.

_________________
Eric

EA Rules Revamp: Same Epic Armageddon rules, but easier to use! (Unofficial) https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp Want to help improve it? https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/?bugcatid=24


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: UK
Also, I'm getting close to publishing the first version that I'm happy to make public. I have an introductory page in which I try to explain what I have and have not done. I'll post it here as a preview:
Quote:
About this publication

Origin and intent

This publication aims to make the Epic Armageddon rules texts less confusing and more usable. It is based on the original rules, errata and frequently asked questions (FAQs) by Games Workshop Limited.

In fact, in terms of gameplay, the rules in this publication are the same as the original rules. That is, I have made many changes to the original structure and wording, but my purpose was to make it easier to understand and to use without changing the meaning or intent that underlies each rule.

This publication is entirely unofficial and not endorsed by Games Workshop. But, you should find it more accessible than the original (and long out of print) books or other 'repackaged' versions such as at Net Epic Armageddon (Net EA — http://www.net-armageddon.org. I'm not knocking it, Net EA is a great resource and their HTML version of the original rules was my starting point for this publication since it was easy to import and already included the official errata and FAQs).

I hope my 'revamp' helps you to get more out of this great game, with less confusion. Long live Epic Armageddon!
Eric Weston

Changes I've made

With very few exceptions (that you should find I have annotated), I haven't changed the gameplay in any way. These few exceptions exist because some contradictions and gaps in the source texts are too problematic to ignore and impossible to resolve sensibly without a decision.

Otherwise, if you find yourself thinking that I have changed the meaning of a rule, and thus the gameplay, then it is a genuine mistake I'd like to fix [Comment: Contact details pending.]. Or, there is a fair chance that you missed something in the source texts and were actually 'playing it wrong' — don't feel bad about it, the writing in the source texts is often needlessly hard to decipher and related points are often scattered and hard to find.

What I have done, using technical writing software and techniques, is:

*Rationalised text that was unclear, inconsistent, fragmented, conflicting and ambiguous, to better communicate the underlying meaning and reduce the potential for confusion. I have also integrated many of the FAQs into the main body of the rules (the rest are close to the rules they relate to but out of the main flow of text).

*Reworked the structure to make it easier to use and also more suitable for 'mobile' formats. You should find it much easier to browse and comprehend certain complex passages (such as the Assault Procedure and the rules for aircraft).

*Made titles more self-descriptive and added links between related topics — together, these changes make it easier and faster for you to find and check related rules when you need to.

I have kept the scheme of separate sections for the core rules and for the more advanced rules, as I do think this helps new players to learn in manageable chunks. New players can ignore links between sections at first, while more experienced players can use them to quickly check advanced rules that are less familiar than the core rules they modify or extend.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. But my friends and I have certainly found this project helps a lot with the game, so I'm sharing because you may appreciate it too.

_________________
Eric

EA Rules Revamp: Same Epic Armageddon rules, but easier to use! (Unofficial) https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp Want to help improve it? https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/?bugcatid=24


Last edited by MeBrainBeDrained on Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: UK
Doomkitten wrote:
MeBrainBeDrained wrote:
As for undergoing review processes, as has been mentioned a few times... I can't imagine why I would want to do that. This is just a personal work-in-progress project I'm offering to make available if some people are interested. That's all.
I was very excited by the project, but the last couple responses, and this particular passage, leave me feeling rather cooled. If there's to be any thread of intellectual integrity woven into the work, an independent peer review process should happen before any slip-ups sneak in to the published document.

I welcome the attempt to offer a simplified format to what can be a rather convoluted and ambiguous text, but I'm rather concerned with the tone used in reply to criticism or (often harsh, admittedly) comment, and I'm not entirely sure I trust your rules interpretation any better than my own if you've had even less exposure of different game metas and styles than I have (and I'm the noob around here).

Keep up the work, but I'm hoping someone will robustly oversee the end result so it will become a genuinely universal resource.

Well, you have to start somewhere right? We can all wish for someone else to do this, that or the other, but it all takes work.

This was something I did for my friends and I. Now I'm going to share it with you. If you want this to go through some sort of community peer review, then consider this the first draft and convince me of why I should get excited about joining in with such a process. Or take what I've done as input and start your own community project.

Just keep in mind that you could argue that, while you're going to such an effort, you might as well tap people's experiences to make new rules to fix gaps or evolve the game — and this is a different proposition.

PS - I apologise for my 'tone' in some responses. But I will say that if you'd experienced the farce of outright hostility that unfolded in private messages then you'd have been pretty riled too. I won't be responding to that any more.

_________________
Eric

EA Rules Revamp: Same Epic Armageddon rules, but easier to use! (Unofficial) https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp Want to help improve it? https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/?bugcatid=24


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:43 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Germany/UK
MeBrainBeDrained wrote:
Some interesting points in this thread. Some come down to "That's a gap in the rules — I'm not fixing those because they require new rulings that don't exist in the source".
This one however is a good example of something that IS answered in the source texts, it's just hard to find:
Ginger wrote:
Can the assaulting unit enter the ZoC of a unit from a different formation while in the ZoC of a target unit?

Official FAQ on the 'Zones of Control' passage:
Quote:
Q. If a formation is within an enemy formation’s zone of control can it engage another enemy formation?
A. Yes, so long as it completely leaves the first enemy formation’s zone of control with the charge move.

Compare this with my version (shown here in context, and made bold for emphasis):
Quote:
Leaving enemy zones of control
If you find you have units that are in an enemy zone of control for any other reason then you must do one of the following in your next action with the unit's formation:
*Take an Engage action, and charge the enemy as explained above. You can choose to engage a different enemy formation, but only if your charge move will put all of your units outside the zones of control of the first formation.
*Take an action that allows a move, and leave the enemy zone of control. You need not take the shortest path, but you must move all of your units out of enemy zones of control by the end of your action.


And if the unit is fearless does it have to?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: UK
junkstar wrote:
And if the unit is fearless does it have to?

Again, I'm not making rules here. But off the top of my head, to answer your question as an entirely separate thing, I think the rules already answer this for you through the following logic that already exists:

*Broken units don't HAVE to make a withdrawal (the rules sometimes say you 'must withdraw', but elsewhere they do actually say you don't have to but may be destroyed if you don't). But if they are close to the enemy and they don't withdraw far enough away (15cm) then they are destroyed.
*Fearless units are NOT destroyed in the above situations (with the special exception that if they do withdraw but don't get more than 5cm away then they are destroyed).
*Fearless units obey the same rules for ZoC as everyone else. If Broken then you don't get an action, but at certain points you can choose to make a withdrawal, or not. If not Broken then you get an action and the rules already say that you have to use your action to Engage or else move out of the ZoC.

Nothing new here, just close reading.

_________________
Eric

EA Rules Revamp: Same Epic Armageddon rules, but easier to use! (Unofficial) https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp Want to help improve it? https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/?bugcatid=24


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5465
Location: London, UK
@Junkstar; if a Fearless unit wishes to attack a unit from a different formation then YES, it must first exit any enemy ZoC in which it is located.

@mebrainbedrained; Thanks for the replies and for the effort in general. Please forgive comments about the approach that were made with the intention to assist by illustrating some of the complexities that may not be immediately obvious from merely reading and interpreting the text.

Your reply on ZoCs provides a case in point, as I was not referring to the text you corrected, but rather to the “ZoC from behind” issue where an assaulting unit may encounter the ZoC of a different unit (from a different formation) while moving into CC with it’s target. This has a FAQ, though still caused extensive debate when combined with air assaults. ;)


PM me if I can help out in some way.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: UK
Right, without further ado, here it is:
https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp
For those in favour, I hope you enjoy it and let me know how you get on.
For those not in favour and not won over - well, it didn't cost you anything and you're free to ignore it! ;)

_________________
Eric

EA Rules Revamp: Same Epic Armageddon rules, but easier to use! (Unofficial) https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp Want to help improve it? https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/?bugcatid=24


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:42 am
Posts: 485
Location: Birchip, Australia
Nice work!!!!!!

I'm terrible at rules and reading, I learn more from playing and picking brains.

If there was a like button on here you'd be getting one from me.

_________________
I have 4 laptops in this room and cannot play a pixel pushing tabletop simulator on any of them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:42 pm
Posts: 692
Location: Bundaberg, QLD, Australia
Nicely done... :)

Hoping to get time to go over it, but want I've seen far looks fine..

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: UK
I won't always be able to turn it around so quickly but... I released version 1.0.1 of EA Rules Revamp today, to fix a few small issues. If you looked at v1.0.0 then you may need to refresh your browser cache (CTRL+F5) before you can see the changes: https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp/Content/Frontmatter/WhatsNew.htm

_________________
Eric

EA Rules Revamp: Same Epic Armageddon rules, but easier to use! (Unofficial) https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp Want to help improve it? https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/?bugcatid=24


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
Posts: 1094
Location: Alleroed, Denmark
Nice work!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: UK
Your comments on the Sniper rule:

Quote:
Q. When do we allocate Sniper hits? Should this be 'resolve' rather than 'allocate'? (see next comment)

A. Before or after regular hits whochoose? but before the target player makes saving throws (and thus before allocating Macro-Weapon hits).

Q. Can a Sniper hit be allocated to a unit that has already been allocated a regular hit? Do you really 'allocate' sniper hits when the Sniper player gets to choose a specific unit to target anyway? Doesn't seem make sense.

A. Yes.


Should this be 'resolve' rather than 'allocate'? No it really does mean allocate. The thrust of these FAQs is about the timing of allocation of a mix of sniper hits and regular hits.

whochoose? The rule is explicit by saying that it is the attacker who chooses.

Do you really 'allocate' sniper hits when the Sniper player gets to choose a specific unit to target anyway? Doesn't seem make sense. Yes you do allocate - allocation is the method by which the player exercises their choice. Bear in mind you roll all your hits before allocating them, so as mentioned above if you have a mix of normal and Sniper hits, the order of allocation will affect which units can be hit, and which units suffer the -1. If you choose to allocate the sniper hits first, then you get to maximise the number of units hit whilst choosing which ones will take the -1, but the other hits must be allocated to the other units in range and you can't "double up" on any units that have been allocated a sniper hit until all units have been allocated a hit. On the other hand if you allocate the normal hits first, you can choose to apply your sniper hits to the same unit twice. Let's say for example I get 2 sniper hits and 2 normal vs a formation of 4+ units. I want the front unit to take a single -1 hit, and the third unit to take two hits. To accomplish this I must first allocate one sniper hit to the front unit, then allocate the 2 normal hits, then allocate the second sniper hit to the third unit.

So the FAQs are making it clear that controlling the allocation is OK, but waiting until saves are made to allocate only to surviving units is not OK.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5465
Location: London, UK
Pm sent


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:15 am
Posts: 2582
Location: Australia
well done


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: EA Rules Revamp - same rules, but easier to use
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: UK
Kyrt wrote:
Should this be 'resolve' rather than 'allocate'? No it really does mean allocate. The thrust of these FAQs is about the timing of allocation of a mix of sniper hits and regular hits.
Okay, I'll plan to remove my comment unless my next point unravels it again. I've just realised that actually the next passage includes the words "but before the target player makes saving throws" — which I believe implies the target player will make all non-Macro saving throws, which therefore implies 'allocate' rather than resolve. (You could argue it the other way, but I'm inclined to agree with you and it seems simplest).

Kyrt wrote:
whochoose? The rule is explicit by saying that it is the attacker who chooses.
That's not what I mean. I mean who chooses whether to allocate/resolve the attacker's Sniper hits before or after regular hits? To put it another way, the question asks when to allocate/resolve Sniper hits — we know who, as you say (the attacker). But the answer leaves it open as to who decides when given that there are two options (before or after regular hits?). Tricky wording ain't it?

Kyrt wrote:
Do you really 'allocate' sniper hits when the Sniper player gets to choose a specific unit to target anyway? Doesn't seem make sense. Yes you do allocate - allocation is the method by which the player exercises their choice. Bear in mind you roll all your hits before allocating them, so as mentioned above if you have a mix of normal and Sniper hits, the order of allocation will affect which units can be hit, and which units suffer the -1. If you choose to allocate the sniper hits first, then you get to maximise the number of units hit whilst choosing which ones will take the -1, but the other hits must be allocated to the other units in range and you can't "double up" on any units that have been allocated a sniper hit until all units have been allocated a hit. On the other hand if you allocate the normal hits first, you can choose to apply your sniper hits to the same unit twice. Let's say for example I get 2 sniper hits and 2 normal vs a formation of 4+ units. I want the front unit to take a single -1 hit, and the third unit to take two hits. To accomplish this I must first allocate one sniper hit to the front unit, then allocate the 2 normal hits, then allocate the second sniper hit to the third unit.

So the FAQs are making it clear that controlling the allocation is OK, but waiting until saves are made to allocate only to surviving units is not OK.
This is making my head hurt. :-D As I understand what you've written, you imply that the attacker can't freely choose what to hit "subject to the usual range and line of fire limitations", rather can only choose where to put Sniper hits within the total allocation of non-Macro hits. I mean for example, if the attacker gets zero regular hits and only one Sniper hit then your text seems to imply that this one Sniper hit still has to be against the nearest valid target rather than a juicier target further back. That doesn't seem in the spirit of the rule at all.

Thanks for your input, I do listen and aim to hone things based on feedback and discussion. For future reference though, please consider using my simple tracker https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/ — this will make it much easier to track, review, discuss, and implement changes. Forum threads are rather inefficient for this stuff.

_________________
Eric

EA Rules Revamp: Same Epic Armageddon rules, but easier to use! (Unofficial) https://thehobby.zone/resources/ea-rules-revamp Want to help improve it? https://thehobby.zone/issue-tracker/?bugcatid=24


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net