Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Epic UK Rulespack Update

 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1934
Location: South Yorkshire
RugII wrote:

This reads like an accusation that I intentionally misrepresented the rules at two EUK tournaments to gain an unfair advantage?

I was assuming this was not deliberate and, tongue in cheek, pointed to the fact that someone looking to win a tournament wouldn't be gambling with an Executioner! Never mind.

I know you played it as you thought was right but at both events it was ruled to be wrong and because of that the committee made a decision to clarify the rule along with other things that have come up a few times at events.
All to be added to the rules pack, so all players are hopefully playing things the same way and have a default ruling to fall back on if discrepancies occur.

Quote:
Let this be a warning to players not to try any of the more exotic or unusual units at EUK events lest you get it wrong.


Why ? because if a rules query comes up they may have to go with how it is ruled by the tournament organiser.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:41 pm
Posts: 349
Location: London
Can I ask for a bit more info on the charging into ZoC? The rule pack already had

Quote:
Transport Aircraft and Zones of Control
Transport aircraft may not land in an enemy model’s zone of control (ZOC) unless carrying out a ground attack action and specifying an air assault. When carrying out an air assault, aircraft may only land in the ZOC of an enemy unit if it is part of the target formation (or possibly intermingled formations) of the air assault. The aircraft may not land within the ZOC of an enemy unit in any other formations (such as screening scouts whose ZOC may cover the target).


Is the main point of the update to also require that the transported units cannot enter the ZOC of units not in the taget formation (unless they enter a target formation unit ZOC first)?

I think, for clarity, the rule update should reference the FAQ on screening from behind because they contradict each other, no?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:18 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 117
dptdexys wrote:
RugII wrote:

This reads like an accusation that I intentionally misrepresented the rules at two EUK tournaments to gain an unfair advantage?

I was assuming this was not deliberate and, tongue in cheek, pointed to the fact that someone looking to win a tournament wouldn't be gambling with an Executioner! Never mind.

I know you played it as you thought was right but at both events it was ruled to be wrong and because of that the committee made a decision to clarify the rule along with other things that have come up a few times at events.
All to be added to the rules pack, so all players are hopefully playing things the same way and have a default ruling to fall back on if discrepancies occur.

Quote:
Let this be a warning to players not to try any of the more exotic or unusual units at EUK events lest you get it wrong.


Why ? because if a rules query comes up they may have to go with how it is ruled by the tournament organiser.


No, there was no ruling or comment until the final game of the second tournament, even then we (the players) agreed between ourselves how to play on and rolled on aspects. Again, if there'd been a ruling at the first tournament which I'd gone on to ignore it would have been blatant cheating?! I'd appreciate the opportunity to answer a clear accusation, otherwise, just to put it to rest.

Why not use an unusual unit? Because the organiser can't monitor every game, so if you don't get it quite right or your opponent isn't confident, by the time something is flagged as potentially wrong by an official it's massively embarrassing and your credibility is shot. Even then there may be a wait for a rules clarification that can be referred to, so you're finishing a game or tournament in a kind of limbo, it's akin to waiting to see if you get a parking ticket through the post! It's embarrassing, this is embarrassing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:50 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4196
RugII wrote:
dptdexys wrote:
RugII wrote:

This reads like an accusation that I intentionally misrepresented the rules at two EUK tournaments to gain an unfair advantage?

I was assuming this was not deliberate and, tongue in cheek, pointed to the fact that someone looking to win a tournament wouldn't be gambling with an Executioner! Never mind.

I know you played it as you thought was right but at both events it was ruled to be wrong and because of that the committee made a decision to clarify the rule along with other things that have come up a few times at events.
All to be added to the rules pack, so all players are hopefully playing things the same way and have a default ruling to fall back on if discrepancies occur.

Quote:
Let this be a warning to players not to try any of the more exotic or unusual units at EUK events lest you get it wrong.


Why ? because if a rules query comes up they may have to go with how it is ruled by the tournament organiser.


No, there was no ruling or comment until the final game of the second tournament, even then we (the players) agreed between ourselves how to play on and rolled on aspects. Again, if there'd been a ruling at the first tournament which I'd gone on to ignore it would have been blatant cheating?! I'd appreciate the opportunity to answer a clear accusation, otherwise, just to put it to rest.

Why not use an unusual unit? Because the organiser can't monitor every game, so if you don't get it quite right or your opponent isn't confident, by the time something is flagged as potentially wrong by an official it's massively embarrassing and your credibility is shot. Even then there may be a wait for a rules clarification that can be referred to, so you're finishing a game or tournament in a kind of limbo, it's akin to waiting to see if you get a parking ticket through the post! It's embarrassing, this is embarrassing.

Absolute nonsense, I've been to more than 60 tournaments and TOed for the last 7 years and nobody has had to wait more than 5 minutes for a rules ruling at those tournaments.
If unsure about a rule or unit the obvious course is to speak to the TO before or at the start of the tournament. This happens regularily.
This and the other rulespack amendments do not change any rules just provide clear rulings based on the current rules as written

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:11 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 117
I'm not attacking EUK who run excellently managed events, and yes the TO on the day will be at your table within moments if you've a problem and will provide a solution, normally with great confidence, sometimes not but certainly sufficient to finish your game. But they're not walking, talking, perfectly indexed EA rule books, and I don't recall you (Steve) being at Full Scale Assault 2016, or the BHGS club challenge so it's not entirely fair of you to comment when there are people who could clear this up instantly. I'd also like to mention at this point that I didn't play Dave at either tournament and he wasn't the TO at either.

I was confident on how I was playing the Executioner right up until Tim questioned it in the final game of the BHGS.

If there was some complaint about my conduct at either of these tournaments you and Dave are taking your stance from now would be the time to say so, it would be the first I heard of it and would certainly indicated whether there was a ruling back in 2016.

I'm sorry I can't reply to private messages on this board, on pressing send I get an error page.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5006
Location: Bristol
Lets keep this on friendly terms guys!

I've been playing EpicA since it came out and I similarly previously thought the rules worked as Rug did. Mistakes and differing rules interpretations happen but it's clarified now for going forwards.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:16 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4196
RugII wrote:
I'm not attacking EUK who run excellently managed events, and yes the TO on the day will be at your table within moments if you've a problem and will provide a solution, normally with great confidence, sometimes not but certainly sufficient to finish your game. But they're not walking, talking, perfectly indexed EA rule books, and I don't recall you (Steve) being at Full Scale Assault 2016, or the BHGS club challenge so it's not entirely fair of you to comment when there are people who could clear this up instantly. I'd also like to mention at this point that I didn't play Dave at either tournament and he wasn't the TO at either.

I was confident on how I was playing the Executioner right up until Tim questioned it in the final game of the BHGS.

If there was some complaint about my conduct at either of these tournaments you and Dave are taking your stance from now would be the time to say so, it would be the first I heard of it and would certainly indicated whether there was a ruling back in 2016.

I'm sorry I can't reply to private messages on this board, on pressing send I get an error page.

Please show me where I have made any assertion about your conduct in this case.

All I have done is
I )
pointed out that the repeated claim that we are changing a rule or nerfing anything is false. Merely clarifying the existing rukes as it appears there has been confusion.

II)
Disputed the melodramatic statement that any unusual units could now not be used as getting a TO ruling would delay games. Irrelevant whether I was there or not as Dave B (rxperienced TO) and Tim+Dave T were all there.

None of these amendments to the rules pack are rules chsnges. They all clarify how some problematic, unusual or disputed issues are uniformly played in EUK events as a response to queries that players have contacted EUK with. No targets, victims or agendas other than smooth easily run games.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:23 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 117
Tim has messaged me privately, for which I am grateful, but I am unable to respond.

I would welcome DaveB's input, he will be able to confirm that there were no Executioner related complaints or rulings at FSA16 or the BHGS17 until the last game.

I have never claimed rules have been changed so the Executioner has not been nerfed per se, it's just even trickier to use than first thought.

As an orbital dropping, independent WE Support Craft transport, that can carry other WE, with the "hit and run" Eldar special rule, the Executioner is unique. It enables manoeuvres that are unique and pulls together rules from throughout the rule book and updates (like "support craft"), it's potentially confusing, if not for the user then at least for the opponent.

In a timed, competitive game, players may not want to wrestle with the Executioner, it does raise eyebrows, and you will have to explain how it can do what it does on multiple occasions over a weekend. The clarification will help a great deal.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5393
Location: London, UK
dptdexys wrote:
Ginger wrote:
Paraphrasing 3.1.3, it says that the transported troops and the (independent) WE are considered to be a single formation until the end the turn in which the troops disembark (to assault / shoot with the WE).


here is the actual rule from 3.1.3
3.1.3 wrote:
In both cases, the war engine and the transported units are treated as a single formation until the shooting attack or assault has been resolved. The war engine and the formation that disembarked are treated as being separate formations once the war engine has completely resolved its action

so it does not say until the end of the turn


Quote:
If so, it will take the combined DC + current formation size in BMs to break the ‘single formation’, no?

As it is not so then No, it will not take combined DC + the formation in BMs to break as it is clearly not a "single formation" when playing using the rule as it is actually written.

Ok, first, thanks for quoting the actual text, and with apologies for the length of the reply.

This latest version of E:A has been played with WE transports (of both types) for in excess of twenty years. I started playing over 10 years ago, and my first series of discussions with Neal Hunt, 'Sotec' and Greg (the original E:A rules committee) revolved around the use of Thunderhawks and how they might be used to transport formations around the table. (At the time my id was 'Biggles', owing to my interest in WWI aviation ;) ).

My recollection of the discussions, was that this same question arose because the wording of 3.1.3 when an 'independent' WE transport carried a separate formation, was not totally sufficient to cover all cases. Neal Hunt ruled that the two were treated as a single formation until the onboard formation disembarked, and this has been the accepted practice ever since.
Other discussions at the time included whether the onboard formation could use any special abilities during the WE action, the difference between WE transports on-table and off-table, whether an off-table WE could use character special abilities during its action test etc.
However, Neal's ruling caused problems because, when off-table the onboard formation was subsequently required to be separate (I think because onboard leaders being used to remove BMs made air assaults too reliable), but that in turn removed the SC reroll ability.
Sadly, these threads were lost with the old forums, so cannot be presented here. However, some of the intent can be inferred from the original FAQ on special abilities, which specifically refers to characters in "a Transport" (generic) and an onboard formation that is off-table in an air-transport.
Hence the following from here:
Quote:
Q: Can units in a Transport use their special abilities (e.g. Ork Nobz in a Transport use their Leader ability to remove Blast Markers?)
A: Yes. Additionally, Characters or units with Special Abilities in broken formations can also use their abilities. The only time a Special Ability can not be used is when the unit or Character in question is offboard, either in Reserve or in a Spacecraft or Transport waiting to be deployed.

Q: If a formation is offboard (awaiting teleport, in a transport aircraft, etc.) can any special abilities of units in that formation be used?
A: No. Special abilities of offboard units may not be used.

A specific exception is made for abilities used to affect the activation of the formation they are in. For example, an Eldar formation with a Farseer is held offboard in reserve and the Eldar player retains the initiative to activate this formation. Even though the formation is offboard the Eldar player can use the Farsight ability of the Farseer in that formation to negate the penalty for retaining the initiative. Similarly, a Space Marine Supreme Commander may use the Supreme Commander ability to re-roll the command check to activate the formation they are in if it was offboard but could not be used to apply that same re-roll to a formation that was onboard or to another offboard formation


In the intervening years, as far as I am aware we have always followed that accepted practice and played WE transports and the troops they carry as a single formation, and there have been many tens, even hundreds of tournaments in the UK and elsewhere and possibly thousands of games, during which time I am unaware of any complaints or even adverse comments on this situation, either from other players or on this forum (and I have been a reasonably active member, as you are aware).
- Until now.

dptdexys wrote:
THIS IS NOT A RULES CHANGE IT IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE RULE SO EVERYONE PLAYS IT THE SAME WAY. PLAYERS COUNTING TROOPS MOUNTED ON BOARD AN INDEPENDENT WAR ENGINE TRANSPORT ARE CHANGING THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE


I don't know how this discussion came about since I have not been able to get to any UK tournaments due to ongoing health issues and other reasons, but since the game has been played for so long without complaint about 'independent' WE transports and onboard troops being counted as a single formation, with the greatest respect it actually feels like this revised definition of an independent WE is being pushed through to gain an advantage.

- And I insist it is a revised definition -



Having said this, as I said before, the timing of this proposal with the THawk Spam list is too much of a coincidence, despite protests to the contrary.

I can also understand possible reasons why this course of action is being proposed;
- this revised rules definition makes it easier to suppress and break air transports (THawks), thus significantly nerfing the problematic list without actually making any changes to the codex marine list. This change might possibly be sufficient to break the 3k version - the 4K version would be an interesting challenge ;)

However, I insist that the revised definition also causes more problems than it solves because it overrides previously accepted practice whilst potentially raising confusion. In short, it feels to me that it actually introduces gameyness rather than removing it. Worse, it also affects many lists other than the marines, which is obviously very undesirable given the apparent aim to counteract the specific effect of the THawk spam list.

While I applaud the aim of trying to avoid changing the codex marine list, in this case I think that this approach is misguided, both because of the impact on the rules and the game, and also because ultimately I believe the THawk spam list is more detrimental to the game as a whole than this misguided revision.
Recent tournaments have tended towards a form of "scissors, paper, stone", where particular armies are brilliant against some races and crap against others. Yes, skill does play a huge part in the game, ( along with the luck of the dice, or absence in my case ;) ) but increasingly the army match-up is overriding these elements. Witness Richard-L s comments about Necrons and others races facing this THawk list.

My point is that certain lists should be banned or nerfed to avoid skewing the tournament meta, which is broadly agreed to be balanced in the UK. However, since the codex marine list is the archytipal core list, we can neither ban it nor make significant changes to it. So the next best thing is to ban this particular manifestation in some way, see my post here :-


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2312
Location: UK
Well I for one have always regarded these dubious "rulings" as a greater contributor to confusion. I read the original post and thought it made exactly zero changes to the rules. I have always played that units in a separate formation transport can only count towards break point during assault or concluding a shooting action. Because that is what the rules say.

Most of the reactionary questions raised in the topic are answered by reading the rules, as Dave has pointed out, eg formations lose their action once disembarked. I see no uncertainty in how to interpret the rules to be honest. Sure some units may be worse than thought by some, but the resolution to that is surely not found through the rules but the army list.

I also never inferred any accusation of "cheating" or anything remotely like it, so I think it's best just to draw a line under that debate and all be friends again. It is merely a rules clarification, needed presumably because people have been point out that this practice, however "established", is not supported by the rules. If any unit is problematic on this issue surely it is the landing craft, not the executioner, manta or even thunderhawk.

However quite separately from this clarification, IMO the jarringly viable tactic of landing aircraft on objectives is an issue that plagues the marine list. If it were me I would actually remove ATSKNF from both marine aircraft as I think it causes a lot of problems as it is. But that's not going to happen :)

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2312
Location: UK
A question about the zoc movement: if a formation is forced to exit zoc in a specific way, sometimes this rule will be in opposition to the requirement to maintain coherency. Since neither is a "rule" per se, which takes precedence?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Epic UK Rulespack Update
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2312
Location: UK
Also regarding charging into ZoC, do I interpret correctly that the only thing this is clarifying is that "at the same time" does not satisfy the requirement to enter the target formation ZoC first?

I don't see how this is in opposition to the screen from behind rule, can someone explain? If scouts screen from behind then either they are intermingled, or you would enter the screened formations zoc first. Even aircraft would be able to enter it without entering the scout zoc if the scouts are behind - what it can't do is enter if completely surrounded.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


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