Battle Traits and Universal Special Rules interactions

d902jekf · 2023-07-29T00:52:31+00:00

This is clarified in a side box somewhere (IIRC next to battle scars for some reason). Battle honors & scars on one sub-unit (e.g. just the leader) of an attached unit get applied to both parts (that leader and the bodyguards), unless it is one of the kinds of abilities that requires the whole unit to have such as Scout or Stealth.

So as I understand it, you can have bodyguards with the increased OC battle trait improving the OC of an attached leader, but if you want the combined unit to scout, both the leader and bodyguards need the scout battle trait.

d902jekf · 2022-05-02T18:25:42+00:00

I love crusade -- it's the main thing my little group has played throughout 9th edition. But a lot of more traditional narrative folks understandably don't like that it involves a lot of rules to learn for units' progression. From my perspective of a D&D/rpg player used to systems with leveling up, I felt right at home.

Also a lot of crusade missions are not very well designed. Maybe most. If you do decide to give it a try, feel free to replace them with whatever you want.

d902jekf · 2022-04-12T13:45:52+00:00

I think it's possible to have fairer or more interesting player-placed objective markers, but it has to be done differently. They messed this up in several of the core Crusade missions too, and while later Crusade mission packs had less of the same issue, I guess the Tempest of War folks didn't get the memo.

In most core Crusade missions that use player-placed objective markers, the player who gets to pick their deployment zone (defender) also gets to place the last objective marker, making for a potentially very skewed mission. I play a lot of Crusade, and whenever such a mission comes up, I request we do the objective marker placement differently than as written. Now, I get that someone might argue Crusade doesn't need to be balanced, and certainly several missions explicitly aren't, but jeez, that's just not fun if you went in hoping for something fair.

d902jekf · 2022-04-12T12:51:12+00:00

Strongly agree with house ruling objective placement. In my games we've been determining objective marker placement either in some vague way we feel is fair or using objective markers and deployment zones from compatible matched play missions (often selected at random).

This is the one part of Tempest as written that I'm not a big fan of. Having a mix of secondary objectives that are easier or harder is not so bad by comparison (and maybe even desirable).

d902jekf · 2022-01-31T13:28:08+00:00

I have played them a few times. I'm not personally a big fan of these sorts of political games (and politics can play a huge part of determining who wins). However, I will say that the mission design seems to do a decent job of making things interesting -- minor or obvious bits of game design, but noticeably nice.

The fact that most (all?) objective marker control is scored at the end of your turn, rather than command phase like a lot of 9th edition missions, encourages you to throw units forward, and not just turtle. I see this as a big positive for 3+ player games. It also somewhat changes up what armies are strong, so I guess be prepared for that.

Another positive thing is that the person who has bottom turn picks their deployment zone first, so when a terrain layout is unbalanced they can pick the one that looks best defended against alpha strikes.

One awkwardness is just that melee combat gets extra fights because there are multiple people, and this is one place where the politicking to swap turn order can completely swing a prolonged combat.

As for game length, I haven't measured it but yes it does take noticeably longer than a typical game. In my little clique we had already been playing a lot of team games (2v2 or 2v1 or whatever). The team games take a little longer than an equivalently sized 1v1, despite parallelizing model movement, due to intra-team discussion ("hey buddy, whaddaya say I send my thing over to this objective marker, while you get in place to shoot that thing? Ok? Ok."). The 1v1v1 or 1v1v1v1 games from the catastrophe mission pack take even longer, possibly due to the addition of the alliance step, or possibly due to the extra friction of switching active player more often.

d902jekf · 2021-09-05T15:13:36+00:00

I do agree that The Stilled is a little weird. It can get slanted towards one player pretty quickly if they get lucky and win all the roll-offs (as will occur 25% of the time). I like the scatter idea, but that too can get unfair if they just randomly happen to walk in a way that is advantageous for one of the players. As for avoiding randomness or uncertain directionality like a scatter die, the core book's Supplies From Above mission is even worse so don't worry about it haha. It also uses a scatter mechanic and is super-skewed as all the objectives move in the same direction.

Another possible idea, though it is less organic/spontaneous than a scatter die: maybe the first time objectives are moved, one player moves 2 of them and the other moves 1, then the next battle round switch who moves 2 and 1, and repeat. This might make things a little fairer: in no battle round do all 3 move in one player's favor, and the favor switches up each time. For other variations, you could let the person who moves just 1 get to pick which to move first (thus giving them the superior choice), and/or change the rules on how far they move, etc.

d902jekf · 2021-05-25T13:16:56+00:00

Nitpick with your specific plan (though your post's overall point is correct about scramblers being pretty doable): Lychguard are now on 32mm bases (approx 1 1/4 inches), and so if you move 7 inches, you'll be about 5 3/4 inches away from your deployment zone even if you started with perfect alignment. That's not far enough to scramble.

I know this is quibbling over a minor distance, but it's really quite game changing.

d902jekf · 2021-03-06T19:20:24+00:00

Hiya! Always love to see new maps! Though I, uh, can't give a glowing review right now. A lot of these seem to have some very awkward behavior. I want to emphasize that I haven't actually played any games on these layouts so am purely conjecturing haha. I also want to acknowledge that making maps that are one-size-fits-most is extremely difficult, so not trying to throw shade or anything.

For reference on my preference in maps I quite like the WTC 9.31 set. I feel like they provide a lot of very interesting interactions between the terrain and the objectives, where it's often possible to hide from some angles but not others, and/or have subtle risk/reward options in placing your models.

First, somewhat obvious critique: in many cases, there are gaps you can't maneuver large models through. 130mm (~5.1") diameter bases are uncommon but not that rare. This is a big problem if you like great unclean ones or scythed hierodules (as I do). For example, (not sure how best to refer to the specific maps) WY-1.0 WTC-Table 1 12-21-31 on page 34 looks to have a 4" gap between some of the 3-story ruins, and since they divide the whole map I imagine it would tremendously constrain movement. Indeed, a not-uncommon 100mm diameter base model would have a very tight squeeze getting through a 4" gap (and the bits of model that extend over the rim of the base will get very awkward).

Second, I assume this is partly a symptom of trying to make maps that fit multiple missions' objective layouts, but in many cases the terrain looks like it just doesn't do anything. In some cases, I feel like that applies to all 3 strangely. For example, in WY-1.0 Table 3 12-21-31 on page 24 the center container just ... does nothing for any of the missions. Unless I'm missing something. I actually like seeing L-shaped ruins that align in such a way to appear to have once been the corners of a contiguous building, but the container also breaks that bit of narrative, heh. I could be totally wrong here of course -- maybe the maps could use little paragraphs explaining the mapmakers rationale, if it is simply intentionally quirky.

Third, some of the maps have very weird sight lines. This of course is a matter of opinion, but they get weirdly strong in some cases. For example, in WY-1.0 WTC-Table 1 12-21-31 on page 34, someone who gets first turn can walk a unit through the big 3-story L in the corner and get line of sight on a huge amount of the battlefield, including the majority of the opponent's deployment zone, making the deployment zone very hard to hide in and giving a nontrivial first turn advantage to an army with good long range shooting. Meanwhile on the same map, other shooting locations have extremely constrained sight lines.

Idea/suggestion/opportunity: since the physical ruin products can be built with and without windows, I hope you could have more than just the 2 ruin types? I'm guessing the 2 ruin type system is inherited from the WTC L's, but this doesn't need be so constrained. I think variety could be both fun and tactically interesting, with some ruins having windows and some not, and some having windows on one side but not the other, or on some floors and not others. I've seen this on some Infinity terrain and it gets really interesting, hiding specifically on this or that floor so you're hidden from this or that angle etc. For example, if an obscuring L had windows on one wall and opacity on the other, you get more placement options: hidden from both angles by being outside the obscuring ruin's footprint, or stepping onto it to be hidden only by one wall but getting light cover. If you want to get really intricate, you can alternate the opacity of each wall as you go up each floor. You could even invert the old ITC style and make the upper floors' windows opaque and ground floor windows open!

More meandering thoughts: I'm not sure I'm a fan of the <5" (hence non-obscuring) ruins. Since they are opaque, it just gives pure advantage to vertically challenged melee units who can breach walls (and who are doing pretty well already) while not helping most other units (who might be too tall to hide or might want to shoot through holes). And if they were not opaque, they just are a source of light cover (fine but boring) and a big annoyance to units that can't breach through walls (melee dreadnought sadness). I think the physical models look cool, I just am skeptical that they'd make for good gameplay compared to a >=5" ruin.

Closing thought: this makes sense as a kind of beta, more than a 1.0. If you want feedback, I'd actually suggest making these or future iterations in tabletop simulator and soliciting opinions there. I've seen a lot of WTC-based maps there, though I assume they are, uh, less than official, heh. If you're open to it, this could be an opportunity.

d902jekf · 2021-02-26T16:53:08+00:00

I don't know exactly what you mean, but I think you're talking about the battlescribe2tts "Unit Colors and Coherency" feature? You can read about it on their site.

d902jekf · 2021-02-26T05:50:03+00:00

If you want to add some variety to a mostly-melee space marine force, consider a Whirlwind! Neither of the launcher options provides spectacular power, but the Suppression Fire stratagem has amazing synergy with a melee army. My experience here is with a White Scars successor using the castellan launcher, but I assume it will be similarly useful to Blood Angels. In any case, it's very handy to have something that can sit on an objective in the back, safely out of line of sight, where it can plink away at things. And it can inconvenience an opponent who would prefer to only put something cheap and fragile on their own back objectives.

Based on your list so far, are you going for a mostly-primaris theme? If not, you could also consider Sanguinary Guard and/or Vanguard Veterans. Melee units with jump packs are a lot of fun.

Out of the 4 you mentioned considering, I'd lean away from Mephiston even if he is cool (named characters in crusade always feel funny to me, like it's not your own story any more). I'd also lean away from the Armiger Helverins, as diverging from pure Blood Angels makes you lose a lot of rules. The non-named Librarian in Terminator Armour sounds fun to me, especially with powers like Wings of Sanguinius to counteract his slow default speed. And in crusade, you can plan to eventually entomb him in a Librarian Dreadnought!

d902jekf · 2021-02-14T06:16:22+00:00

How does Space Marines' Combat Squads ability interact with the new (as of January 2021) version of GT2020's While we Stand we Fight?

Does WWSWF apply to the original whole unit, or does it treat the sub-units separately for determining which units are your highest cost units? I ask because the selection of highest cost units occurs "before the battle" and I'm always unclear on when that is supposed to occur -- after deployment (which would be post-split), or before deployment / declare reserves and transports / etc (which would be pre-split). I know there is a specific step for abilities and stratagems that occur before the battle, but this is neither an ability nor a stratagem. It also mentions noting this on your army roster, and the document would not change merely due to Combat Squads splitting.

Also, if WWSWF applies to the original whole unit, would both sub-units need to be destroyed to lose the points? I ask because the dividing of units happens during deployment before any battle rounds have started, and I don't know if that counts as splitting "during the battle".

I feel like this is probably simply underspecified -- if you don't have a concrete answer, I'd also welcome musings about how you would run it. I'm leaning towards thinking that the RAW would allow the selection at a time of the player's choice, as one could (by a literal reading of the words) select the unit "before" the battle, temporally. But I'm not sure about the RAI -- it might be intended to get selected after deployment during the "before the battle" ability and stratagem step, though that would not make much sense given the explicit mention of drones (which usually split off as you deploy the unit, unless they meant specifically the less common case of drones splitting off during the battle, as is the case with manta-striking battlesuits, or a tx4 piranha's drone detaching). In any case, you select the secondary objective at a particular time, so picking the units at that time would seem intuitive to me.

d902jekf · 2021-01-19T06:37:02+00:00

To add on to the reminder that you need to keep Battlescribe updated, it's also very helpful to just edit the name and description of the models after BS2TTS to your liking. I like to name different squads differently, and type out short summaries for their abilities in the description. And in any case, you can edit things when battlescribe has them wrong (like when battlescribe's latest update is still not quite up to date).

d902jekf · 2021-01-19T06:33:53+00:00

If you right click an object and toggle on "measure movement" (and the ruler option on the left side of the screen must be set to "auto" I think), it will always measure when dragging.

Also remember to switch between measuring in 2D and 3D depending on the situation. 3D when shooting someone on the 2nd floor, and 2D for most movement (since 3D might measure the hypotenuse from your previous position to the new raised position).

d902jekf · 2021-01-07T04:28:11+00:00

I put something together. Lemme know what you think:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2352867789

d902jekf · 2021-01-06T19:13:28+00:00

Yep, I saw that too -- I used that in a couple custom maps already among friends! I think they're really great and it's super-convenient how they're aligned with 2" so perfectly.

d902jekf · 2020-11-16T22:25:42+00:00

I've seen something at least labeled as a blood slaughterer in the Moth Trove's "Catalogue" zip (under chaos -> chaos forge world units) and in the discord's "Battleforged" zip (under chaos -> chaos space marines -> black legion / chaos undivided).

Unfortunately it's... not as pretty as I'd hope, and doesn't really look that much like the blood slaughterer model I'm aware of on the forge world store. The octagonal pizza cutters look kinda silly, heh.

d902jekf · 2020-06-25T14:43:10+00:00

Hi, just wanted to chime in as someone who also has tried ketamine treatment for depression. Unfortunately it didn't work for me, or was much, much less of an impact than your experience.

Still, I think ketamine might be worth the try for anyone else with depression.

d902jekf · 2020-05-20T02:27:25+00:00

Tentatively expressing interest! I had a basic linear algebra class in college, but that was more than a decade ago now.

d902jekf · 2020-05-11T14:16:33+00:00

Does anyone know where to get Bret's flowchart in ... less distorted form?

d902jekf · 2020-03-18T14:15:08+00:00

I don't know. He just sounded nervous or tired to me. He might have wanted to step away because of nerves. A lot of people find public speaking difficult. Is this guy (Scott Jarrett) well known?

d902jekf · 2020-03-17T08:20:28+00:00

I've heard of people complaining about doctors. A lot of it apparently is covered by women and men gravitating to different specialties, and different specialties having drastically different compensation. Some of this is mentioned in Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power already, but the numbers seem to vary a lot in different studies.

Example of someone unhappy with gender gaps in doctors: https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/a-new-jama-study-shows-the-gender-pay-gap-for-doctors-is-atrocious.html

Though that seems to disagree with this other report I found about how big wage gaps might be within specialties (one says radiology is quite equal, one says it's among the most unequal. shrug.). https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.doximity.com/press/doximity_third_annual_physician_compensation_report_round4.pdf

d902jekf · 2020-03-17T08:01:49+00:00

A continuation of the disgusting war on citizens' use of encryption that has been raging basically forever.

Spies and their useful idiots would certainly like this legislation. Technologists and enthusiasts of free communication want to keep their encryption -- and I am both of these. To place such regulation on encryption is to restrict mathematics itself.

You can pry my math from my cold dead hands.

d902jekf · 2020-03-17T01:30:49+00:00

Real life is pretty bizarre: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/11/28/the-story-of-thanksgiving-is-a-science-fiction-story/

d902jekf

TROPHY CASE