Barb Wire in an Objective?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: Barb Wire in an Objective?

  1. #1

    Default Barb Wire in an Objective?

    Can you place Barb Wire in an objective?
    This would allow no units to enter the square. If you've placed a flag there, this may be quite ridiculous.

  2. #2

    Default

    No, I don't believe you can. Spirit of the rules at least.

  3. #3

    Default

    Nothing in the rules saying you can't; realistically (hate that word in fantasy games ) I don't see why not, seems a good idea to prevent enemy from recapturing a position. But game-wise, we don't know if the intention was to allow it or not, they might not have even thought of that happening. Has this happened to you or just theorising?

  4. #4

    Default

    It's come up in every game where the card that allows placing Barb Wire has been seen. We've not allowed it due to the brokenness of it but. would like an official eye to look it over.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hithero View Post
    Nothing in the rules saying you can't; realistically (hate that word in fantasy games ) I don't see why not, seems a good idea to prevent enemy from recapturing a position. But game-wise, we don't know if the intention was to allow it or not, they might not have even thought of that happening. Has this happened to you or just theorising?
    As said before: spirit of the rules. I feel like this could be a FAQ update.

  6. #6

    Default

    Seems like it wouldn't come up naturally often, but yea, given that there's currently no way to remove wire from a place where only infantry can go, I'd house rule it a no-go.

  7. #7

    Default

    I don't know about not doing it in the Spirit of the game, can't see the placing of wire breaks that at all. But as it has been brought up an errata would be useful to clear it up.

  8. #8

    Default

    Well all that needs to be done is give some troops access to some wire cutters, I guess, to counteract the strategy.

    Maybe a flag and control can't be held by any side while barbwire exist.

  9. #9
    Brushlicker Bloodhowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Texas
    Posts
    1,599
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skritter View Post
    Well all that needs to be done is give some troops access to some wire cutters...
    But explosives are so much cooler...

    Check out more of my wife's photography at: http://thereasagwinn.com


    Why choose Space Wolves over other chapters?
    ‘They are desperate, and as savage as beasts.’
    Magnus lost his smile.
    ‘I no longer think of them as animals, Ahmuz, though I once did. I now think of them as the purest of us all. Incorruptible. Single-minded. The perfection of my father’s vision.’
    Excerpt from Battle of the Fang



  10. #10

    Default

    If a cavalry, support, tank, or other larger unit could move through a strategic objective, then i'd rule 'Yes' you can place barb wire on an SO - because there would be a balanced mechanic to deal with it.
    If not, then you'd have to create (or Ted would need to create) an official rule for being able to remove it. I like the idea of wire-cutter or explosives being a way infantry could clear the board of unwanted obstacles. Maybe just distill it to a card that allows the removal of one obstacle, like barb wire, tank trap, etc. from the board.



    official ruling needed for sure on this one.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloodhowl View Post
    But explosives are so much cooler...
    Bring up some Bangalores!

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubo View Post
    If a cavalry, support, tank, or other larger unit could move through a strategic objective, then i'd rule 'Yes' you can place barb wire on an SO - because there would be a balanced mechanic to deal with it.
    Although I've not got the actual rule book in front of me, surely its simply a matter of shunting a tank through the objective? SO's count as duckboards not bunkers so no reason they can't do that.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RuneBrush View Post
    Although I've not got the actual rule book in front of me, surely its simply a matter of shunting a tank through the objective? SO's count as duckboards not bunkers so no reason they can't do that.



    Rulebook Page 11


    2. Strategic Objective - Areas of great importance on the battlefield. Only Infantry can move onto these grids and they count as Duckboards. Strategic Objectives are a source of victory points (VPs) in most scenarios. Controlling them can also have additional benefits.
    Last edited by Skritter; 02-19-2014 at 07:40 AM.

  14. #14

    Default

    that solves that then - NO Barbwire on SO's!

  15. #15

    Default

    Yeah! When the rule book says Only Infantry can move onto these grids, we can take that as ONLY INFANTRY. No tanks, No Calvary, No Land Mines, No Barb Wire, ONLY INFANTRY .... and Flags.

  16. #16

    Default

    I think that the ruling we are lookin for is :" no Terrain elements can overlap", or " a grid can contain only one terrain element". Otherwise we can find a grid with a barbed wire and a tank trap on it, creating some issues, also considering the use of 3d terrain elements.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skritter View Post
    Rulebook Page 11

    2. Strategic Objective - Areas of great importance on the battlefield. Only Infantry can move onto these grids and they count as Duckboards. Strategic Objectives are a source of victory points (VPs) in most scenarios. Controlling them can also have additional benefits.
    Cool beans - must be the only place in the rule book where it is then - definitely not on the page where it explains how to capture/control SO's

    Just throwing in a small thing - the words "can move". Terrain elements (mines, barbwire, traps) are "placed" not "moved". However I agree that the ruling should be that terrain elements cannot be stacked (or more appropriately, "a square can only contain a single terrain element"), which means SO's and bunkers cannot "contain" other items. Flags and units are not terrain elements so no problem with those.

  18. #18
    Brushlicker Bloodhowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Texas
    Posts
    1,599
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubo View Post
    IIf not, then you'd have to create (or Ted would need to create) an official rule for being able to remove it.
    OR a new unit like a sapper or combat engineer!!!

    Check out more of my wife's photography at: http://thereasagwinn.com


    Why choose Space Wolves over other chapters?
    ‘They are desperate, and as savage as beasts.’
    Magnus lost his smile.
    ‘I no longer think of them as animals, Ahmuz, though I once did. I now think of them as the purest of us all. Incorruptible. Single-minded. The perfection of my father’s vision.’
    Excerpt from Battle of the Fang



  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloodhowl View Post
    OR a new unit like a sapper or combat engineer!!!
    exactly! i know we've discussed engineers in another thread, but it would be awesome if they could lay & remove terrain elements (including bunkers, turrets, etc.!)

    maybe they would have to roll to make a successful build, and the harder/bigger the build, the fewer dice they can roll. maybe for large structures several successful rolls must be made, like inflicting damage you only get one successful 'build point' for each roll of the die(dice). this way, it may take several turns (or several engineers rolling successful roles) to build a bridge, etc.

    add a buff: precision+1 for each additional engineer in the grid, thereby making it easier to build successfully & swiftly if you have more engineers teamed-up.

    engineers should also be able to repair any mechanized vehicle. much like the medic idea being discussed in another thread, the engineers could 'repair' or 'remove' damage markers with a successful role. this should also be scaled according to the armor class of the unit being repaired. 1 damage marker healed per successful role of the die(dice).

    they could even employ sabotage to enemy mechanized units, at a range of 1, using the opposing unit's armor class to determine die(dice) rolled. successful 'hit' immobilizes that unit for the next combat phase.

    maybe a very easy way to implement this would be to use the 'damage/attack against armor class' stat.
    give an engineer no weapons - no way to defend themselves, but give them a 3/2/1/1/1 'attack' stat.
    - Building: assign armor class values to all the terrain, ie armor class 1:barbwire, 2:minefield & tank trap, 3:bunker, 4:???, 5:???
    - Repair: use the armor class of the unit being repaired.
    - Sabotage: use the armor class of the unit being targeted (range of 1).
    - Demolish: use the same stats established under 'building' to remove terrain elements.
    Last edited by Bubo; 02-19-2014 at 03:50 PM.

  20. #20

    Default

    Don't you think that this game is too fast for a tactics involving building or destrying terrain elements?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->