Question about Parman - Page 2
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 127

Thread: Question about Parman

  1. #21

    Default

    Crazyjuan, that's more like 5cents worth but easily worth a dollar!

    It would be a shame to lose Gaston's extended range and defensive skills by preventing him from attack an empty grid.

    This seems like a good solution which requies a small change to the existing rule.

    As it stands Parman can be used to push the front line forward 3grids and with doubling could move that to 6grids. Regardless of balance in units fighting it means map designs need to take this into account when considering time to capture SOs ( and 6grids is a lot to compensate for).
    Rivet Wars Scenario Editor - http://www.tehill.net/RivetWars

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Decar View Post
    Crazyjuan, that's more like 5cents worth but easily worth a dollar!

    It would be a shame to lose Gaston's extended range and defensive skills by preventing him from attack an empty grid.

    This seems like a good solution which requies a small change to the existing rule.

    As it stands Parman can be used to push the front line forward 3grids and with doubling could move that to 6grids. Regardless of balance in units fighting it means map designs need to take this into account when considering time to capture SOs ( and 6grids is a lot to compensate for).
    Thinking about it now I think Let's see some hustle action card doesn't specify how much rapid assault the unit gets. So I think we've always had that card be the units regular movement. But my memory is terrible and I can't be arsed to go look because I'm in bed because I should be sleeping, but I wanted to get my case to not have RA require an attack out there. Anyway if that's so it's good precedent for that mechanic.

    You hit it about the SOs, Parmans ability is most effective when he can spring riflemen to an SO every deployment that's got one or more SOs within "runner" distance of it.

  3. #23

    Default

    Your 2 cents helped me to focus the issue, Crazyjuan.
    Do we want to normally allow a unit to attack an empty grid? Please consider cards like Charge! (ATTACK with 3 cavalry unit this turn: 1 VP) or any similar future cards.
    But I agree that there must be some special attacks (like Gas or maybe a future mine-layer attack) that can target empty grid.

    Edit: Let's see some hustle is Rapid Assault (2)

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Terranova View Post
    ...
    1-The Parman situation should be resolved in a elegant way. That to me means touching as few other rules as possible.
    2-The way buffs work will not change or have an exception. If you activate a grid and there is a "buffing" unit in that grid, then all units activating get that buff.
    3-Requiring rapid assault to conclude in an actual attack/assault seems the easiest to implement, stays true to the theme and stops Parman from being a bus driver for other units. Parman was never meant to be a springboard for other units. Dora Rollen has that power or Brasseldun with here underground transport powers.

    So my thought would be to require that using RAPID ASSAULT requires a unit to target and attack an occupied grid. The issue of targeting an empty grid came up with gas attacks so it needs to be an occupied grid. This would mean an update to the FAQ, probably post CMoN Expo (But this change might not happen for various reasons). Btw, I REALLY appreciate how constructive this community has been in the feedback.

    Thoughts?
    A sudgestion about this

    On page 16 of the rulebook, the Combat Phase Sequence is descripted:

    1. Select a grid to activate. All units in that grid are now “active”.
    2. Check any Buffs to units in that grid.
    3. Select a unit in that grid. That unit may either use a special ability designated as an [Action] listed on its card, or make any attacks available to it.
    4. If the unit is making an attack, choose a target grid within the unit’s range that does not contain any friendly units. Identify the appropriate enemy targeted unit (following the grid target order).


    Point 4 tell us that for attacking, I have to identify the appropriate enemey targeted unit. So this seems to confirm that after a Rapid Assault I have to attack a real unit, and not an empty grid.
    On the other hand, taking point 4 literally, attacks like Gas or Flat grid attack give some problems: Gas attack should target empty grid, it's tactically correct. And Flat Grid attack ruling seems to suggest that I attack Grid, and not unit.

    My idea is that Gas and Flat Attack Grid have to be Actions. In this way, they will not be real attack and can follow any special rules.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    Your 2 cents helped me to focus the issue, Crazyjuan.
    Do we want to normally allow a unit to attack an empty grid? Please consider cards like Charge! (ATTACK with 3 cavalry unit this turn: 1 VP) or any similar future cards.
    But I agree that there must be some special attacks (like Gas or maybe a future mine-layer attack) that can target empty grid.

    Edit: Let's see some hustle is Rapid Assault (2)
    Ok gut instinct was right. And yes we do want that. Why rule it out for mines, flame, or other area attacks in the future? Or the clearing of something in a grid with no units in it. As far as charge you have to make the decision to deploy Calvary, which cannot score any SOs to make that one point. Maybe that lack of deployed infantry ends up letting me control an SO, now your not really up on the deal.

    Either way, that vp earned for charge is still tougher than keep em coming, or the one for controlling an SO which are both pretty much bound to happen at some point. Or tally ho, which doesn't even require the Calvary units to attack...

    Your problem isn't really with attacking an empty grid, it's with secret missions. I understand why. They are fun in a non serious type of game but can randomly assign easy points, or not, with one's like killdozer. That's why I made the case they don't fit in tournament play and measuring player skill instead of luck.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    A sudgestion about this

    On page 16 of the rulebook, the Combat Phase Sequence is descripted:

    1. Select a grid to activate. All units in that grid are now “active”.
    2. Check any Buffs to units in that grid.
    3. Select a unit in that grid. That unit may either use a special ability designated as an [Action] listed on its card, or make any attacks available to it.
    4. If the unit is making an attack, choose a target grid within the unit’s range that does not contain any friendly units. Identify the appropriate enemy targeted unit (following the grid target order).


    Point 4 tell us that for attacking, I have to identify the appropriate enemey targeted unit. So this seems to confirm that after a Rapid Assault I have to attack a real unit, and not an empty grid.
    On the other hand, taking point 4 literally, attacks like Gas or Flat grid attack give some problems: Gas attack should target empty grid, it's tactically correct. And Flat Grid attack ruling seems to suggest that I attack Grid, and not unit.

    My idea is that Gas and Flat Attack Grid have to be Actions. In this way, they will not be real attack and can follow any special rules.
    4 simply means pick a grid, then name a target in the grid, (if applicable) most of the time you don't actually choose your target, in the case of a flat attack there is no choosing, it hits all, so it's a simple declaration. If I'm attacking say with a riflemen, again there is no choice, I must attack in grid order so it is a simple declaration to keep players on the same page about what is happening.

    The only time it matters with the current state of rules and released units is attacking with the blight sniper. He is literally the only unit that actually chooses a target outside of grid order.

  7. #27

    Default

    Hi Miller, no offense taken mate, no apology necessary Think I am just mentally scarred from seeing so many different games spoiled by people trying to abuse the rules rather than play along with the spirit most games are meant to be played

    Thinking about it again it does sound OK not to have to actually attack, with rapid assault (maybe call it rapid advance) but I would defo say limit the activation of his buff to once per turn to stop the springboard thing. Long and short really is play the game as both sides agree, rules are for guidance, house rules are for fun

  8. #28

    Default

    My problem is that Rapid assault needs to be different then Dash, or any other movement based special. That's why I take the wording in the rules so seriously, because with rappid assault you HAVE to attack. Therefor: it is different then, say, dash or runner or any other buff.

    And I am unsure the allies need any more help then they currently get. True, Parman is vulnerable to the cheapest unit on the blight side, however that unit also can't last very long on the field due to the amazing number of infantry-killers the allies have access too.

    IDK... Ted's post worries me slightly, but in the end I just want the rules clear and I am a big believer of playing with the book rules so that games can be as uniform as possible playing with my group as they would be playing in a tournament or at a convention with you guys. I guess we just need some sort of big, official update to the FAQ or rules that would settle this.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by comedianmasta View Post
    My problem is that Rapid assault needs to be different then Dash, or any other movement based special. That's why I take the wording in the rules so seriously, because with rappid assault you HAVE to attack. Therefor: it is different then, say, dash or runner or any other buff.

    And I am unsure the allies need any more help then they currently get. True, Parman is vulnerable to the cheapest unit on the blight side, however that unit also can't last very long on the field due to the amazing number of infantry-killers the allies have access too.

    IDK... Ted's post worries me slightly, but in the end I just want the rules clear and I am a big believer of playing with the book rules so that games can be as uniform as possible playing with my group as they would be playing in a tournament or at a convention with you guys. I guess we just need some sort of big, official update to the FAQ or rules that would settle this.
    Rapid Assault is different from dash because it gives the option of attacking or not, Dash gives no option.

    I am not a proponent of adding an attack requirement to rapid assault. I think adjusting the movement bonus given before the option of attacking is a more nuanced solution because it solves the "parman problem" of rapidly capturing so many SOs on some scenarios that the blight start in a tough hole to climb out of, without needing to change a singular other rule.

  10. #30

    Default

    Perhaps as a community we need to find a simple scenario that can be played quickly with the different rules for Paman which have been suggested. Perhaps just 3 tiles and one SO that moves nearer and further blight/allied deployment zones. Hopefully then we can get enough stats to justify the statistically most fair option.

    The idea of changing Parman's RA (3) to RA (m) is growing on me. Essentially you are saying you can move then shoot this turn to main an advantage.

    Another part of me thinks we should wait to see what rules are added in the second wave, does one of the units solve this in a different way. Having said that though, I'd like to know that the core set works correctly standalone.

    Finally, Id just like to say I was not intending this thread to offend anyone's honour. I'm keen to know the best way to utilize Parman and I want to make sure the these rules are explored; and so far our thoughts have been brilliant!
    Rivet Wars Scenario Editor - http://www.tehill.net/RivetWars

  11. #31

    Default

    Wave 2 models shouldn't come into the equation as players might not buy any to balance things out. Any testing and agreement should involve only the main game and it's scenarios, as that is the first intro that anybody will play and maybe the only version they play.

    I don't think it's a good idea to make any changes to the cards or rules, there is no need and could just lead to confusion and just use Parman as intended and all RA combat moves must end in a combat. This isn't explicit in the rules, hence why gamers are playing either way, so its not a rule change, just a clarification and that is far better than making any changes or adding any new rules.
    Last edited by hithero; 04-29-2014 at 02:00 PM.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hithero View Post
    Wave 2 models shouldn't come into the equation as players might not buy any to balance things out. Any testing and agreement should involve onworkhe main game and it's scenarios, as that is the first intro that anybody will play and maybe the only version they play.
    Yes I agree with that, I think what I meant to say is perhaps with the introduction of other units we would be introduced to a new rule or quirk which could either: work as a replacement or give some extra detail we have not considered yet and perhaps given a broader view of the game's mechanics we would find an even more elegant solution for the core box.
    Rivet Wars Scenario Editor - http://www.tehill.net/RivetWars

  13. #33

    Default

    I have long been a proponent of changing Parman's RA buff to (Units' Base Movement), instead of the current (3). You guys who are arguing to change the Rapid Assault rule to "Unit must attack" are opening a pretty big can of worms that effects many different units and possibly (probably) the entire balance of the game. The game is damn near perfectly balanced at this stage of its development and I'd hate to see it screwed up now through a crowd-sourced knee-jerk-reaction rules change to the basic mechanics.

    The fact that this conversation has been brought up again (it was deeply debated months ago, for the people who are new here) is a pretty good indicator that Parman truly needs a *small* change. Changing the mechanics of Rapid Assault is not that change, so let's just take that suggestion off the table now, mmmkay?

  14. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tauwolf View Post
    I have long been a proponent of changing Parman's RA buff to (Units' Base Movement), instead of the current (3). You guys who are arguing to change the Rapid Assault rule to "Unit must attack" are opening a pretty big can of worms that effects many different units and possibly (probably) the entire balance of the game. The game is damn near perfectly balanced at this stage of its development and I'd hate to see it screwed up now through a crowd-sourced knee-jerk-reaction rules change to the basic mechanics.

    The fact that this conversation has been brought up again (it was deeply debated months ago, for the people who are new here) is a pretty good indicator that Parman truly needs a *small* change. Changing the mechanics of Rapid Assault is not that change, so let's just take that suggestion off the table now, mmmkay?
    One could argue that the mechanics of Rapid ASSAULT were already changed and that it should be changed back.

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tauwolf View Post
    The fact that this conversation has been brought up again (it was deeply debated months ago, for the people who are new here) is a pretty good indicator that Parman truly needs a *small* change. Changing the mechanics of Rapid Assault is not that change, so let's just take that suggestion off the table now, mmmkay?
    I am not a fan of things being changed either. There are tons and tons of people not on the forums, or online, or who will be keeping up with changes who are buying core sets and who are gonna play them based on what the rules say inside there. If major changes or too many changes are made, we might as well re-release the game!

    However, I think along with assuming there are issues with some of the interpretation of the rules and the abilities, those can be explained better.

    I also think that most of us will be happy dealing with whatever official statement, change, or update comes out from either Ted, Cool Mini, or Rivet Wars. I think what we need is something official. We shouldn't be bullying a change or expecting that things are tweeked based on our personal experiences.

    For instance, Parman has not been OP in my games, and nobody has utilized this buff to take over the game when he is in play. However, in the core box set, the Blight get shafted on heroes and Parmin is arguably the best hero in the core set, regardless of faction.

    It's true. The issue has been brought up several times, and it will continue to be brought up time and time again regardless of what comes out of this line of discussion. I think some official decission to change or not change will put it to rest.
    ~Lieutenant Nathaniel Flint of the Landship Scorpios


  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by comedianmasta View Post
    We shouldn't be bullying a change or expecting that things are tweeked based on our personal experiences.
    Well said comedianmasta.

    As I suggested before, do you think we could design a very simple scenario we could all play as a community, where the allied player actively tries to utilize Parman's Buff so that we can get a statistical answer that we would all consider the fairest?

    As a community we could play far more games and remove the element of personal experiences or opinions.
    Rivet Wars Scenario Editor - http://www.tehill.net/RivetWars

  17. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Decar View Post
    Well said comedianmasta.

    As I suggested before, do you think we could design a very simple scenario we could all play as a community, where the allied player actively tries to utilize Parman's Buff so that we can get a statistical answer that we would all consider the fairest?

    As a community we could play far more games and remove the element of personal experiences or opinions.
    Maybe if this would put an end to it. I can make time in my week to play a few Parmin-Scenarios and see how it works.
    ~Lieutenant Nathaniel Flint of the Landship Scorpios


  18. #38

    Default

    I've played many rounds, Perhaps dozens. Vs a vaired array of players both new to the game and as versed as I am in its nuances. In my experience Parman isn't an overpowered figure unless particular scenario circumstances are met, regarding the placement of the Strategic Objectives and the Trenching/bunkers (duckboard). If you look at the "thornbushes" scenaro, I present that as one where his power is still powerful but less effective for scoring SO's than others. The SOs are too far to be RA'd there in the first turn, and it makes little sense to move past the bunker 2 grids from deployment. In this scenario I use him to keep bikes up front and rapid assault artillery when I need a quick deep response. Nowhere near as important to actually securing VP as he is on "over the top". And even then its not unbeatable with sound Blight play and good dice rolls and card draws.

    I personally think it could probably be left as it is, But if it MUST be changed via popular demand, then I suggest the change to movement grids awarded by the buff, because its more of a fine tuning type of change then sledgehammering in a requirement to attack for RA to allow movement.

    it might be a number of weeks before I get a good chance to test again, due to it being time for my Autocross season to start (2nd of 7 drivers unofficially at my opener on Sun!) but I plan on testing Parman with the ability "Buff: Rapid assault (units standard movement).
    Last edited by Crazyjuan; 04-29-2014 at 03:29 PM.

  19. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazyjuan View Post
    I personally think it could probably be left as it is, But if it MUST be changed via popular demand, then I suggest the change to movement grids awarded by the buff, because its more of a fine tuning type of change then sledgehammering in a requirement to attack for RA to allow movement.
    How does requiring an assault as part of the rapid assault skill require a sledgehammer?

  20. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donnbobhardy View Post
    How does requiring an assault as part of the rapid assault skill require a sledgehammer?
    Its clearly less of a fine tune than adjusting the grids awarded for the buff. Right now, the mechanic stands, for everything that gets it, that they can move prior to attacking, and then have the choice of attacking. Everything that has or gets Rapid assault works that way. The amount of grids they can move however, are not the same in all cases due to Parman being the only thing that can RA (3). Thats the only variable. Its less of a change to change that variable, then to change how it effects all units that get RA on thier own as opposed to via Parman. If you change the grids Parman allows, You're only changing it for the units he's interacting with. If you change RA, you're changing it for EVERY unit that starts with or ever gets RA. Clearly a much larger change, probably with unintended consequences, thus... a sledgehammer.

    Also, I think you're hung up on Assault meaning "attack". And while yes that is one definintion, there were plenty of times when I assaulted the obstacle course on Parris Island in Marine Recruit Training, or Boot Camp. I didnt attack anyone though. It military Jargon, it can mean aggressively move into and take over a position even if a shot isnt fired.
    Last edited by Crazyjuan; 04-29-2014 at 04:04 PM.

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.

-->