Author Topic: Some new ideas  (Read 584 times)

Dave-SWA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • The Schenectady Wargamers Association
    • The Schenectady Wargamers Association
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2018, 08:30:00 AM »
This might shock some of you, but on this one, I agree with Corey 100%.

Let's ditch the idea of trying to rationalize the rule in relation to an individual martial arts fight.

Here is how I see it:
  • The penalty in BFW for attacking to the flank is very mild, compared to many other minis games.
  • The bonus in BFW for attacking from the flank is fairly weak, compared to many other minis games.
  • And, it works well with how Pinching is modeled in the game.

Here is a different way to think about it...

Think of the unit card in a little more of an abstract way.  If a unit gets hit in the flank, yes, obviously the troops will indeed turn and face the new enemy.  But, you don't actually "turn the unit card".  Just like Corey says, there is an element of disorganzation, which is reflected in the -1 die penalty, and the flanker getting the +1 skill bonus.  And, it is totally reasonable that this penalty will persist more than one round.

And, it a game-logic way, it makes sense in relation to Pinching.  When you get hit on more than one side of the unit, your troops "inside the card" are much less able to "turn to face the enemy", since the enemy is coming from different directions.  This is why the penalties for being pinched are so much worse.

Yes, it makes less sense when the unit is perceived to be one single figure, like an Earth Elemental or Dragon or something.  But from a rules consistency point of view, you do not want to have different rules just because the artwork on a card is different. 

If you really like this idea, then create a new keyword and make the unit(s) that have this special ability more expensive.  Or, add it the existing keywords of Large & Colossal.


In general, I suggest you think more in the abstract, and less literally, when it comes to the concept of unit cards in BFW.

Here is a preview something you will see in Radical Battleground:
For ranged troops, any movement at all, even a tiny pivot of 1 degree, incurs the move-and-shoot penalty of -1 skill.

Why?...
In most minis games, units with ranged attacks have a firing arc of maybe 45 degrees off their front line (thus a 90 degree arc).  Or maybe 60 off the front (120 arc).  In some games, some units, like artillery that are harder to 'move', have only a 30 degrees off the front (thus a 60 degree firing arc).

In comparison, you can see that Battleground's 180 degree firing arc is VERY generous.

So, we rationalize that like this...
If a unit wants to shoot at a target way off to the side (like 85 degrees off the center line), the unit will re-align and pivot to get a good shot.  You don't actually move the unit card, because the target is in your legal arc.  There is movement 'inside' the unit card, but it is abstracted away.

So, if you want to shoot at something outside your 180 front arc, you need to pivot the card.  Since that is a more significant amount of movement, you get the move-and-shoot penalty.

See some of you soon.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 08:42:49 AM by Dave-SWA »
Schenectady Wargamers Association
An Adventure Gaming club serving the Capital District of upstate New York for over 40 years.
Council of Five Nations (Oct 5-7, 2018)
www.swa-gaming.org

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2018, 11:21:31 AM »
Here is how I see it:
  • The penalty in BFW for attacking to the flank is very mild, compared to many other minis games.
  • The bonus in BFW for attacking from the flank is fairly weak, compared to many other minis games.
  • And, it works well with how Pinching is modeled in the game.

Here is a different way to think about it...

Think of the unit card in a little more of an abstract way.  If a unit gets hit in the flank, yes, obviously the troops will indeed turn and face the new enemy.  But, you don't actually "turn the unit card".  Just like Corey says, there is an element of disorganzation, which is reflected in the -1 die penalty, and the flanker getting the +1 skill bonus.  And, it is totally reasonable that this penalty will persist more than one round.

100% with Dave here.  This is exactly what I was trying to say how units react.



Quote
Yes, it makes less sense when the unit is perceived to be one single figure, like an Earth Elemental or Dragon or something.  But from a rules consistency point of view, you do not want to have different rules just because the artwork on a card is different. 

This is why I brought up the martial artist comparison, because it's all I could think of for a fantasy situation.  But now that I've had time to think about it there is a real world parallel:  elephants.

When elephants got flanked, the enemy would swarm around and even under the elephant, slicing tendons or stabbing upwards into the belly (or genitals).  This is why historically skirmishers were so nasty, because they could swarm around/underneath the elephants from the front.  A normal unit couldn't get around/underneath them if the elephants were facing them.

So the reason that the unit keeps the bonus against the big guy isn't because he doesn't turn.  He does turn.  But the unit is swarming around/underneath him stabbing at sensitive spots.  Keeping the card sideways is just a reminder.



Quote
Here is a preview something you will see in Radical Battleground:
For ranged troops, any movement at all, even a tiny pivot of 1 degree, incurs the move-and-shoot penalty of -1 skill.

Wait, is this not part of the rules now?  I mean we have M+S (which you can also achieve with a Direct Control), but that is dead as a doornail in the new edition.  Absent that (going away) rule, my understanding is this is how it works currently.