Improving the Rulebook texts

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • JimMorr wrote:

    This is why people get a bit confused why devastating charge increases for some models AS and not Str of impact hits.
    Mmmhhh, I believe this is supposed to be explicitly explained since 202/203.... I'll have to check in our archive...

    JimMorr wrote:

    As I proposed: best split Devastating Charge into two different rules. One for updating model characteristics, the other being a real attack attribute. Best restricted like the impact hits to the front facing...
    And for model rules that are not attack attributes? Something like Dev Charge (fear).
    I mean I'm not opposed to what you ask, but then that's adding more special rules with their own rules and restrictions, and we are already criticised for having too much of them...
  • Alzam wrote:

    I mean I'm not opposed to what you ask, but then that's adding more special rules with their own rules and restrictions, and we are already criticised for having too much of them...
    I do not fully agree with that criticism... rules at places are over-complicated rather than too numerous. But it is my personal POV.
    Homebrew: Hetmanate of Ukray_____________Report your battle results using mobile app: T9A Magic Flux!
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    How about this?
    • Normal Attack
      Melee Attacks made using the models Attack value
    • Normal Weapon Attacks
      Melee Attacks made using the models Attack Value but benefiting from a Weapon
    • Special Attacks
      Melee Attacks made not using the models Attack Value
    • Shooting Attacks
      Ranged Attacks using an Aim Value
    • Shooting Weapon Attacks
      Ranged Attacks using an Aim Value but benefiting from a Weapon
    • Special Shooting Attacks
      Ranged Attacks that don't use an Aim Value

    Casp wrote:

    what about introduce a synonym of attack somewhere in the hierachy.. Somthing like "fight" or "action"

    Would be:

    Attacks :
    ---- Melee action :
    ---------- Close combat attack
    ---------- Special attack
    ---- Ranged action :
    ---------- Shooting attack
    ---------- Magical missile
    ---------- Other

    Maybe could help to clarify, by reducing the number of attack occurence into the rules.
    Casp I like that idea - very intuitive. I don't think we need the word Melee perse. Another setup:
    • Close Combat (as this word is more easy on the mind then "melee")
      • Regular Attacks (as this is the most common attack in the game)
      • Special Attacks (your daily "specials")
    • Ranged Combat (as this is the counterpart of Close Combat)
      • Shooting Attack (the most common ranged attack)
      • Other Ranged Attack (still a container - not sure if we need to split this up?)
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • Ok, another one, that slightly hurt my head while reading. 12.C.d Cover

    Display Spoiler

    Cover is determined individually for each shooting model in a unit that is shooting. There are two types of Cover:
    Soft Cover and Hard Cover. The most common reason for applying a Cover type is the target being obscured by
    Terrain or other models, or the target being inside a Terrain Feature.
    To determine if the target is obscured, draw a line from the shooting model’s baseFront Facing to the target’s
    Footprint, tangent to the possible obstruction. The line may be drawn outside of the model’s Front Arc. Any part of
    the target unit’s Footprint on the same side of the line as the possible obstruction is considered obscured. The line
    can be drawn from any point of the baseFront Facing of the shooting model, but only consider the point that yields
    the least possible obscurity. Models on round bases can use any point on their base for this purpose (since they
    don’t have a Front Facing).
    Models always ignore their own unit and the target unit for Cover purposes, and also ignore whatever Terrain Feature
    they are inside (e.g. a unit shooting from a Forest doesn’t suffer a Soft Cover modifier for shooting through that
    Forest). If the target contains models of different Sizes, consider the Footprint of each model individually.


    First off a basic remark: the explanation doesn't start explain what cover is / does. Easy fix. Then just the sentences and grammar. I mean ouch my head. A proposal to make this a little friendlier to read:

    Display Spoiler

    Models in Cover are generally harder to hit with Ranged Attacks. Cover is usually provided if a target is is situated behind Terrain or other models, or if the target is inside a Terrain Feature. There are two types of Cover: Soft Cover and Hard Cover. Cover is determined individually per model in a unit that is shooting. To determine if the target is covered, draw a line from any part of the shooting model’s front to the target’s footprint, clipping the possible obstruction (the line may be drawn outside of the model’s Front Arc[i]).[/i] Any part of the target unit’s footprint that the shooting model can not see without obstruction is considered covered. Models on round bases can use any point on their base for this purpose (since they don’t have a Front Facing). Other rules are:
    • Models always ignore their own unit and the target unit for Cover purposes
    • Models always ignore whatever Terrain Feature they are inside (e.g. a unit shooting from a Forest doesn’t suffer a Soft Cover modifier for shooting through that Forest).
    • If the target contains models of different Sizes, consider the Footprint of each model individually.
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • Pellegrim wrote:

    Casp I like that idea - very intuitive. I don't think we need the word Melee perse. Another setup:
    • Close Combat (as this word is more easy on the mind then "melee")
      • Regular Attacks (as this is the most common attack in the game)
      • Special Attacks (your daily "specials")
    • Ranged Combat (as this is the counterpart of Close Combat)
      • Shooting Attack (the most common ranged attack)
      • Other Ranged Attack (still a container - not sure if we need to split this up?)

    I would prefer close combat (current) and shooting attacks used the same keyword due to the fact of how do interact with the Attack Attributes. Be it Regula, Weapon, Standard... whatever. But mark it as similar type.
    Homebrew: Hetmanate of Ukray_____________Report your battle results using mobile app: T9A Magic Flux!
  • Jim, think you mean this:
    • Close Combat (as this word is more easy on the mind then "melee")
      • Regular Close Combat Attacks (as this is the most common attack in the game)
      • Special Close Combat Attacks (your daily "specials")
    • Ranged Combat (as this is the counterpart of Close Combat)
      • Regular Ranged Attack (the most common ranged attack)
      • Special Ranged Attack (still a container - not sure if we need to split this up?
    ?
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • I prefer your last version @Pellegrim. Seems a bit too much word here. Confusing again.

    "Shooting attack" is really more intuitive than "regular ranged attack."
    I dont see trouble to not get symetry between closed combat, and ranged combat.

    Let structure all step before at maximum. ( So the solution: attack > close combat / ranged combat ; seems pretty elegant in my opinion), but, let just be the more illustrative possible for the last step of the tree, without any symetrical consideration.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • My issue with that is that you need to remember completely abstract assumptions like ranged attack contain shooting attacks and melee attacks containing close combat attacks.

    Terms Ranged Attack and Close Combat Attacks are intuitive and there is no way to mix them
    Terms Regular and Special, the same.
    Any their combination, the same.

    Melee attacks containing Close Combat attacks and not the other way round is something you have to remember. How does it improve the game?

    @Alzam
    There are three approaches possible on Dev Charge.

    1. If rules like Dev Charge (+1 Arm) are rare, almost unit specific it would be best to make them unit specific. It will reduce complexity of BRB and also rule like "Iron without, iron within: model gains +1 Arm when Charging" introduces more flavor then Dev Charge (+1 Arm)

    2. If the rule is more frequent and its use is expected to grow I really add model rule like Impetuous (X): when Charging model gains Characteristic modifiers and model rules listed as X.

    It would allow to replace

    OK 204 wrote:

    Devastating Charge(+1 Str, +1 AP), Living Avalanche


    Living Avalanche : Attack Attribute - Attacks & Weapons.
    Impact Hits from the model gain +1 Strength and +1 Armour Penetration.
    With simple "Impetuous(+1 Str, +1 AP)"

    3. You can leave it as it is... which as OK book proves does not cover all cases anyway...
    Homebrew: Hetmanate of Ukray_____________Report your battle results using mobile app: T9A Magic Flux!
  • Casp wrote:

    I prefer your last version @Pellegrim. Seems a bit too much word here. Confusing again.

    "Shooting attack" is really more intuitive than "regular ranged attack."
    I dont see trouble to not get symetry between closed combat, and ranged combat.

    Let structure all step before at maximum. ( So the solution: attack > close combat / ranged combat ; seems pretty elegant in my opinion), but, let just be the more illustrative possible for the last step of the tree, without any symetrical consideration.
    agreed!
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • About improving rules

    21.B.b Who is Affected wrote:

    Special Equipment often refers to their wielder, wearer, or bearer. These terms mean the same thing and refer to the
    model part the Special Equipment was bought for, excluding its mount. Other pieces of Special Equipment affect
    the model, wearer’s model, or bearer’s model; these terms refer to the entire model, including the mount (note that
    these terms override the Massive Bulk
    rules). Finally, a third group of Special Equipment refers to the wearer’s unit
    or bearer’s unit; this type of Special Equipment affects all model parts (including mounts) in the same unit as the
    wearer/bearer of the Artefact (including the wearer/bearer itself).

    Can we imagine to look everywhere for the "the model, wearer’s model, or bearer’s model;" terms, and replace it by "All model parts"
    I always see lot of question,or people forgetting that the rule impact also the mount with equipment concerning bearer’s model.

    rules could become:


    Special Equipment could refer to different terms:
    • The wielder, wearer, or bearer. Mean the same thing and affect the model part the Special Equipment was bought for, excluding its mount.
    • The model or all model parts. Refer to the entire model with all his part, including the mount, overriding the Massive Bulk rules.
    • The wearer’s unit or bearer’s unit. Affects all model parts in the same unit as the wearer/bearer of the Artefact (including the wearer/bearer's model itself).
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • JimMorr wrote:

    I would say that wielder is different to bearer as it applies to a weapon and means the model part performing an attack with the weapon... but I am a minority here.
    I agree with that.
    • Bearer - just carrying the item grants the effect (ie. carrying a shield gives you the bonus save vs shooting)
    • Wearer - you need to be wearing the item to get the effect (ie. your mount isn't wearing your armour, so doesn't get the benefit)
    • Wielder - you need to be using the item to get the effect (ie. you don't get the shield bonus to saves when you're not using it)
    There should be a distinction, but it needs defining in the rules so people don't get confused when they assume the terms are interchangeable.

    Casp wrote:

    Can we imagine to look everywhere for the "the model, wearer’s model, or bearer’s model;" terms, and replace it by "All model parts"
    I've never liked the term "bearers model" it sounds too much like its been translated into english from another language or like legal-speak.

    Using All Model Parts does solve that issue, as well as removing any potential confusion about how adding "..'s Model" changes the function and whether or not it works when on a gigantic mount or similar.
    But Model Parts is such an odd way of saying it and still feels like it's been translated into english or is legal-speak.

    I'de prefer the term "The Entire Model"
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    I'de prefer the term "The Entire Model"
    Entire model woudl be good too, even if it require a definition, because you dont suggest that it could by apply to different part/profil.
    But as long "Bearer's or wielder's" model are remove, it will already help a lot to reduce confusion.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • Another one, minor, and mainly textual / native speaking-related.

    13.G.4 Splitting Combat
    Display Spoiler

    13.G.4 Splitting Combat
    If due to removing casualties, two or more disconnected subgroups of opposing units are created (see figure 15), resolve the Combat normally (accounting for every unit that took part in this Round of Combat), checking any remaining base contact for the purpose of Rear and Flank Bonuses. In the next Melee Phase, each subgroup will be treated as a different combat.


    Suggestion for 13.G.4 Splitting Combat
    Display Spoiler

    13.G.4 Splitting Combat
    If due to removing casualties, two or more subgroups of opposing units are no longer connected (see figure 15), resolve the Combat as if it is still one connected combat (accounting for every unit that took part in this Round of Combat), with one exception: unit's that are no longer connected with the fighting units do not get to count flank- and rear bonuses. In the next Melee Phase, each subgroup will be treated as a separate combat.


    The above de-clutters the texts. Perhaps a native speaker needs to do the final review
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Pellegrim ().

  • First body of the chapter 13.H Pursuits and Overruns has issue. AS the text is right under the main chapter title one would suggest a general text. But in fact it's the main text about what units can pursuit, when a pursuit is declared and the direction of the flee and pursuit.

    NB This whole chapter is in need of a rework. It's .... well ouch

    13.H Pursuits and Overruns

    Display Spoiler

    13.H Pursuits and Overruns

    Before moving broken units, each unit that is in base contact with the broken unit(s) may declare a Pursuit of a single broken unit (each Pursuing unit may choose any eligible enemy unit to Pursue). Determine the direction of the Flee Move as follows:
    - If the broken unit is in contact with a single enemy unit, its flight will be directed away from that unit.
    - If the broken unit is in contact with more than one enemy unit, the owner of the enemy units must declare which of those units the flight will be directed away from.
    To be able to Pursue a broken enemy, the unit cannot be Engaged with any non-broken enemy units and must be in base contact with the broken unit. Units can elect not to Pursue, but must then pass a Discipline Test to succeed in restraining themselves; if the test is failed, the unit must Pursue anyway. If the test is passed, the unit may do either a Post-Combat Pivot or a Post-Combat Reform


    With suggestions / changes.

    Display Spoiler

    13.H Pursuits and Overruns

    13.H.1 Pursuits, Restrain and Pursuit direction
    Before moving fleeing units, each opposing unit in base contact with the broken unit(s) must declare if it will Pursuit or Restrain. A unit can only pursue one broken unit, and only if it is in base contact with it when it breaks, and only if it is not engaged with another non-broken enemy unit. If a unit elects to Restrain, it must pass a Discipline Test to succeed; if the test is failed, the unit must Pursue anyway. If the test is passed, the unit may do either a Post-Combat Pivot or a Post-Combat Reform

    Determine the direction of the Flee Move as follows:
    - If the broken unit is in contact with a single enemy unit, its flight will be directed straight away from that unit
    - If the broken unit is in contact with more than one enemy unit, the owner of units that won combat chooses the unit from which the flight will be directed away from.
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Pellegrim ().