The example provided here is in a word terrible. If a new player did this in a game, I'd tell him not to move into base with both and let him take the move back. I certainly wouldn't add sentences explaining how it's not _that_ bad when the obviously better choice is to not fight two models at once, especially when if the doctor dies the servant goes with him. If the examples are to be learning tools for new players, they should avoid suggesting suboptimal plays. Even a sentence that said, " it would have been even better to engage just the doctor" would be a great addition.
To be fair, the rules are FULL of suboptimal plays, most of which are used to highlight less than common interactions. I personally don't mind. I don't think the rules are there to teach you strategy. They simply give you the framework to figure out your own strategy.
Granted, the rules have bad plays. But it's a missed opportunity to choose not to say so, and malfeasance to claim it's a good play when a better one is right there. There are lots of ways to show gang up CC mechanics without making them intentionally irrelevant and a bad teaching tool. I agree with your suggestion that the rules aren't focused on teaching strategy, but they shouldn't lead new players in the wrong direction either.
The knowledge of it being a terrible play or not should come with playing the game, and is also of a subjective nature (well, sometimes, ok). But the examples are there to show how to resolve interactions, not to provide the odds of it being sucessful. That is up to you, and tbh, part of the fun of playing. Specially if you are newbies.
At least that’s an example. See example on page 52: we’re back to the good old days when actual rules are hiding in the example sections...
Which is again in an example in page 60 (when talking about Combat Jump PH=10), and as an actual rule (finally) in the Traits section in page 90. TBH, I am just happy we have a Terminology section which tries to explain things. And in terms of being tighter, it IS tighter than the N3 rulebook. So let´s cherish the small victories.
Except is not quite aimed at the same type of players as N3. So really it should be: “are there enough small victories to be cherished in C1 to make it palatable to its target audience?”
I mean... I'm surprised you made it that far into the rulebook. On page 55 you have a Jujak walking through the ZoC of a Shrouded hacker when there's clearly enough room for him to skirt it.
Yeah, perhaps it was the straw. But honestly, I can think of cases where you walk by a hacker even though he's gonna pop you to get something done. I can't think of any reason to engage both the Dr. and the bot outside of bizarre bizarre edge cases. love that image, though, where he swings left into the shrouded ZoC.
Another example is how they used Goldstein in the CC Example.... using his PH13+3 from his Martial Arts.... While he has a Mono CCW and a Pistol. C1 doesn't have unarmed attack rules. Page 67 states Martial Arts +DAM adds to your PH, so still doesn't work with Mono. The example however - uses the least suited trooper possible for the example - suggests Mono works with MA - or alternatively suggests you can just use your PH to attack unarmed Oh CB. Never change.
Just to check, we're still talking about p73? 'Although it seems like Cuervo Goldstein is at a disadvantage, analyzing the possible outcomes of the Face to Face Roll reveals the following: Unless the Yīshēng obtains a Critical, Cuervo Goldstein will win the Face to Face Roll by obtaining a 6 or higher on his die. Likewise, any result higher than 13 for Cuervo Goldstein will be a Critical. The Yīshēng’s CC was reduced from 15 to 12. Although he rolls two dice, his chances of winning the Face to Face Roll are slim.'
That'd be the one yes. Are you seriously proposing that it's not roughly twice as dangerous to face the bot and doctor at the same time? Are you proposing that you'd make that move, instead of engaging just the doctor?
Okay. Now, I'll admit that I used the N3 version of the dice calculator (which means that the critical rules aren't right) and I didn't bother checking the PH characteristics, but according to the calculator, the scenario works out as: Not in base contact with both: Monk dude inflicts a wound 36.15% Nothing happens 60.47% The other dude inflicts a wound on the monk: 3.38% In base contact with both: Monk inflicts a wound 34.20% Nothing happens 59.23% The other dude inflicts a wound on the monk: 6.57% The other dude inflicts two wounds on the monk: 0.18% So you're talking about a situation where a 3% chance is doubled to a 6% chance. In a situation involving the variance of D20s.
Which is the point of the example, ¿no? To show the massive swing in Cuervo's favor based on his CC and MA, despite the opponents getting two dice.
I love how everyone is defending a move _they would never make in an ITS game_. This would not be done, because it is needlessly risky. There is no upside. If you're married to the demonstration of this combat, flip the scenario. I can see a reason, late in the game, to engage a close combat monster with your Dr. and bot on the chance you'd at least slow it for an order or two. You get to explain sometimes it's tactically useful to do things that'll get your dude almost certainly killed. It'd be, dare I say, a good example of delay tactics near the end of the game. And you still get to show of that having one of the highest CC stat lines in C1 makes you good in CC. Edit: not to mention you also get to show how you can shift the attack to the bot to get a two dice normal roll against Cuervo, which is _another_ better demonstration, no?
It's actually even more in Cuervo's favour than that, as he's on 68% and 62% chance to kill, based on N3 Crits.
I wonder what odds the Yaozao would be on if the Yisheng elected to forgo their attack in favour of the Yaozao hitting Cuervo twice. I also wonder if the Para CCW's MOD would apply to Cuervo if Cuervo chose to ignore the Yaozao.
