Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by psychoticstorm, Aug 6, 2019.
Kind of like the current intuitive attack rules?
A pity that most melee units have either one them or elsewhere in the army access to smoke so they can sit in it while they beat on the expensive troop who didn't even get the chance to use the DTW.
DTWs becoming a technical weapon that ignores mods I like a lot.
I worry about anything that makes the reactive turn any stronger than it is currently.
A bit, yeah.
DTWs being a F2F would mean enemies dodge less as they can avoid them by shooting instead, more F2Fs become simple BS Attack vs BS Attack and it removes interesting/hard decisions (do I shoot and risk an ARM roll or dodge and hope I get out of range).
I agree, except that generic warbands with DTWs can use this to force very asymmetrical trades, which can give them power disproportionate with their cost.
That's a problem with cheap warbands, not DTWs.
Yup. If the game had less cheap models that could bypass the FtF mechanic at close range while having unreasonably strong defensive AROs, it would go a long way towards making points costs sensical.
They're one and the same considering warbands are the most common troops to have them.
Specifically the underpriced Chain Rifles, not all Warbands. Those Warband profiles with any other weapon seem rather fair, but nobody takes them as the Chain Rifle is both much cheaper and much more powerful on the Smoke/Dogged Warband platform. I don't usually see Makauls with their higher price, Regular order and fireteam uses being thrown away so easily.
Syncs up kinda weird with how ZoC works in other scenarios, IMO. Also doesn't make a lot of sense a team wouldn't be in some kind of comms coordination, and would make fireteams extremely cumbersome to actually move and operate since the second they climb up a ladder or go around a corner they'd start losing bonuses.
As for making templates cause a F2F, it's another Simple Jack idea to solve a perceived issue but is maybe looking in the wrong direction, without considering the consequences of such a change. It also risks making intuitive attacks utterly pointless and turns them into a short skill... in other words, makes templates stronger in some cases.
Maybe just allow improved dodges versus direct template weapons, like +3, making a direct assault with a template weapon a dicier option. Maybe not applied to out of LoF attacks, and not to impact templates.
Makauls have Flamethrowers, though.
Which is only like 2 points more than a chain rifle.
Makauls aren't as disposable though, as they're providing both a regular order and Fireteam bonuses.
There really needs to be a miminum cost for a "primary" weapon. Saving so many points by swapping a rifle for a cheap DTW doesn't really fit well. Most DTW only warbands could gain 4-5 points and still be well worth it.
Indeed. The platform's valuable enough that Tohaa players I've seen won't throw it away though, unless they can get an excellent trade. Myrmidons are in a similar position. I've brought it up before when talking about Bao, but my favoured fix for the "Chain Rifle in the Armoury" defensive problem is to give all those borderline-useless 1-wounders with close-in weapons (Bao, old Bolts, maybe the Prowler) a skill that lets them count BS attacks as Special Dodges against targeted enemies in the same way Smoke is a Special Dodge if it would block LoS.
Were this rules change to happen I'd imagine that you could only shoot visible things, just ignoring the mods, and in order to attack through smoke or marker/hidden things you would still need to carry out a long order intuitive attack.
Maybe the most common to be seen on the table, but lots of troopers have DTWs and they're useful tools, especially when combined with a proper gun or hacking.
Making DTWs worse to fix cheap warbands is like cutting off your leg to solve an ingrown toenail.
What part of their functionality as useful tools is being removed? Even when they aren't on a warband they can and often are incredibly infuriating and powerful weapons. If anything this increases their functionality as it allows them to contest dodges.
That seems to the general shortsighted theme of ideas like this. A problem is seen, a solution is offered. Does it matter the solution is proportionate? Does it matter if the problem is really as big as the person offering the idea says?
In one area they gain a little bonus... the area that's meant to be one of their weaknesses right now. An area that'll no longer happen because practically everything will just use a shooting attack to try and win the F2F and pop you.
In the area denial ARO role, the fact your opponent can just shoot back to cancel it removes a lot of risk of getting too close to something holding an objective. In the "dislodge something from cover" role, you can now expect to face incoming fire all around rather than face a series of dodges and one sacrificial lamb taking their free shot, or relying on AROs from outside template range getting off a free go.
They're supposed to be powerful and infuriating if they work. The trick to using them is surviving to be in range, or getting it right when you declare it. The trick to countering them is shoot them at beyond range and hope you dodge or have your own cheap warbands get them first.
You remove one weakness, change it into a totally different weakness, whilst others remain in play. It makes them considerably worse, and if your problem is you can't handle the warbands, learn. Git gud.
Nah. It's more like chemo. Hurts everyone, but hurts the problem the most.
The problem is when people disingenuously criticize a proposed solution when what they really mean is they find the status quo advantageous.
Then they should be far more expensive.