Chemical Foggers

[Rannith]

Since the Combined Arms rules state that you cannot apply Assets to a Combined arms Fireteam does that mean the Chemical Foggers Prototype Asset can ONLY be applied to the Dreadnought?  If so why isn’t the restriction Dreadnought Only instead of Titan Only?

 

[Adran]

I would assume that there was at least thoughts that someday they might bring out a second titan for some of the factions.

[Rannith]

Well the Cutter and Walker are both listed as Titans however as combined arms units they cannot have assets.

 

[Adran]

I was referring to later releases that we currently know nothing about.

Wyrd intends to release more models for the factions over time. (We know that Kings Empire are going to get a new adjunct in the Form of John Watson as a reward for one of the world wide campaigns)  . Its quite possible that they will release a new Titan for Abyssinia in the next book or so, and by making the chemical foggers Titan only rather than Dreadnaught only, it will be allowed to take them.

They may change their minds and never release another model that Chemical Foggers can attach too, but by writing it the way they have, they leave the option open.

 

 

[Rannith]

That seems reasonable. My only question would be why are some of the assets Dreadnought specific. It seems to undermine their future flexibility.  

It seems however that you have confirmed my fear. I was hoping there was a FAQ or errata somewhere that I hadn’t seen that would allow me to take the Foggers with the Walker or Cutter.  **SIGH**

 

Thanks Adran

 

Rannith

[Clement]

On 4/16/2019 at 2:43 PM, Rannith said:

That seems reasonable. My only question would be why are some of the assets Dreadnought specific. It seems to undermine their future flexibility.  

It seems however that you have confirmed my fear. I was hoping there was a FAQ or errata somewhere that I hadn’t seen that would allow me to take the Foggers with the Walker or Cutter.  **SIGH**

 

Thanks Adran

 

Rannith

I'd assume a future titan would be a totally new model (and not just a dreadnaught with a different weapons load out).   it would need a new suit of assets to let it be customized.

The Prototype is, I assume, generic enough that it wouldn't matter so much.

Bummer about the Cutter/Walker though.   I wish they could have a bit more customization/durability also.

[solkan]

I think Walkers and Cutters have the Combined Arms mechanics working against them for customizing.  The fact that you can bring them back using reinforcements is probably why they can’t have assets.

Because the associated complications for the alternative:

• If you return a model with attached assets, what state are the assets in?
• Can you get any of the discarded assets back when you return the model?
• When you remove the model and it still has assets attached, what happens to those assets?

 

[Rannith]

44 minutes ago, solkan said:

I think Walkers and Cutters have the Combined Arms mechanics working against them for customizing.  The fact that you can bring them back using reinforcements is probably why they can’t have assets.

Because the associated complications for the alternative:

• If you return a model with attached assets, what state are the assets in?
• Can you get any of the discarded assets back when you return the model?
• When you remove the model and it still has assets attached, what happens to those assets?

 

Quite frankly I don’t think it is a problem.  The name of the mechanic makes it simple.  It is not resurrection, it is not revival, it is not even healing. It is re-inforcement. I.e. rushing additional troops into the battle to replace those lost in the fight. To answer your complications;

1) You don’t return a model you replace it with a brand new one from the barracks/factory. Therefore no assets on reinforcements.

2)  Can you get any of the discarded assets back? No because you don’t get the model back you get a new one still in factory defaults.

3) What happens to the assets attached to a model that is destroyed? Umm they were destroyed. Sorry, try not to get your elite guys killed next time.

[Adran]

8 minutes ago, Rannith said:

Quite frankly I don’t think it is a problem.  The name of the mechanic makes it simple.  It is not resurrection, it is not revival, it is not even healing. It is re-inforcement. I.e. rushing additional troops into the battle to replace those lost in the fight. To answer your complications;

1) You don’t return a model you replace it with a brand new one from the barracks/factory. Therefore no assets on reinforcements.

2)  Can you get any of the discarded assets back? No because you don’t get the model back you get a new one still in factory defaults.

3) What happens to the assets attached to a model that is destroyed? Umm they were destroyed. Sorry, try not to get your elite guys killed next time.

That might well be a sensible view of what happens, but you then need to make the rules say all that. (Currently they don't work like that. You can kill a fireteam with an Adjunct asset, but the reinforcements for that squad can still include an adjunct. And, I think from the rest of the Asset and reinforcement rules the foggers would have stuck around on the squads just waiting to be stuck back on their shiny new cutter when it arrived. )

Plus the wording of the rules at the moment would have allowed any fireteam in the squad to take the fogger action, not just the titan in the combined arms squad.

 

I assume it was too wordy for such a niche interaction it wasn't worth the effort to make it happen.

 

[Rannith]

Yeah, sorry, I got a bit sidetracked from my own original question but the discussion about assets in general. To my mind the word reinforcement indicates a nice, military style, practical action however a better description of how the “reinforce” rule actually works  would be “Oogedy boogedy, necromantic, chaos, super techno, magical resurrection miracle.” However that would be even more wordy.

[solkan]

4 minutes ago, Rannith said:

Quite frankly I don’t think it is a problem.  The name of the mechanic makes it simple.  It is not resurrection, it is not revival, it is not even healing. It is re-inforcement. I.e. rushing additional troops into the battle to replace those lost in the fight. To answer your complications;

1) You don’t return a model you replace it with a brand new one from the barracks/factory. Therefore no assets on reinforcements.

2)  Can you get any of the discarded assets back? No because you don’t get the model back you get a new one still in factory defaults.

3) What happens to the assets attached to a model that is destroyed? Umm they were destroyed. Sorry, try not to get your elite guys killed next time.

I was trying to make an indirect point.

None of the words you typed correspond to actual rules in the rulebook.  If you could attach assets to those models, all of those rules would have to be added to the rulebook.

Additionally, the force construction mechanism only attaches Assets to Units.  The statement "Combined Arms cannot attach Assets to their special Unit Card" is essentially redundant, at best trying to point out that "special Unit Card" being used isn't some strange Unit-within-a-unit, it's just a bizarre fireteam belonging to the unit.

If you were able to attach Restricted(Titan) assets to those fireteams, the assets would be (according to the existing rules) attached to unit itself, not the Cutter or Walker.  Again, more rules that would have to exist in the game to explain what happens and how assets attached to a specific fireteam work.

More importantly, if those assets were attached to the "special Unit Card" or the unit itself, then there aren't any rules in the game which would cause those assets to be discarded when the titan fireteam is killed.  And the Reinforcement Token rules wouldn't really work right if you tried to attach assets to the fireteam or "special Unit Card", since they address the "unit's activation" and "an attached Asset".

 

[Rannith]

Fair enough. Just a quick further question,  if the Explosive Rocket Prototype is attached to a unit of Mechanised Infantry can the Walker use it like any other fireteam in the unit? I think the answer should be yes but I would like a more experienced hand’s advice.

[solkan]

3 minutes ago, Rannith said:

Yeah, sorry, I got a bit sidetracked from my own original question but the discussion about assets in general. To my mind the word reinforcement indicates a nice, military style, practical action however a better description of how the “reinforce” rule actually works  would be “Oogedy boogedy, necromantic, chaos, super techno, magical resurrection miracle.” However that would be even more wordy.

I think the more diplomatic description is "an abstract mechanism representing a combination of morale effects, and the opportunity for non-fatal casualties to recover to functional status."  

Maybe it's a bit strange to treat the wounded as invisible abstractions, but according to the Reinforce mechanics they're at least following along with the "surviving" fireteams since that's where they reappear.

[Rannith]

Treating the wounded as invisible abstractions is the main job of a general isn’t it? Seemed that way in most of the first and second world wars anyway.

[solkan]

4 minutes ago, Rannith said:

Fair enough. Just a quick further question,  if the Explosive Rocket Prototype is attached to a unit of Mechanised Infantry can the Walker use it like any other fireteam in the unit? I think the answer should be yes but I would like a more experienced hand’s advice.

Yes it can be attached as such, and yes, the Walker can take the action.  The Walker is a "fireteam in this unit".  It isn't a Squad Fireteam in the Unit (for the three or four rules where that distinction matters).

Edit:  Obligatory:  Hoist the rocket launcher up to the driver.  

[Rannith]

Just now, solkan said:

Yes it can be attached as such, and yes, the Walker can take the action.  The Walker is a "fireteam in this unit".  It isn't a Squad Fireteam in the Unit (for the three or four rules where that distinction matters).

That’s what I thought but I have often found in war games rules what the English seems to say isn’t what it is supposed to mean.  And not just in a certain futuristic skirmish game written in Spain either.

[solkan]

2 minutes ago, Rannith said:

That’s what I thought but I have often found in war games rules what the English seems to say isn’t what it is supposed to mean.  And not just in a certain futuristic skirmish game written in Spain either.

To be fair, that even applies to war-games written in English by native English speakers living in countries adjacent to large bodies of water.   

[Rannith]

Absolutely, i’m Not sure if you are referring to England, America, Canada or Australia (has anything ever been written in Australia?) but I could not agree with you more.