Campaign to fix the Antagonizer SPA

[SC_Dave]

After a recently debating the Antagonizer SPA with another Alpha Strike player I posted a couple of questions in the rules questions forum. The questions and answers I received are repeated below:

Q1. Does "comes within 6" mean at any time during the Antagonizer's move, or just the point at which the Antagonizer's move ends?

A1. comes within 6" is at any point during any unit's movement.

Q2. If there are multiple enraged units, and the Antagonizer is "destroyed" during a single combat phase before all of the enraged units have fired, are the enraged units that have not yet fired free to select another target? Or, must the enraged units fire at the "destroyed" Antagonizer because an end phase has not yet occurred & therefore "the effects do not take place", i.e. the enraged units are not released from being enraged until the end phase despite the Antagonizer being destroyed?

A2.The enraged doesn't end till the unit is removed from play in turn End Phase.  Until then it's still there and the attackers stilll enraged.

In the debate I had with my fellow player he had argued that coming within 6" at any time during movement made the SPA too powerful. I had argued that enraged units should be able to choose another target in the combat phase if the Antagonizer is destroyed as this made the SPA too powerful. (I also feel that it is out of step with the way combat is resolved in Alpha Strike as there are no advanced declarations of fire for all units).

The rulings about the Antagonizer SPA make it possible to completely ruin a game of Alpha Strike as follows:

Give a fast moving mech such as a Locust 6M (TMM 5 - 36" move) or Fireball XF (TMM 5 - 48" move) the Antagonizer SPA. Move it early during the movement phase and sweep it through the ranks of your opponent then move it toward their rear. The chances of each unit you passed not becoming enraged is 28% (assuming no Iron Will) so there's a good chance that most of your opponent's force will have to turn around and start running toward your Antagonizer. You can now predict accurately where your opponents forces will go & start moving your units accordingly. As a bonus, even if they do take down your Antagonizer this turn, the enraged units can't shoot at anything else.

If you also agree the current implementation of this SPA is game ruining, please voice your opinion here and ask for it to be amended.

Based on the debate with my fellow player 2 suggestions to make the SPA less ruinous of a game would be:

a. Make it that coming within 6" is defined as from the point at which the Antagonizer's movement ends. This stops fast movers sweeping through the ranks and enraging a large portion of the opposing force.

b. Make it that enraged units (that have not yet fired) are released to fire at other units in the event that the Antagonizer is destroyed in the combat phase.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Well, let's make sure we're talking apples to apples.  In that interest, I'm going to quote the entirety of the SPA below.  Including it's current errata state, since the "proposed text" did not become erratum.

Antagonizer
Unit Type: Any
SPA Cost: 3 points
As combat talents go, the ability to enrage the enemy may seem
ill-conceived at first, but few can overstate how effective it is when
it draws fire from a wounded friend—or exposes the berserking
target’s weaker back armor at the worst possible moment.
Every enemy unit that comes within 6” of a unit using this SPA must roll 2D6. If the roll is 8 or less, the enemy unit becomes enraged. Enraged units must move as close as possible to the Antagonizer unit, taking the most direct, passable
and legal route toward the Antagonizer. The enraged unit ignores increased movement costs or possible damage inflicted by its path for determining the most direct path.
The enraged unit can only make attacks against its Antagonizer, unless the enraged unit has no attack that can target the Antagonizer. If the unit has multiple attacks, and only some of those attacks can target the Antagonizer, the enraged unit can make attacks against other targets only with those attacks that can’t target the Antagonizer. Attack from the enraged unit with an area of effect must include the Antagonizer in attack’s targeted area of effect.
If the enraged unit begins any phase more than 24” from or without line of sight to the Antagonizer, the unit is no longer enraged. This ability does not function at all versus aerospace units.

The red text is the errata v 1.1 overwriting the 2nd paragraph of what's printed in the ASC.

So a few points:
The clarification on how "coming within 6 inches" works basically means it doesn't only work during the movement made by the Antagonizer.  It's obviously more powerful this way since not only can it be used actively, it can be used passively as area denial (come within 6" of this point, and you won't be allowed to shoot at anything but this guy).  Being able to force your opponent to allocate shots, particularly highly damaging shots, on low-probability odds is very, very powerful.  But what makes it truly powerful is that there's no cap on how many units can be simultaneously enraged.

Perhaps even worse than that is the movement requirements.  At least the erratum doesn't let you force your enemy to walk thru minefields anymore. (or rather you CAN still do so, they just become immune to mines while enraged).  Still, Alpha Strike is a game of maneuver and an ability to force your opponent to make uncoordinated moves (especially out into the open and out of any kind of cover) is imo the most powerful ability in the game.

However, TPTB did intend for some sanity checks to be in place.  First of all, if the antagonizer hides and breaks LOS, then the enraged units are free to fire at whatever they want (if there's no LOS, the enraged unit has "no attacks that can target the Antagonizer").  Secondly, the Antagonizer may not dodge out to long range or else the same thing occurs.  Yes it's very, very powerful to put on a high TMM unit, but at least the range can't be worse than medium for the enraged targets to be forced to shoot at it.  In both of these cases, not only is the enraged unit free to shoot at whatever it wants, it's also released from the enraged "debuff".

So, yes.  Putting Antagonizer on a unit with +4TMM is a no brainer of a decision.  Honestly it really seems that's what's intended by design.  Its a very powerful board control ability, perhaps the strongest there is.  But in order to maximize its ease of use, you need to put it on a unit that will probably go away the first time the "crowd controlled" enemy units get a lucky to-hit roll.  With a +4TMM, Cover, and Medium range, it's still a 12 to hit for basic skill pilots.  It WILL eventually happen.

I kind of agree with the OP, but I suspect not to the same extent.  I think Antagonizer would be fine as is, if it only could enrage one target at a time.  It even makes sense to me in an in-universe kind of way.  You really gotta focus on annoying someone to get them enraged and keep them enraged.  Seems like it ought to be exponentially difficult, if possible at all, to enrage multiple targets into ignoring all tactics and common sense.

[SC_Dave]

At least the erratum doesn't let you force your enemy to walk thru minefields anymore. (or rather you CAN still do so, they just become immune to mines while enraged). 

Actually, I would interpret the wording differently. To me "ignores increased movement costs or possible damage inflicted by its path for determining the most direct path", would indicate that the unit must ignore the fact that taking the most direct route could damage it, i.e. if there is a minefield in the way, along the most direct path, the unit must walk through it & suffer any consequences. Perhaps something else to seek clarification for?

I had never thought of using minefields in this way so thanks for the tip ;-)

[Tai Dai Cultist]

If you look at the progression from my original question to a series of proposed rules to the final errata, I think it's clear the intention is that the enraged targets must move through hazards... they just get a pass on being slowed down or suffering any damage from them.

And heh, kiting people through minefields was like one of the first abusive things I thought of when looking at the original rule about imposing mandatory, involuntary movement :D

Another thought:
not every rule is equally appropriate when combined in certain ways.  Yes you can put Antagonizer on a +5TMM Fireball, and leave large swathes of your enemy forced to try for impossible shots needing 13s to hit.  But +5TMMs are corner cases... it's easier to just not take an optional rule to that kind of extreme than to tune a rule for those extremes.

Unfortunately for Antagonizer, "extremes" aren't always that extreme.  I'm firmly of the opinion that Antagonizer isn't a good fit for most scenarios.  And it should be outright banned in any scenario involving moving off a given board edge.  "Ooh you think you're gonna break thru my lines?  NOPE!  You're going to ignore the scenario win conditions and chase me!  MUAHAHAHAHA!"   Maybe even refuse to legalize it in any scenario involved in claiming objectives, too.

[Son of Kerenski]

You already know how I feel about Antagonizer Dave.

I just think its wrong that a Locust 6M can snake its way through an entire force and come within 6" of every model during its move and force a check.

That just seems utterly, utterly broken.

[SC_Dave]

If you look at the progression from my original question to a series of proposed rules to the final errata, I think it's clear the intention is that the enraged targets must move through hazards... they just get a pass on being slowed down or suffering any damage from them.

Unfortunately for Antagonizer, "extremes" aren't always that extreme.  I'm firmly of the opinion that Antagonizer isn't a good fit for most scenarios.  And it should be outright banned in any scenario involving moving off a given board edge.  "Ooh you think you're gonna break thru my lines?  NOPE!  You're going to ignore the scenario win conditions and chase me!  MUAHAHAHAHA!"   Maybe even refuse to legalize it in any scenario involved in claiming objectives, too.

I took a look at the thread you linked and saw the following: "The only allowances for not taking the most direct route are obstacles that are completely impassable.  The enraged unit ignores increased movement costs or possible damage inflicted by its path for the most direct path."

The most direct path is a straight line. My opinion of this wording is that the unit should take the "straight line" unless there is an impassable obstacle the unit must go around. I think "ignores increased movement costs or possible damage...for the most direct path" isn't meaning, for example, that the extra cost of moving through woods is ignored, but rather you must pay these costs and take the "straight line" even if you would spend less inches of movement moving around the woods.

But I'm digressing here and getting away from the point of this thread - trying to get the Antagonizer SPA improved. You wrote that you are of the opinion that the Antagonizer isn't a good fit for most scenarios. Is it because you have found it too powerful? We are all free to put bans & house rules in play but wouldn't it be better to improve the rules so that doesn't need to happen?

Aside from purchasing SPAs with points, Antagonizer is also an SPA choice for a Command Lance if using formation building rules. As such it would be nice to get the SPA improved so people don't want to ban it from their games.

In addition to the incorrect interpretations of the rules I mentioned, I did like your ideas of adding a cap to the number of units that can become enraged, or making it progressively harder to enrage further units.

In a recent game I put the Antagonizer SPA on a 10" mover (when using formation bonus SPAs). My plan wasn't so much to use it for Antagonizing, but rather take advantage of Iron Will as I was expecting my opponent would likely field an Antagonizer. We were also playing under the interpretation that 6" from the enemy was from the point at which the Antagonizer ended its movement. As it turned out my Antagonizer took some early hits from indirect fire & ended up with 2 structure points. I decided to take advantage of the SPA before I lost it and used it to trap a Wolverine and destroy it. I lost my Antagonizer in the process but without the SPA I doubt I would have taken the Wolverine down that turn.

As far as SPA point costs go, the cost for Antagonizer is 3. I also had 2 x heavy tanks using the Weapon Specialist SPA, which also costs 3 points if purchasing SPAs. The two Weapon Specialist SPAs gained me 1 extra point of damage throughout the entire scenario. In SPA cost vs effect on game I believe got a lot better value from the Antagonizer, even when using it in a modified form.

[nckestrel]

The ignoring is only for determining the most direct path.  If a path goes through woods for 5" (cost 10" move) or could go around for 8", it would go straight through.  If there are minefields in the way, the enraged unit will go through the minefield.  The enraged unit only cares about terrain or other obstacles if they block the path entirely, then they go around by the most direct path that isn't blocked.
But the enraged unit still pays the movement cost for the terrain, and is affected by the minefield. 

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The ignoring is only for determining the most direct path.  If a path goes through woods for 5" (cost 10" move) or could go around for 8", it would go straight through.  If there are minefields in the way, the enraged unit will go through the minefield.  The enraged unit only cares about terrain or other obstacles if they block the path entirely, then they go around by the most direct path that isn't blocked.
But the enraged unit still pays the movement cost for the terrain, and is affected by the minefield.

Oh, wow. That's.... even more broken then.  I had thought that an immunity to damage/slowdown was intended to be a way to minimize the damage done by forced movement.  Ouch.  Add lava to the growing list of optional rules that you should never combine with Antagonizer.

[SC_Dave]

Thanks nckestrel for jumping in and clearing up that issue. Thanks for your answers in the rules questions forum too!

[SC_Dave]

Well, there's three voices here now who think the Antagonizer SPA could do with some improvements. Anybody else?

Here's a list of ideas that have already been put forward for improvement (and a new one):

*Make it that coming within 6" is defined as from the point at which the Antagonizer's movement ends. This stops fast movers sweeping through the ranks and enraging a large portion of the opposing force.

*Make it that enraged units (that have not yet fired) are released to fire at other units in the event that the Antagonizer is destroyed in the combat phase.

*Put a cap on the number of units that can be enraged at one time.

*Make it exponentially more difficult, if possible at all, to enrage multiple targets.

*Link the chance of a unit becoming enraged to skill level - the better the skill of the target unit, the less likely it will become enraged.

I don't want to take away all the Antagonizer SPA's teeth, just give it some more sensible limitations so the scenario I outlined in my first post cannot occur. Mechwarriors are supposed to be the warrior elite. Surely their ranks shouldn't completely dissolve into an undisciplined rabble because some idiot runs past in a light mech and insults their parentage?   

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Well, there's three voices here now who think the Antagonizer SPA could do with some improvements. Anybody else?

Here's a list of ideas that have already been put forward for improvement (and a new one):

*Make it that coming within 6" is defined as from the point at which the Antagonizer's movement ends. This stops fast movers sweeping through the ranks and enraging a large portion of the opposing force.

*Make it that enraged units (that have not yet fired) are released to fire at other units in the event that the Antagonizer is destroyed in the combat phase.

*Put a cap on the number of units that can be enraged at one time.

*Make it exponentially more difficult, if possible at all, to enrage multiple targets.

*Link the chance of a unit becoming enraged to skill level - the better the skill of the target unit, the less likely it will become enraged.

I don't want to take away all the Antagonizer SPA's teeth, just give it some more sensible limitations so the scenario I outlined in my first post cannot occur. Mechwarriors are supposed to be the warrior elite. Surely their ranks shouldn't completely dissolve into an undisciplined rabble because some idiot runs past in a light mech and insults their parentage?   

Well, there's a problem with your angle.  Discussing house rules means taking it to another forum.  And for whatever reason, people just don't seem to like discussing other people's ideas about house rules.  Unless we want to beg some red beemer to fly by and say "move it to the proper forum" all we can do here is say "Yup.  It's not very well tuned as is" or "Nope.  I think it's fine."  And even if we get something like a poll going to determine how many people think each way, it's not binding in any way.

I'm surprised nckestrel chimed in.  Not to say he doesn't care; I know he does.  It's just that there's nothing he can do here.  As we saw in your thread in the rules questions thread, what he thinks the rule should be is irrelevant when he's overruled.  And the fact that he was overruled, means those who overrruled him did indeed do whatever thinking on the topic they're likely to do.  MAYBE they'll see new arguments here and revisit their opinions, but if they begin to do so I highly doubt we'll be informed.  I doubt there's anything new here that wasn't already brought up and shot down, though.

If you're game, I'd be happy to join you over in the house rules forum to discuss ideas about house-ruling Antagonizer.  Given the surprise clarification upthread, I'm more convinced than ever it deserves to be house-ruled.

[SC_Dave]

Well, there's a problem with your angle.  Discussing house rules means taking it to another forum.

MAYBE they'll see new arguments here and revisit their opinions, but if they begin to do so I highly doubt we'll be informed.  I doubt there's anything new here that wasn't already brought up and shot down, though.

I wasn't intending for this thread to be a discussion of house rules. I suppose I just thought it polite to offer some suggestions to improve the rules rather than just say "it's broken, please fix it".

My intention was for this thread to act as a petition in the hopes that the powers that be would, as you say, "see new arguments here and revisit their opinions". Especially if there were a lot of voices in agreement. If there's only 3 of us that care why bother?

If I have gone about this the wrong way I apologize to the moderators & writers of the rules, no disrespect is intended. Alpha Strike is a newish rules set and I can see the changes & improvements being made through errata etc. I just wanted to point out a section in the rules I believe could use some improvements for the benefit of all to enjoy.

[Son of Kerenski]

So if Ive got this right, Antagonizer gets Iron Will as well?

Iron Will = 2 pts of SPA cost

Which makes the rest of the ability cost only 1 point.

Does that seem just a bit wrong to anyone else?

[pheonixstorm]

If an Antagonizer is subject to a similar
psychological attack by another unit with the Animal Mimicry,
Antagonizer, or Demoralizer SPAs, treat the unit as if it has the
Iron Will SPA, and apply a +2 modifier to the roll result to resist
being intimidated or enraged.

Makes you wonder... Does the actual SPA stack with this?? hehe

[nckestrel]

So if Ive got this right, Antagonizer gets Iron Will as well?

Iron Will = 2 pts of SPA cost

Which makes the rest of the ability cost only 1 point.

Does that seem just a bit wrong to anyone else?

Iron Will was changed to 1 point.

[nckestrel]

If I have gone about this the wrong way I apologize to the moderators & writers of the rules, no disrespect is intended. Alpha Strike is a newish rules set and I can see the changes & improvements being made through errata etc. I just wanted to point out a section in the rules I believe could use some improvements for the benefit of all to enjoy.

Everyone has been polite and I for one appreciate both that and hearing from fans/players.  Sounds fine to me.

EDIT: Specific rules should go in House Rules as Tai Dai Cultist suggested though.  Either 1) CGL was already considering something like your suggestion, in which case CGL goes "sigh, now some fan is going to think we stole their idea" or 2) CGL wasn't considering it, and now they can't use your idea or it's "sigh, CGL stole some fan's idea" or 3) CGL doesn't want to use your idea anyway.  IE. There's not really a win there.    More general requests are fine.  "I wish they would clarify timing."  or "It's too powerful" or "It doesn't work in X situation" or "I wish this were available to my faction", etc are fine.

[pheonixstorm]

I would be more than happy if CGL "stole" my idea, though I would hope they would at least be kind enough to add a thank you or something in the appropriate section of said book. TBH any rules suggestion I do make I try to make it as usefully vague as possible so it can at least be looked at and considered.

It is a silly policy but I do understand why they do it.

[SC_Dave]

EDIT: Specific rules should go in House Rules as Tai Dai Cultist suggested though.  Either 1) CGL was already considering something like your suggestion, in which case CGL goes "sigh, now some fan is going to think we stole their idea" or 2) CGL wasn't considering it, and now they can't use your idea or it's "sigh, CGL stole some fan's idea" or 3) CGL doesn't want to use your idea anyway.  IE. There's not really a win there.    More general requests are fine.  "I wish they would clarify timing."  or "It's too powerful" or "It doesn't work in X situation" or "I wish this were available to my faction", etc are fine.

So it's actually better for players just to say "it's broken, please fix it" than offer suggestions. I guess it's a "we live in a litigious society", unsolicited work thing. What a shame since international communications are now quicker and easier than ever before. I've got Battletech books in my collection that have instructions in the front for where to send your letters & self addressed envelopes - that's how it used to be.

If it makes any difference, and I've presented an idea on this forum that CGL likes, I hereby publicly renounce any claims to intellectual property and expectations of compensation for same. (I would happily forward a physical document to that effect too.)

[Son of Kerenski]

All I care about is stuff that is broken or is ambiguous just gets fixed.

Because that then results in less confusion and people getting upset over how powerful things are in comparison to others. I think I might have been amoung the first to discover how truly powerful antagonizer was in The Battle of Brisbane in early 2015.

[pheonixstorm]

per Campaign Operations pg 73

The Antagonizer can attempt to taunt only one unit per turn,
but may enrage multiple units in this fashion.

It should be easy enough to change the rules in AS to more closely match the changes made to the SPA to better fit TW. All of these are based off the SPAs from A Time of War anyway  ;D

[Tai Dai Cultist]

That's a pretty good find. 

While the AS version seems to explicitly be meant to passively inflict the Enraged condition an infinite number of times per turn (since it works when you move up on the Antagonizer and not only during the antagonizer's move) it seems it may well be within the spirit of the larger pan-ruleset view that in AS the Antagonizer can only enrage one new target during each of its own moves, but any number of hostiles that trigger the 6" during their own moves also must test.

[pheonixstorm]

I read it more as you can enrage a new target every turn until EVERY enemy unit is enraged. Perfect for a fast assault such as the Charger that can actually deal with the punishment with out getting killed in a turn or two.

[SC_Dave]

It has recently come to my attention that the Antagonizer SPA also appears in Campaign Operations (p 73). The Campaign Ops version of the rule allows for 1 unit to be enraged per turn & also has other elements different to the current Alpha Strike implementation notably in length of enragement & conditions under which an enraged unit can resume normal activity.

Perhaps the Campaign Ops version could be drawn upon for a more balanced Alpha Strike version?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

It has recently come to my attention that the Antagonizer SPA also appears in Campaign Operations (p 73). The Campaign Ops version of the rule allows for 1 unit to be enraged per turn & also has other elements different to the current Alpha Strike implementation notably in length of enragement & conditions under which an enraged unit can resume normal activity.

Perhaps the Campaign Ops version could be drawn upon for a more balanced Alpha Strike version?

I like to believe that it's already "supppsed" to work that way too in AS and TPTB just haven't issued the erratum yet.

[pheonixstorm]

For CO and ASC all the SPAs were adapted from A Time of War so sometimes things get lost in translation.

[Kibutsu]

I used this SPA for the first time last night and did find it to be easily abused, though I personally refrained from doing so. I think a very simple, elegant solution would be to allow enraged units to roll each turn before they take action. On an 8 or less they remain enraged, otherwise they come to their senses and can act freely.