Author Topic: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4  (Read 2307 times)

Starbuck

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 223
New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« on: 15 September 2018, 06:50:12 »
i just noticed the new buildings table in errata 2.4 for AS (2nd printing).

in the new table a light building has a CF of 1 or 2, medium buildings 1 to 3. this is a major change from previous values (light 1 to 5, medium up to 15).
so now i need just one mech to destroy a medium or even a heavy building in one turn.

yes, they added walls and gun emplacements, but even their values seem low to me.

i am a bit puzzled.

was there a discussion somewhere about this change?
what do think about it?
am i missing something?



"You promised me Mars colonies. Instead, I got Facebook."
Buzz Aldrin

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #1 on: 17 September 2018, 21:40:11 »
I don't recall hearing anything about this change, but I like it.

It mostly looks like they added more detail with differentiation between regular buildings, heavy buildings, and hardened/fortresses rather than linking everything to building size. They broke down the old categories into more options. So now a small 'building' could be anywhere from 1 to 10 CF, depending on whether it is just a regular building, a heavy building, or a some variety of fortress, which is still a building. However, the suggested CF for each of the sub-types is much more narrow. I like that it breaks the implicit link between size and durability that the old table had. Now you can have a small, tough building or a large, flimsy building and the table gives you better guidance on what the stats for such a building should be.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #2 on: 17 September 2018, 22:44:48 »
Buildings have been under review for years.  The initial problem was when I was combining BattleForce and Total Warfare to create the draft to the AS rulebook.  BattleForce already had building rules, so I used them as is.
However, in BF, a single "hex" is seven TW hexes.  So a BF building hex is actually 7 TW building hexes.  Alpha Strike doesn't use the same size (a unit is a lance, hex is 7 TW hexes, etc) that BF does, but the building were still being treated as BF buildings. AS buildings were as tough or tougher than an Atlas. A light building in TW has a max CF of 15.  It can take 15 points of damage.  That's only a half point of armor for AS. Giving it 5 was the equivalent of CF 50.
In addition, there was a conflict with how to convert mobile bases with CF.  The same CF mobile base had much less AS armor than the same CF building.  Though they were supposed to be equivalent.  When somebody asked about converting a constructing building, with armor and weapons, we had nowhere to point them to that made any sense. So I put errata to fix my error.
However, we had several people point out that, in play, many people use larger buildings for AS.  They didn't want to have to divide a 6" radius building into 2" radius buildings.  What happens when you destroy a 2" radius building but your "terrain" is a single piece? So the errata was withdrawn while we reconsidered it.
The compromise was to offer an option for large buildings, with 6"+ radius that had higher CF ratings to represent the common larger terrain pieces in AS for buildings.

Note that you can add armor to buildings on top of its CF rating.  That gets into construction.  But at least those rules should work now that we've fixed buildings CF conversion.  For every 30 points of armor you add to a building (round normal), you can add a point of AS armor to the building.   You'd have to check...TO I think to see what the max armor limits are for buildings?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6349
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #3 on: 18 September 2018, 08:33:12 »
Cool, I notice on the table though, there is no Hardened Buildings except for things like Gun Emplacements and Castle Brians.

Was that an omission intentional or in error?

I also ask because Bridges are very similar to Buildings for the most part, and have (had now?) similar CF ranging anywhere from 1 to 50 (page 54 AS PDF). Will Bridges also see a similar CF rework (mind you this does not need a whole new table, but rather something as simple as replacing the text from:

Quote
Bridges, like buildings, receive a Construction Factor (CF) that
reflects their overall strength and stability. This can be any value
from 1 to 50. If a bridge suffers damage from attacks or other
conditions, the damage points are subtracted from its CF value. A
bridge reduced to a CF of 0 is destroyed.
Weight Limits: As the bridge’s current CF value also represents
its weight capacity, the CF value of the bridge corresponds to the
maximum size class of units that may safely cross that bridge (in
addition, of course, to being of a physical size wide enough for the
miniature to stand upon). A bridge with a CF of 21 or more may
support units of Size 4. Bridges with a CF of 20 or less may only
support units up to Size 3. A bridge that has a CF of 10 points or
less may only support units up to Size 2. Bridges of 5 CF or fewer
may only support Size 1 units.

to

Quote
Bridges, like buildings, receive a Construction Factor (CF) that
reflects their overall strength and stability. This can be any value
from 1 to 4. If a bridge suffers damage from attacks or other
conditions, the damage points are subtracted from its CF value. A
bridge reduced to a CF of 0 is destroyed.
Weight Limits: As the bridge’s current CF value also represents
its weight capacity, the CF value of the bridge corresponds to the
maximum size class of units that may safely cross that bridge (in
addition, of course, to being of a physical size wide enough for the
miniature to stand upon). A bridge with a CF of 4 or more may
support units of Size 4. Bridges with a CF of 3 or less may only
support units up to Size 3. A bridge that has a CF of 2 points or
less may only support units up to Size 2. Bridges of 1 CF or fewer
may only support Size 1 units.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #4 on: 18 September 2018, 10:30:08 »
From TO buildings, standard buildings don't have a hardened option.
I had forgotten a separate bridges section existed, thanks for pointing that out.  heigh ho, it's off to work i go... 
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #5 on: 18 September 2018, 10:51:20 »
Ah, you can have hardened bridges though, so they can go up to 10 CF in AS.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6349
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #6 on: 18 September 2018, 10:59:44 »
No worries....So does this also mean we will also soon be seeing a rework of the Advanced Buildings/Gun Emplacement rules, etc from TACTICAL OPERATIONS in the upcoming AS Rule Book?
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #7 on: 18 September 2018, 11:08:18 »
No worries....So does this also mean we will also soon be seeing a rework of the Advanced Buildings/Gun Emplacement rules, etc from TACTICAL OPERATIONS in the upcoming AS Rule Book?

I don’t have any plans to do so. 
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6349
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #8 on: 18 September 2018, 11:14:07 »
:(
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Starbuck

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #9 on: 03 October 2018, 09:49:03 »
hey nckestrel,

thanks alot for your detailed answer.

i do agree that the old values were way too high, but i think the new ones are a bit too low.
we will give this a try and see ...


"You promised me Mars colonies. Instead, I got Facebook."
Buzz Aldrin

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #10 on: 03 October 2018, 12:04:34 »
hey nckestrel,

thanks alot for your detailed answer.

i do agree that the old values were way too high, but i think the new ones are a bit too low.
we will give this a try and see ...

Possibly.  Feel free to give em and try and give feedback. Especially since I’m still waiting to review AS:CE.  Though it could show up (for the next review) without warning.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6349
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #11 on: 03 October 2018, 12:56:45 »
Possibly.  Feel free to give em and try and give feedback. Especially since I’m still waiting to review AS:CE.  Though it could show up (for the next review) without warning.

Without even testing them, it appears to me the CFs are indeed a little low, but I also agree the originals were a little high.

In addition, the rules for moving in buildings (page 84) states a building will take 1 point of incidental damage for each inch moved through. this puts all small light/medium buildings into the 'Auto-destroyed' category for units moving into them, which also means they will take damage for causing said collapse.

Honestly, looking at Numbers based on what came before and what looking at, my initial gut is make them factors of 5:

Light - CF5
Medium - CF10
Heavy - CF15
Hardened - CF20

It would make light structures not one-hit wonders, but largers not the current slog fest to take down.

Anywho, just me initial Mark-I eyeball view of it.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Starbuck

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #12 on: 24 October 2018, 11:06:01 »
follow-up question/problem:

tornado damage (AS 2nd printing, p. 95)

"Against terrain and buildings, a tornado will deliver 3 times its F rating in damage to the target’s Terrain Factor or Construction Factor (as appropriate)."

an average tornado has an F rating of 2 or 3, so it would deal 6 or 9 damage points. i think this should be adjusted to reflect the new building CFs.
"You promised me Mars colonies. Instead, I got Facebook."
Buzz Aldrin

Xochi

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Three strengths he gave us.
Re: New Buildings Table in AS errata 2.4
« Reply #13 on: 09 December 2018, 14:21:32 »
We actually use buildings a lot and I agree its to low. There is absolutely no reason to put your infantry in a building because it's going to instant kill them. Without any hardened structures other than castles and emplacements basically you can't have any urban warfare with infantry cause you just knock down a building with 1 shot.

 

Register