Forums of the Megaverse®

If a 5 inch diameter circle is moved off center by 5 or more inches those two circles do not overlap. Scatter distance is determined by rolling 2d6. The median outcome is a 7. All rolls 5 or higher will not overlap (assuming there are only 2 templates, I realize there could be more). Furthermore, just because there is overlap does not mean any targets are actually caught in it.

Also a slight clarification/addendum to my proposed changes: A volley of blast missiles would all be targeted at the center of a single template. Roll to strike each missile, scatter all failed rolls. Acquiring multiple targets is reserved for missiles (or other weapons for that matter) that are shooting at a specific target. The blast template (and scatter damage) is how you damage multiple targets with the Blast trait.

mrwrightkkpsi wrote:If a 5 inch diameter circle is moved off center by 5 or more inches those two circles do not overlap. Scatter distance is determined by rolling 2d6. The median outcome is a 7. All rolls 5 or higher will not overlap (assuming there are only 2 templates, I realize there could be more). Furthermore, just because there is overlap does not mean any targets are actually caught in it.

Also a slight clarification/addendum to my proposed changes: A volley of blast missiles would all be targeted at the center of a single template. Roll to strike each missile, scatter all failed rolls. Acquiring multiple targets is reserved for missiles (or other weapons for that matter) that are shooting at a specific target. The blast template (and scatter damage) is how you damage multiple targets with the Blast trait.

Ok, your assuming if the blast scatter, when you need to hit a DF of 5 that's still not too often. BUT if you do miss the Dodge will almost always be pretty much a given but could still cost a lot of Command Points.

Look, I love the fact we are having arguments over rules that fans/players are suggesting. I think it is really healthy, particularly for games that are going to have a tournament setting. Lets use the ultimate tournament game as an example: Magic the Gathering. No matter what you think of it, that game has a long running, codified set of rules that has maintained a 20+year history and undergone constant change. Tournament play is what really makes Magic what it is- stunningly constant yet willing to change, sometimes on the fly, for the good of the tournament structure (which happens to be one of the many sub-sets of people drawn to the game). This is a team of rules directors that banned a card (Skull Clamp) just a few short weeks after it entered tournament play because they failed to realize certain rules interactions. That is a tacit admission of a mistake done in the name of making tournaments more fair, more open and more fun.

I think we are reaching critical mass of sorts with this topic. We can all argue until we are blue in the face as to what is right/best/most in the spirit etc. What PB needs to do is take all of theses suggestions into account and figure out tournament rules. That will require admitting that a mistake was made in regards to game balance and rules explanation and will make players grateful and willing to participate. Run a tournament or two and the results will be apparent- if everyone brings a bunch of Phalanx models out and the game becomes nothing more than a die rolling contest we have a problem. The question becomes how do we solve it? Maybe you ban Phalanx or limit it to 1 or 2 per army- just like a VF-1S- as an admission of it's weapons raw power (Magic has it's 'power nine' for a very similar reason). The other option is to either modify traits of the Phalanx weapons or the Phalanx itself because we need to admit that the real problem is the Phalanx more so than anything else (a VF-1 will launch all of it's (now errata'd to) 6 missiles in one or two turns and we all know it). I want to reiterate, this is really for tournament play. People home-rule themselves into oblivion on tons of games. Hell, you probably can't play a game of Monopoly outside your own family and know what is going on. If this were an RPG, or any other type game, none of this would be that important to anyone. Publisher says 'tournament' = people look for ways to break rules for competitive advantage = people spend money buying models to build a tournament army = people get super pissed when the rules change mid stream. Bottom line: If you want to charge admission and reward strategy everyone has to be assuming the same rules exist for all players and someone adjudicating the event has an absolute answer to any question.

And as a straight-up answer to Mike1975: More than one great Zentreadi officer has rallied hist troops with the battle cry "Give me command points or give me Death!' That's all I'm sayin'.

Exactly the reason to have these arguments now. PB has no Tournament rules. The rules need to be effective and clean initially so that there is little to no reason to change them later. I honestly do not think these latest Blast rules were well thought out to the full logical conclusion and how they would affect gameplay.

In the few games iv played so far phalanxes havent even been a problem at all. the only issue we've had with them is they drastically slow down the game with the large number of templates.

anyways how we've been doing it here.

Blast Missile volleys: all targets must be within 2 inches of the initial missile and may be freely chosen between ground and Mecha targets, and scatter independantly unless multiple missiles target the same place then they follow the normal blast scatter rules.

Shooting down blast missiles: 6+ to shoot them down. we have had no issues with this. You dont roll per template that hits a single mecha, that mecha rolls to shoot down ONCE and if he succeeds he removes all the templates effecting him. so the more mecha hit by template missiles the easier they are to shoot down as only 1 has to succeed to remove the entire template from the board (or in some cases more then 1 template at once) (pg27 under successfully dodging a blast attack "If a mecha's attempt to shoot down a blast missile is successful, all of the blast missiles that would damage that mecha are destroyed and NO mecha are damaged by those missiles)

we had a game where the zentradi player put all his battlepods in a blob and was rolling 7 or so dice to shoot down blast missiles and was knocking them out of the sky about 90% of the time. the few that did hit he was easily able to mitigate the damage with close formation and stategic use of command points

I like the free exchange of ideas. But I still don't like that nobody is playing it the same way. Even within our group there are 2-3 interpretations. Now if Palladium's plan is to sit back and watch the discussion, and once it has run it's course, take everything under advisement and make a ruling, I'd be happy. But not seeing anyone who is drawing a paycheck from Palladium on the forum as an owner is a bit odd.

warmaster21 wrote:Shooting down blast missiles: 6+ to shoot them down. we have had no issues with this. You dont roll per template that hits a single mecha, that mecha rolls to shoot down ONCE and if he succeeds he removes all the templates effecting him. so the more mecha hit by template missiles the easier they are to shoot down as only 1 has to succeed to remove the entire template from the board (or in some cases more then 1 template at once) (pg27 under successfully dodging a blast attack "If a mecha's attempt to shoot down a blast missile is successful, all of the blast missiles that would damage that mecha are destroyed and NO mecha are damaged by those missiles)

That sounds like the regular rules for knocking down a volley of missiles with a few key exceptions:

1. Blast missiles launched in a volley can be independently targeted to hit points on the ground or particular mecha.
2. No matter the Anti-missile weapon, you need a 6+ to hit to knock down a Blast missile.
3. If a particular mecha succeeds in their Anti-Missile roll, all Blast missile templates covering it are removed.

Now suppose a mecha decides to Dodge a blast missile (if allowed to)? Following the same logic, if the Dodge roll succeeds, does it Dodge all the damage from all the templates that are covering it? Or if it misses the roll, will all the templates covering it hit it? Or can it spend more CPs to Dodge each missile?

I agree, balance analysis comes later, first it would be nice to know how to play it.

I love how everyone sees the way they read it as the "clear way" to play it

no matter how clear something is written there will always be multiple ways to interpret something..

until official faq's come out i would just say talk it over with your play group, go over the different interpretations and decide on the way to run it until then.

A solution to this is to either have a video tutorial or written examples from Jeff Burke or Carmen Bellaire.

BradyTech wrote:

warmaster21 wrote:Shooting down blast missiles: 6+ to shoot them down. we have had no issues with this. You dont roll per template that hits a single mecha, that mecha rolls to shoot down ONCE and if he succeeds he removes all the templates effecting him. so the more mecha hit by template missiles the easier they are to shoot down as only 1 has to succeed to remove the entire template from the board (or in some cases more then 1 template at once) (pg27 under successfully dodging a blast attack "If a mecha's attempt to shoot down a blast missile is successful, all of the blast missiles that would damage that mecha are destroyed and NO mecha are damaged by those missiles)

That sounds like the regular rules for knocking down a volley of missiles with a few key exceptions:

1. Blast missiles launched in a volley can be independently targeted to hit points on the ground or particular mecha.
2. No matter the Anti-missile weapon, you need a 6+ to hit to knock down a Blast missile.
3. If a particular mecha succeeds in their Anti-Missile roll, all Blast missile templates covering it are removed.

Now suppose a mecha decides to Dodge a blast missile (if allowed to)? Following the same logic, if the Dodge roll succeeds, does it Dodge all the damage from all the templates that are covering it? Or if it misses the roll, will all the templates covering it hit it? Or can it spend more CPs to Dodge each missile?

Okay, a friend and I played it the way warmaster21 describes it this evening. We played two games of "Find the Loot" in a mostly urban area (DZC tiles and buildings). Game 1 we each fielded 175pts. I had a Zent' Regult Attack Squadron with Grell and a Regult Artillery Squadron. Game 2 was at 255. I gave the Attack Squadron veteran warrior and Recon Regult. The Arty Squadron picked up another Heavy Arty Squad. My opponent was PATACK, who fielded a mix of Destroids in Game 1 and the same with a third squadron of Valks thrown in for Game 2. So in both games I had 2 or 4 Zent Heavy Arty Regults with Ammo 4 / Volley X / Blast Missiles.

My strategy with the Heavy Arty Regults so far has been to use them as early as possible before something takes them down. With a 48" range, it's not hard to Leap to the top of buildings and sight down the city streets to find targets. When I find UEDF mecha, I loose all four missiles whether its one mecha or a bunch. I usually manage to get 2-3 (sometimes 4) under the templates.

This evening, with warmaster21's interpretation of blast missiles, the Zents enjoyed good hunting. Sometimes, I was able to bring three mecha under four separate Blast Templates from a Volley X of four separately aimed missiles landing at the corners of a half-inch square patch of ground. This gave the UEDF three dice to roll just one 6 to knock all four templates in those sorts of attacks. PATACK's rolling was mostly bad tonight and I typically took down one UEDF mecha and damaged two more for each Zent' Heavy Arty Regult that was able to launch its volley of Missiles. The Light Arty Regults fared pretty well, too. Often batting cleanup on the damaged mecha. After that, the Attack Squadron recovered the loot and then went in to try and set up cross-fires against the remaining UEDF mecha.

So the Austin Zents got their first two unmitigated wins since we began playing about six weeks ago.

What did we think of the Blast rules we used tonight? Well, I have no room to complain. I don't think PATACK cared too much for them, though he was game to use them twice to give them a thorough testing. What I personally liked was that it was easy to resolve. At the moment, I'd be inclined to tweak it two different ways:

1) Allow mecha with anti-missile capability to spend a command point for each mecha under the template to knock down the (overlapping) template(s) on a 5 or 6, rather than a 6 for free. It could still do it for free on a 6, but the CP expenditure boosts the chances.

Or

2) Allow mecha to defend against the missiles normally. (6 with a CP for any weapon; 5+ with anti missile; 4+ with anti-missile, missile) But each save only knocks down one template rather than all the templates over the saving mecha.

Still and all, a good night and a fun time!

Yes - my dice SUCKED! And I took brutal losses from it, but that's the way it goes.

Process wise, I think the way we played makes Blast weapons far too effective. Shooting at the ground, you'll almost never miss, so the "Death Cluster of Blast Markers" ends up doing damage that an entire squadron would be hard pressed to do!

Either those weapons are far too overpowered as written / clarified / speculated, or the formations themselves are way too cheap to add to your army.

In the next game I'd like to give Option #2 from above a try and see where that gets us. Cuz the Robotech universe is just not exciting when the only killers on the battlefield are from The Blast Template Armada!

Try this .... missiles must hit a target and if they do not exceed the DF of units under the blast they do no damage to those units but those units can still roll anti-missile. So if you shoot a Spartan (DF 6) next to a Mac II (DF 7) and only roll high enough to hit the 6 then the Glaug will not be damaged by the missile.

Lots of good ideas floating around. Sounds like we're becoming the playtest group for clarifying how Blast Missiles work!

i think if blast missiles become too much of a problem (becuase of the sheer damamage) an way to limit that could be that if the attack roll doesnt meat the defense of those effected (by scatter, or they shot the ground whatever) those mecha get to roll with impact for free?

for the question of dodgeing blast missile weapons, i believe that lets say you get hit by 3 blast missiles form the same volley, you dodge against the highest attack roll of that volley and if you succeed you dodge all the damage. correct me if im wrong though.

another limiting factor for blast missiles from our interpretation of line of sight over here is that models in the same squad block line of sight to enemy models (but dont provide cover), though that one has been up in the air back and forth a few times. what are the decisions some of your groups are on that?

but yeah as blast missiles are now, i think they either need to be more expensive, or reworked. what do you guys think about making it so blast volleys couldnt be seperated and had to all strike the same point (1 template per volley)? it would speed up the game significantly i think.

Rolling with impact is all well and good for UEDF mecha. They have enough MDC to take the hit. 9 or 10 MDC hit from a blast missile then round up is still 5 MDC = a destroyed regault. Sure i can share the love with another mecha via close formation. Which will give me a whole lot of shot up pods. Then the next mecha fires, rinse and repeat. Point is if enough templates target independent mecha or points on the ground then each missile needs to be addressed independently. Not enough CP to dodge all that. Only hope is enough mecha are hit to get a 6 on the anti-missile rolls.

Remember not every blast template is a missile. while this discussion is about blast missiles it should really be about blast weapons. Anyone been lit up by Defenders using air burst munitions with rapid and split fire? Wave two will have the FPA with grenade launchers.

Also Roll with impact is round down with a minimum of 1....

Hmm. I'm not a fan of a free roll for impact on Blast. I'd be more for allowing the target of a Blast missile to be allowed to knock down the missile aimed at them in the normal way depending on their anti-missile capability. Mecha under the template that are not the target can lend their chance by spending a CP for the chance for a '6'. If the target point is a spot on the ground, the closest mecha gets a standard anti-missile defense based on their capability. All other mecha under that template can spend a CP for their chance to knock it down on a '6'.

Try Option 3: Target under the "Center/Hole" of the Template receives FULL damage. All others effected take HALF damage from Blast.

Add that to the normal rules. It eliminates the whole DF issue (in a way) and mitigates the absurd damage missiles can lay down. It also is the LEAST intrusive to the rules, which needs to be the way to go about anything here.

Keep it simple. Keep it clear. Keep it rooted in what's already there. (Funny, that's my way for dealing with all Palladium rules interpretations.)

Has anyone played a 300-point game as the UEDF using upgrades, etc to max out the Blast-type weapons? I've 'found' a 300 point army with Phalanxes, long range missiles on Valks, and Defenders with upgraded air burst that can lay down a whopping 60 blast templates in a single turn (taking max use of split fire, rapid fire and volley fire). On the following turn this drops to a measly 32 blast templates per turn due to ammo. Now this could fluctuate a bit based off losses (I mean what Zentraedi player is not going to load up on heavy missile Regults and toss 16 or more Blast templates back), but still is a massive number. Using the official rules this is... excessive (?) in terms of destructive possibilities considering you could cover your opponents entire deployment area! And even if that was not too much, the time is takes to resolve all of those??? Am I overlooking something? Or was this the actual design intent?

Which is why I posted all this in my forums and asked for opinions. I agree with you Patack. What do I know though? I've only played 4 games using Blast and was not happy with how it worked in any of them....

Official FAQ
How does the missiles with the blast trait determine the attack roll? Does it roll once for all missiles to attack, or roll once for each missile?

For missile volleys with the blast trait, the attacker can decide if he would like to target all missiles on the same mecha or point of impact or he can choose to target individual points for each missile.

Option 1: the attacker can pick a target of the attack and launch all or some of the missiles at a single target. The group of missiles rolls 1 Dice to hit. If it hits, the damage is all of the missiles in the group MD damage combined. If it misses, it scatters as per the rules, but the scatter damage is only one missile MD damage.

Option 2: the attacker can pick multiple targets, one for each missile (this includes multiple spots on the ground). Roll for EACH missile. Misses scatter as normal and deal damage as normal.

Attempts at shooting the missiles down are for EACH Attack Dice. If the missiles are grouped under one attack, then every mecha under the template gets a shot at the incoming missiles, any success shoots down all of the missiles in that group. If the attacks are separated yet overlap, the mecha under the templates gets a free shot at EACH attack, treating them separately. A success eliminates only that missile or group.

Likewise, attempts to ‘Dodge’ and ‘Roll with Impact’ are handled per attack DICE, not individual missiles. So, if the attacked launches 4 missiles at three targets (1 group of 2 missiles, 2 individual missiles), he would roll 3 dice to attack. Each attack dice would be treated separately with regard to ‘Dodge’ and ‘Roll with Impact’.

So Gamer Option #1
Allowing the player to shoot the ground but also using the volley rules where all missiles must be targeted at something within 2 inches of the center of the primary target.

Gamer Option #2
Allowing the player to shoot wherever without regard to volley rules when using blast missiles

Gamer Option #3
Blast Missiles MUST target a unit or terrain feature, not a spot on the ground UNLESS they have Indirect Fire.

Gamer Option #4
Blast Missiles do not automatically hit all units under the blast marker. The roll must be high enough to successfully meet or exceed the DF of all units under the blast marker.

Gamer Option #5
If all missiles are targeted at the same spot but the highest roll is enough to hit....do they all hit? .....Do the other shots scatter?

Gamer Option #6
Missiles are handled individually, does that mean that they can still be inescapable if 4+ hit?

Gamer Option #7
Instead of a 6 to shoot down blast missiles with Anti-Missile, treat Anti-Missile normally and have it shoot down blast missiles on a 5+ and Anti-Missile Missiles on a 4+.

Gamer Option #8
Can Blast Missiles that miss and scatter still hit anything? If they miss a DF of 5 do you need to re-roll the results to see if you can hit any targets? Otherwise you assume every target is automatically hit if under the blast marker.

Gamer Option #9
Should you change it so that the primary target takes full damage and anything else under the blast takes half?

Gamer Option #10
When Blasts overlap, do you have to roll to dodge each blast individually and pay command points each time?

Gamer Option #11
When Blast overlap do you roll anti-missile once for each blast or once for all the blasts over your model?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Fix at present and how to properly handle Blast:
Note: I assume that missiles only strike targets that the roll is high enough to meet or exceed the DF. This means that units like the Monster that have a DF of 7 because of the thicker armor are properly taken into account.

Also I assume that missiles with the Blast trait follow the volley rules and must target units within 2 inches of each other. That is base to base, not center of blast/target.

Finally I assume that missiles CANNOT target a spot in the dirt UNLESS they have the indirect trait. They must fire at a target and are centered over that target whether it be a building, tree, rock pile, or mecha. It has to be something tangible for the missile to target.

1. Each salvo first declares location of center of blast and marks it on the table with a die or some other marker. You cannot overlap the normal 16mm dice. If they are close enough that they bump together they are stacked and considered one attack with one strike roll and double the damage of a single missile.
2. For each missile roll to strike
3. Deviated shots are moved to new locations and the attack roll re-rolled with GN of 1, disregard the GN of the unit that fired the shot for scattered shots. This allows the possibility of a missed missile to still roll a 7 and hit targets like the Glaug. This also gives only a 50/50 to hit easier targets like Destroids and a 66% of damaging some of the smaller buildings.
4. Under each individual blast marker roll for Anti-Missile, remove marker if successful.
5. Working from one end/blast marker to the other, If a unit wishes to dodge and did not do Anti-Missile and is covered by multiple blast it will only pay one command point and make one dodge roll attempt. If successful at dodging a few of the blasts the other blasts will hit normally. So if one missile hits with a 7 one with a 6 and one with a 5 and you roll a 6 total to dodge (adding in PIL), then only the blast with the result of a 7 strikes the target. DO NOT ADD all the damage but resolve each blast individually. Make sure to place any dice for the dodge result next to the target if it is under the blast from another missile as to resolve the next blast results and as to not forget and pay additional command points to dodge again.
6. Once all the units under one blast marker have been taken care of (AM/Dodge/Roll)remove the marker from the table and move to the next blast marker.

Two of our group played last night with some modified Blast rules. I'll ask them to drop in and comment on what those mods were and what they though of it. I think it worked well for them - but the time to play / resolve the Blasts was edging towards excessive, IMO.

Four or more of us are going to play on Sunday as well. Some games will play with the rules as written and some with modifications. The group plan is to have everyone play several games with the current, official, rules as well as several games with modified rules. From there I think we'll end up with a rule by which most / all of us will likely adopt.

The more exposure I have, the more and more I'm convinced I will not play with the rules in the rulebook, or the FAQ.

Hello! PATACK's post prompted me to rejoin the discussion.

I've played with Missile Blast weapons in at least a half-dozen games. Lately, we've been trying to firmly understand how they work in the game. My experience to date is that if both the Zentraedi and particularly the UEDF take full advantage of Blast capable units and weapon systems, you create a game where the game is utterly dominated by them. You spend a lot of time setting up the different impact points. You spend a lot time rolling to hit. A lot of time trying to knock them down or Dodge them. A lot time Rolling with the Impact and splitting up remaining hits for Close Formation. And finally a lot of time figuring out where misses scatter—and what effects they have.

Below is the latest standard that our group uses for resolving a Blast Missile Volley Attack:

1. Declare a point of impact. (Or points, if you spread out your shots so that they are within 2" of one another .)

2. Roll to hit the target(s)

3. Figure out what mecha are caught under the template(s) that hit. (Four or more hits make the volley Inescapable).

4. Each mecha has their normal/standard chance (not merely a 6 regardless) to knock down a volley of Blast Missiles if they have anti-missile systems. Mecha with weapons but no listed anti-missile capability may pay a CP to roll for a 6. (We did play '6 regardless' today. I enjoyed the games where both sides had normal chances more.)

5. The entire volley is knocked down if all the templates were over one of the mecha that made a successful anti-missile roll. No damage. Otherwise, determine which ones were successfully avoided and which weren't.

6. Any mecha that are caught under a template that got past the anti-missiles and that did not make an anti-missile roll may now try to Dodge whatever template(s) cover them. They only have to pay and make one roll against the template(s) overhead. (Some contention about this. We played today that Dodging mecha have to declare and pay for the attempt before any Anti-missile rolls are made.)

7. Allocate all damage for missiles that successfully get past the Anti-missile and Dodge attempts. Roll with the Impact halving and Close Formation share-outs are made now, against the gross damage of the volley strike on each mecha.

8. Whether one or all the missiles miss, there is only one scatter roll at the base MD of one missile. Pick one aim point to determine direction and distance. Resolves its effects from Step 3 forward.

That's for one attack! It got worse if someone did as a Close Formation attack.

Blast weapons just slow everything down, eating up a lot of time in their resolution. In a 5 turn game today, we played three hours to get through three turns. (Admittedly, the backs of the Zentraedi were broken after losing their Glaug and Recon Regult.) Probably half of the game was spent resolving the effects of Blast weapons.

A couple ways to save time from my perspective:

1. Get rid of Scatter. If a Blast missile misses, it was just a fizzling dud.

2. Pick one aim point. The volley comes down on it, whether a point on the ground or a targeted mecha.

Another way to speed up the game that would probably require a rewrite of the combat rules is to pick targets, assign a weapon(s), ask if the opponent would like to Dodge or Anti-missile the strike. If they do, and do one or the other successfully, attack over. You don't go through the wristage of what happened unless the defense fails, though you have committed things like weapons, missiles, and CPs to make the attack. But since this game is built around beating a gunnery number after an attack roll to make a save, that's probably not going to happen.

Most of the game is fun and snappy (enough). Then a blast weapon pops off and everyone settles in for some down-time.

The models are well and truly awesome, BTW.

Yes blast weapons (not just missiles ) do slow the game down significantly. Has any one else tried Defenders with air-burst munitions? The Defender gains the blast rule. Now it split fires 2 templates and 2 attack dice. Pays a CP to rapid fire 4 attack dice and templates. No ammo limit on a defender. 2 defenders is 8 templates a turn for 25 points. Add Freeman fro 5 more points and rapid fire an additional time. 10 templates a turn! Yes they are only 4MD hits and i can close formation and roll with impact. It is not a missile attack so i can not shoot it down. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of keeping track of it all.

For Defenders keep the standard as is, if you purchase the air-burst upgrade you lose the split fire rule but get blast instead. 50 % reduction in templates.

honestly just from a time constraint component there should be a limit to the number of template weapons in an army? its not like other games where resolving a template takes only about 10 seconds to figure out, in this game you have to go through too many steps, especially when firing a volley of blast missiles.

id rather not show up to a game, and have to wait for 2 hours as my opponent shoots off the mentioned 60 templates in an above post (i know its an extreme example but it could happen seeing as how powerful templates are in this game and ease of access too them)

I've been a critic, so let me approach this from a different way and see what you all think. If you look at wave 2, there is going to be a large increase in units that can use Blast (and this does not count the Upgrades that might be possible that are not listed in the rulebook) and many of those are not missiles so you don't even have the chance to avoid the scourge of templates by shooting them down.

So that said : What does Blast ADD to the game?

Would anyone really miss it if it were gone? Is it "fun" as a gameplay experience? Is it critical to gameplay? Is it a good mechanic to represent something that is not essentially captured in another manner?

Blast templates in some war games like warhammer are there to limit the effectiveness of large model count units, though they are usually harder to come by then those in robotech.

now the changes to blast missiles makes them even stronger so i dont know about them anymore, they are too easy to come by and are too powerful in my oppinion. i feel like they should limited that you can only have X amount of blast weapons in your army.

not to mention when non missile blast weapons start becoming more popular (air burst defenders, monster cannons, anything else that might come out in the future)

warmaster21 wrote:Blast templates in some war games like warhammer are there to limit the effectiveness of large model count units, though they are usually harder to come by then those in robotech.

now the changes to blast missiles makes them even stronger so i dont know about them anymore, they are too easy to come by and are too powerful in my oppinion. i feel like they should limited that you can only have X amount of blast weapons in your army.

not to mention when non missile blast weapons start becoming more popular (air burst defenders, monster cannons, anything else that might come out in the future)

Well, JHFC. It's bad enough, when you play a miniatures game, that the largest army is typically the least effective army because the counterbalance is a highly effective small army. But, because it's so big, it is also the most expensive (in actual, real-world money) to field. Well, mech for mech, the Zents plain suck compared to the UEDF (There's your balance/counter-balance.) Now Blast weapons come along to to reduce the effectiveness of "large model count." (Oops. Big advantage, UEDF.) And blast will be an even bigger part of the next wave of models, making the game a morass of template-checking and dice-rolling. (Hello, hour-plus-long turns.)

Enthusiasm....fading.

BradyTech wrote:

warmaster21 wrote:Blast templates in some war games like warhammer are there to limit the effectiveness of large model count units, though they are usually harder to come by then those in robotech.

now the changes to blast missiles makes them even stronger so i dont know about them anymore, they are too easy to come by and are too powerful in my oppinion. i feel like they should limited that you can only have X amount of blast weapons in your army.

not to mention when non missile blast weapons start becoming more popular (air burst defenders, monster cannons, anything else that might come out in the future)

Well, JHFC. It's bad enough, when you play a miniatures game, that the largest army is typically the least effective army because the counterbalance is a highly effective small army. But, because it's so big, it is also the most expensive (in actual, real-world money) to field. Well, mech for mech, the Zents plain suck compared to the UEDF (There's your balance/counter-balance.) Now Blast weapons come along to to reduce the effectiveness of "large model count." (Oops. Big advantage, UEDF.) And blast will be an even bigger part of the next wave of models, making the game a morass of template-checking and dice-rolling. (Hello, hour-plus-long turns.)

Enthusiasm....fading.

warning my post is kinda all over the place as i think up new things to say as i type.

i was planning on running elite zentradi (bunch of FPA and other elite units) but with how annoying blast weapons in this game are to deal with, not to mention just how much they slow the game down im seriously rethinking that...

i understand why alot of stuff have blast weapons and why they are super easy to come by, but i cant help but feel it is the single biggest factor that will contribute to ruining the game.

some things i think would be interesting to try out and see how it works.

1) lower point cost of LRM upgrade on valkyries, but remove blast, Remove blast from Phalanx missile volleys (but keep it on the non volley rocket), probably keep heavy arty pods the same.

2) Blast templates that miss are removed from the table. this by itself probably wont do much to curtail blast usage but it could speed up the game a bit. I understand why templates scatter, its a common occurrence in games, just trying to find ways to make them not take up such a huge amount of time.

these things are mostly just bouncing around in my head and have 0 testing to go with them currently, i would like your guys's oppinions on the changes?

Those are largely all things the group I play with has tested (except the point cost change). While they do help, it will still only get worse with Wave 2 when the number of Blast-capable mecha grows. While I am seeing no effort or communication in this direction - this really is an issue that needs to be owned by the designer / developer. Otherwise you have 100 people playing it 100 different ways and the game is a waste of time.

All I can say is play it once or twice with the rules as written, then go the opposite way : make some drastic changes to the Blast mechanic as see which you enjoy playing more.

After a month long break, I'm getting this back on the table, but not using the sloppy mess called "Blast". We are just going to play the game with everything else and go from there. If that still turns out to be a fun game / system, I may be able to just abandon Blast totally going forward unless there is some sort of sensible rules re-write. Other than that, it is becoming too much of a pain in the ass as too many folks have their method for house-ruling it which makes it impossible to play it consistently across groups and players. So... buh-bye Blast???

Keep the faith Patack....we have been doing some discussion and I've been working on examples using different suggestions. You can find my WIP here.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0VSN ... authuser=0

I agree that it is broken, we are looking for the simplest fix that will also help us resolve blast faster.

Playing without Blast is our version of keeping the lights on a little bit longer!

I'm not bailing on the game by any stretch, but I can easily see Blast being relegated to Optional Rule status.

Just to chime back in after a long hiatus (baby's do that- sorry), it seems like most of this conversation has begun to center on Blast more so than how Blast and Missile interact, which I think is a positive. Mike1975: your diagrams are awesome- thanks for the effort. I think they put everything into focus as far as the rules as written are concerned. I also don't see anything terribly controversial about how those rules work and don't feel the extra options (half damage under the template etc) are needed. The questions become how scatter is handled at that point and the side issue of how powerful a Long Range Missile is. Personally, I think the biggest issue needs to center around the question: should there be a limit on LRM's in a game? I don't see anyone really arguing that Defenders are too powerful or that the Zent. Power Armors are too powerful because they have a blast weapon. People are really concerned about LRM's and the mecha that carry them in large numbers. I think the rules after clarification are very playable and don't bog down too much (if you get 4 targets under every template you are in for a long turn, however).

So to sum up- Mike's first three diagrams are how the rules actually work right now. The fourth is only a proposal (and I argue unnecessary at this time). Misses scatter per the present rules (which is a drawback as it can now, potentially, take out your own units). Does anyone have testing or playing experience to argue against anything other than the fact that LRM's are too powerful if they are all over the board? I can't wait to hear your thoughts!

Updated it with one with a few more slides...still a WIP

Played a 300 point game last night with no Blast weapons and it was probably the most enjoyable play so far in terms of fast playing, smooth flow, and pure mecha vs mecha killing.

We are going to play a few more times with some vastly simplified Blast rules.

1. Blast Missiles are just like other missiles
2. Blast weapons can still target the ground
3. Only the specified target takes the full MD of the weapon
4. No Scatter
5. Mecha that are under the Blast template, but were not the specified target take automatic damage based off of their armor. DF of 5 or less takes 2 points of MD and DF of 6 or more takes 1 point of MD. This can't be Dodged, reduced by Roll With Impact, etc... Just take the damage and play on.

Played the first game with the House Rule for Blast as per above and it went great. Blast took no more effort or time than any other Strike resolution and still proved to be deadly. We'll play 2 more games on Sunday using these rules to keep trying them to see if they work within the overall system.

With some slight rewording this is how we are playing it :

1. Blast Missiles are just like other missiles
2. Blast weapons can still target the ground. If a Blast missile targets the ground, 1 mecha under the template can attempt to shoot down the incoming missile.
3. Only the specified target (i.e. mecha or building) takes the full MD of the weapon.
4. No Scatter
5. Mecha that are under the Blast template, but were not the specified target take automatic damage based off of their armor. DF of 5 or less takes 2 points of MD and DF of 6 or more takes 1 point of MD. This can't be Dodged, reduced by Roll With Impact, or avoided by any other abilities. Just take the damage and play on. A mecha can never be destroyed by the automatic damage (i.e. the last point of MDC can't be the 1 or 2 points assigned for being under the template).

PATACK wrote: A mecha can never be destroyed by the automatic damage (i.e. the last point of MDC can't be the 1 or 2 points assigned for being under the template).

I was tracking with you until this point. I think giving away the ability or Arty to finish off softened up units is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The ability to sweep away multiple units like chaff before a broom is the iconic ability of artillery. It is what keeps artillery from being just another BFG. Splash kills are just too central to the theme to do away with.


Also, in the area of fine-tuning, you might want to make how much collateral damage is taken vary by the original amount of damage. Otherwise there's almost no reason to field a Monster other than as a distraction.


-MaxGravity

Maxgravity,

A mecha can never be destroyed by the automatic damage (i.e. the last point of MDC can't be the 1 or 2 points assigned for being under the template).

I was tracking with you until this point. I think giving away the ability or Arty to finish off softened up units is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The ability to sweep away multiple units like chaff before a broom is the iconic ability of artillery. It is what keeps artillery from being just another BFG. Splash kills are just too central to the theme to do away with.

If you're interested in the house-rule up to this point, why not join us in trying it it out? But play it the way you suggest: Automatic/collateral damage can eliminate units.

Our group is looking for a simple, fun, and fast-playing way to handle Blast that has low-overhead (rules-wise) and consistent with the action we see in the show. We think we're on to something, at least as far as our group is concerned, but we're still seeing how it works out on the table.

Maxgravity : we added that last provision as a counter-balance to the absurd unlimited ammo that the Phalanx has. Without that what we are seeing is a bunch of lame Phalanx figs sit waaaay back and throwing unlimited missiles at the ground, killing stuff by taking the easy (i.e. LAME!) option of just targeting the ground around enemy mecha

I think if you try it as we've been playing, you'll see that you actually do bleed down a force with the auto-damage, and that the mecha actually do get destroyed as a result of direct hits or absorbing hits thru close formation even when preventing them from taking that last point of damage from splash.

What has your experience been in playing? How is Blast working or not working?

We're trying a limit of 1 blast marker per mecha. No splitting volleys, or split firing Defenders. Blast is powerful, but it seems to be mostly multiple blasts that slow the game or break it. Also making any shots at the ground only do half damage. This does mean the Phalanx is the king of overkill (but wave 2 Zentraedi stuff is a lot tougher), and it means that there's actually a reason to shoot at a mecha instead of at the ground. It seems to work so far.

I like the limiting of the Blast markers by not allowing splitting of the missile volley.

For the Defender, if you are not allowing split fire with Blast, if they want to use split fire are you just having them fire "normal" (as in not using the Blast upgrade)? Or are you just stripping out the actual ability to fire multiple times?

Interesting how many approaches there are to it. One day the guys at PB might chime in as well!

PATACK wrote:Maxgravity : we added that last provision as a counter-balance to the absurd unlimited ammo that the Phalanx has. Without that what
What has your experience been in playing? How is Blast working or not working?

My experience, which I'll admit is relatively limited so far as to the variety of players though it is leavened by 20+ years playing tabletop wargames such as BT and 40K, so far ahs been that overall it's less that Blast is broken and more a case of far too many units have access to it. The one issue I have is not so much intentionally targeting the ground which is an important feature for changing terrain (as a general rule, more options in the tactical toolbox ='s good), but that splash damage is full strength. I get full splash damage when you strike a mecha because the hit is effectively an airburst but targeting the ground means that, assuming that the explosion propagates normally (ie in a spherical fashion), half the force of the explosion is being channeled directly into the ground. S0, I think half damage to splash targets in that case is better.

I do not think the Phalanx a monstrously Over Powered unit as it is expensive, slow, has a low DF, mediocre MDC and no backup weapons. Though it probably could be tweaked by adjusting the base and first upgrade launchers from Missile 4 to Volley X to force players to make some tactical decisions about ammo usage.

Overall though, these are all little tweaks, at the end of the day, it comes down two things. First, some things simply take longer to resolve, whether its a player who uses their 300 points to bring a fistful of pie plates or one who uses the same 300 points to bring 50+ units to the table. Second, is tactics. If you have an opponent that wants to spam Phalanxs, work with it. Those missile boats are the same cost as a Tomahawk but way more fragile and less versatile. Even in Wave 1, there are counters. Namely fast units (Valks and Quel's are good for this) to hunt down a Phalanx, and dispersion to rob pie plates of their power.

Let me touch on dispersion a bit more. The magic number for Close Formation in most cases (ie virtually anything that's not a Leadership model or Valk in B mode) is 3 units. So even if you're running a full 24 pod Attrition Squadron, don't think of it as a 24 unit Squadron but rather as eight squads of 3 units each that all activate at the same time. If your units are properly dispersed, a pie plate should only catch a max of two models as a pie plate is 127 mm across and you are allowed 2 inches (50.8 mm) between models so a group of three models properly separated has a gap of 131.6 mm's between the bases of the first and last models. Creating a precisely cut 2 inch measuring device, makes this a lot easier. I know that seems a little pedantic, but I come from a 40K background where pie plate spam wasn't uncommon, and from experience I can tell you that it is possible to survive through tactics like these.

-MaxGravity

Maxgravity wrote: The one issue I have is not so much intentionally targeting the ground which is an important feature for changing terrain (as a general rule, more options in the tactical toolbox ='s good), but that splash damage is full strength. I get full splash damage when you strike a mecha because the hit is effectively an airburst but targeting the ground means that, assuming that the explosion propagates normally (ie in a spherical fashion), half the force of the explosion is being channeled directly into the ground. S0, I think half damage to splash targets in that case is better.

I do not think the Phalanx a monstrously Over Powered unit as it is expensive, slow, has a low DF, mediocre MDC and no backup weapons. Though it probably could be tweaked by adjusting the base and first upgrade launchers from Missile 4 to Volley X to force players to make some tactical decisions about ammo usage.

Overall though, these are all little tweaks, at the end of the day, it comes down two things. First, some things simply take longer to resolve, whether its a player who uses their 300 points to bring a fistful of pie plates or one who uses the same 300 points to bring 50+ units to the table. Second, is tactics. If you have an opponent that wants to spam Phalanxs, work with it. Those missile boats are the same cost as a Tomahawk but way more fragile and less versatile. Even in Wave 1, there are counters. Namely fast units (Valks and Quel's are good for this) to hunt down a Phalanx, and dispersion to rob pie plates of their power.

Let me touch on dispersion a bit more. The magic number for Close Formation in most cases (ie virtually anything that's not a Leadership model or Valk in B mode) is 3 units. So even if you're running a full 24 pod Attrition Squadron, don't think of it as a 24 unit Squadron but rather as eight squads of 3 units each that all activate at the same time. If your units are properly dispersed, a pie plate should only catch a max of two models as a pie plate is 127 mm across and you are allowed 2 inches (50.8 mm) between models so a group of three models properly separated has a gap of 131.6 mm's between the bases of the first and last models. Creating a precisely cut 2 inch measuring device, makes this a lot easier. I know that seems a little pedantic, but I come from a 40K background where pie plate spam wasn't uncommon, and from experience I can tell you that it is possible to survive through tactics like these.

-MaxGravity

Well said.

Please don't construe this as official. It is not. I am just firing my own opinion:

The problem I have with the Phalanx is that it is a game changer and is is extremely cheap compared to the Heavy Arty Battlepod (HABP). In the series it was a support Destroid and not as devastating as the current incarnation of the rules makes it out to be. I have been toying with several options in my own game play to help this along and possibly give suggestions to Palladium (at least I can give my opinion).

The idea I like the most is three fold: 1) Blast cannot target the ground unless the unit or weapon has Indirect Fire as well. 2) Nerf the damage of the Phalanx missiles, but give them larger Volley. Say Damage 4, Volley 8, Ammo 5 but keep the range. 3) Target takes full damage, secondary targets take half.

In this way, Ammo becomes an issue, the point cost evens out with the HABP, and the Phalanx becomes the support option and not the primary firepower.

Any comments?

There are several things to address...

1. I'm sorry, but there is no way that a 40pt HABP squad is the equal of a 40pt Phalanx squad—even with the nerfs folks are describing. Even with Volley X and other basic attributes the same (they are), a Phalanx still has over twice the capacity to absorb damage and almost three times the Ammo of a HABP. And Volley 8, Damage 4, Ammo 5 would the Phalanx a tremendous chance at rolling an Inescapable result every one of the five times it fires—not to mention 8 blast templates!!!. The Ammo and Volley limitations give the HABP only one chance at that. The only edge the HABP enjoys over a Phalanx is the Leap ability—which allows the HABP to move 3" further in turn!

2. Short of kit-bashing, you can't even field a Zentraedi Regult Artillery Squadron with the parts you get in the Regult Artillery kit. You can build any combination of four Heavy and or Light Regults—because you only get four 'pods and parts to mount the missile racks—for a six-figure Squadron. One Spartan/Phalanx kit coupled with the core set gives you a Fire Support Squadron. That's a better deal by almost every measure than a Regult Artillery Squadron.

3. A 24-figure Zentraedi Regult Attrition Sqaudron doesn't generate any Command points. A Blast template that hits one, two, or or many of them can't use Dodge or Roll-with-the-Impact (not that they have the hits to stand up to that). They can use Anti-Missile for a shot at a 6. If you spread them out, there's a better chance they'll be eliminated and not come back since they could be out of LOS or Range of a Glaug or Q-Gulnau. Spreading them out also risks blocking the shots of any friendlies deployed behind them. Keeping them together builds the ADA umbrella and offers better chances of survival for themselves and any special Zent mecha they're covering, since there's a chance multiple templates can be knocked down with one set of rolls.

4. I like the idea using a QG to wrassle a Phalanx. But it's a lot easier (in terms of kits to buy) to bring together a force of four Phalanxes and/or Destroyers than it is to bring together an equal number of QGs. And one Phalanx can take more damage than one QG can.

5. Blast, even if easily understood, is a time sink. Dropping 16 templates from UEDF Artillery Squadron and going through all the motions to scatter the misses and roll the defense to wreck a Zent' Attack Squadron over the course of a half-hour is neither fast nor fun. Resolving Blast attacks is the polar opposite of playing a game.

R:RPGT should be a fast, fun, and snappy game. When Blast is not in play, it generally is.

PATACK wrote:I like the limiting of the Blast markers by not allowing splitting of the missile volley.

For the Defender, if you are not allowing split fire with Blast, if they want to use split fire are you just having them fire "normal" (as in not using the Blast upgrade)? Or are you just stripping out the actual ability to fire multiple times?

Interesting how many approaches there are to it. One day the guys at PB might chime in as well!

Hadn't thought of giving them the option to choose which type of shell to use. Nobody had really wanted to use split fire with the blast upgrade anyway. We just stripped out split fire, but left rapid fire since that had the CP cost. And everybody had better things to spend their CP on than rapid firing defenders.

Phaze wrote:The problem I have with the Phalanx is that it is a game changer and is is extremely cheap compared to the Heavy Arty Battlepod (HABP).

To me, it's more a case of the Artillery Regults are almost ludicrously overpriced for what they bring to the table. I think I get what the Devs were thinking since the relative value of Arty is different for the Zentradi where it is a luxury vs. Destroids, where it is a necessity. However, I don't agree with the price points on the pods.

In the series it was a support Destroid and not as devastating as the current incarnation of the rules makes it out to be.

It is however more in line with real life tactics where artillery is the true king of the battlefield

Blast cannot target the ground unless the unit or weapon has Indirect Fire as well.

As long as you can still target structures with direct fire, I am all for that.

BradyTech wrote:There are several things to address...

1. I'm sorry, but there is no way that a 40pt HABP squad is the equal of a 40pt Phalanx squad

Again, agreed. Lower the cost of the pods.

2. Short of kit-bashing, you can't even field a Zentraedi Regult Artillery Squadron with the parts you get in the Regult Artillery kit. You can build any combination of four Heavy and or Light Regults—because you only get four 'pods and parts to mount the missile racks—for a six-figure Squadron. One Spartan/Phalanx kit coupled with the core set gives you a Fire Support Squadron. That's a better deal by almost every measure than a Regult Artillery Squadron.

As a long time Games Workshop customer (where they were notorious for selling boxes that had less than the minimum number of units to make a legal squad) I understand your frustration, but I don't understand how it is relevant to the game balance discussion. FWIW, I share similar angst because I feel cheated because the KS advertised the Tomahawk and Defender as an either or kit, so I didn't buy extra Tomahawks during the KS and am now looking at having to pay the equivalent of $12-$18 per model for the extras I want.

3. A 24-figure Zentraedi Regult Attrition Sqaudron doesn't generate any Command points.

Remember that you can still attach a Glaug to that formation as the Glaug is a special rather than support card. Bonus points if you add Krell and then assign a Quel from another squadron to shadow him.

If you spread them out, there's a better chance they'll be eliminated and not come back since they could be out of LOS or Range of a Glaug or Q-Gulnau.

Not to sound callous, but Regults are by definition attrition units and if you worry to much about preserving them above all else, you are probably playing them wrong. A Regult costs 5.83 points so with perfect luck, the Phalanx is popping 11.66 points a turn. My experience is that you are hard pressed to get kill more than 40 points of pods before they are either up in the Phalanx's face or mixed so thoroughly with your other units that you can't fire because it's a danger close scenario.

Spreading them out also risks blocking the shots of any friendlies deployed behind them.

/Only/ if those friendlies are from a different squadron. The majority of time on a 6x4 board, this is not a major issue.

Keeping them together builds the ADA umbrella and offers better chances of survival for themselves and any special Zent mecha they're covering, since there's a chance multiple templates can be knocked down with one set of rolls.

That is a valid tactic, but my experience is that attrition units really don't shine if you play them too defensively.

5. Blast, even if easily understood, is a time sink. Dropping 16 templates from UEDF Artillery Squadron and going through all the motions to scatter the misses and roll the defense to wreck a Zent' Attack Squadron over the course of a half-hour is neither fast nor fun.

I suspect for many players, this is more a lack of experience issue. In 40K, you have a similar number of dice rolls to resolve blast template weapons and one of my 40K armies is an Imperial Guard Artillery company that has 9 Basilisks (artillery tanks) each with blast template, supported by aircraft carrying more blast templates and even a naval forward observer to call down orbital fire. All told, it fields over a dozen pie plates, but even versus swarm armies, it was uncommon for firing to consume more than about a minute per template. And that's with 40K where the majority of shots scattered.

-MaxGravity

Just to reiterate a previous point I made: I think this argument is more about the Phalanx than the rule.

The Glaug is very powerful and the rules limit the number you can have. A VF-1S is very powerful and the rules limit the number you can have. The Phalanx is very powerful (although for different reasons) and you can field as many as you want. And most people think they are under-costed as well. Let's be honest- if that missile didn't do 8 points of damage we wouldn't be having this lengthy a conversation. A discussion of jumbled rules language has morphed into a discussion of relative game balance centered around the delivery of long range missiles. How often, and in what context, do you see LRM's in use in the show? They are in heavy assaults or protecting ultra-high value installations. They are not your every day occurrence.

I think the blast missile clarification (and let's remember this started with blast/missile interaction and not blast by itself), while it is not how I would have written it, is perfectly acceptable. Putting no restrictions on LRM's flying all over the board is the issue. Tweak the Phalanx and/or restrict it's use. Tweak the LRM upgrade on VF-1's to restrict their use. This is where the conversation has lead us- '...we thought that we had the answers, it was the questions we had wrong...'

Just to reiterate a previous point I made: I think this argument is more about the Phalanx than the rule.

Yes and no, IMO.

The rule as written is awful and as many have mentioned takes far too long to resolve, unless you really are a player who loves the "pie plates" and finds fun watching a plastic disc float around the table. And I agree - the conversation started with the Phalanx as that is where our group first ran into the "huh???" moment. But as we've continued to play, we, as a group, have just seen the issue of Blast in general (non-missile Blast can't be shot down by the modified anti-missile rule in the book, so in some ways become more effective as a Blast weapon).

The Phalanx is just the perfect mecha to take full advantage of the issues with the rule as written as it has unlimited capabilities (i.e. ammo) to force you to deal with all the beauty that is the Blast rule.

So what is easier to fix? All the artillery / Blast capable / capability upgrade-able mecha which would require a new unit cards? Or the rules which would require an errata sheet (we sure are not getting a new rule book!)? I'd opt for a rules fix, as even with a change to the mecha, I still don't like the rules as written (part of that is how they are written, part that I can't make heads or tails of it and part that it changes other core rules especially for missiles).

Wave 2 adds another wrinkle. First - lots of mecha with Blast which should make Blast a common occurrence on the table. But if the cards have not been printed (and dare I say, the mecha not tested) it would give PB the option of acting to fix things to bring them in line?

Something else to consider with the pricing of the Phalanx is its relative utility. In a Destroid force, it fills a vital role providing long range strike capability for a force that is markedly slower than any of the completion and therefore merits a proportionally cheaper price than say Vertitech LRM's or Regult Artillery where the long range capability is far less vital due to the force's decided speed advantage. Where it somewhat breaks down is mixed forces where you have both Destroids and Valks on the table at the same time.

I wonder if part of the solution is to take a page from other game systems and split the EUDF into two factions, Air and Ground. [Though, come to think of it we already have a precedent in the Regult/Elite split of the Zentradi] Then have rules about how many Phalanx an Air Army can being to the table or change the pricing on them when fielded in an Air Army and basically doing the same thing for Air units in a ground army. I know that won't stop the spamming of Phalanx in a Ground force, but to me that's self balancing. In my experience, vs. an experienced opponent, once you go past 3 Phalanx in a <=300 point army(which really makes me wish for ala carte unit purchasing), you are well into diminishing returns as both the Tomahawk and the GU-11 Spartan have far more utility for the same cost.

-MaxGravity