It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:42 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:01 pm
Posts: 20
robertidaniel wrote:
My and my friends have just started playing warzone and we too found some flaws. Most of the were mentioned in this thread (like similar names for stats, weapons, inconsitencies in rules) but from the perspective of someone who didn't play warzone before we could say that:

1. There are too many special rules in every book. I understand that a unit can have 2 special rules and some generic ones, but the way we see it - it's impossible to remeber what your units can reallly do on the battelfield.

2. Some special rules are extremly complicated (like Bauhaus Marshal / Captain supply tokens).

3. I know that hardcore warzone players may disagree, but i think that close combat needs some changes. It's hard to "see"" CC fights in your head the way they are now. For me, all models engaged in CC should be able to make some kind of action at the same time, like attack, counterattack, parry, dodge. The way i see fight right now - one guy runs to the other (engages). If he has one action point left - he strikes at the enemy, who patiently wait if his armor will save him. If it will, he still waits. For his turn of course - maybe, just maybe he will be activated to strike back. If not, he receives another strike and waits for armor to save him. It' just unnatural and takes away the narrative element of the game. If i tried to make a battle report after the game and describe a CC duel of two lords i would be unable to imagine it.

4. Again, this one may seem strange for those that know warzone for years, but i would love to see some kind of fluff entry for each unit in every book. For me, special rules and stats of each unit should be justified in each units backgrounds.


From my point of view (also a newbie) I must agree, especially with point 3. though I understand It is not easy to completely change CC system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:25 am
Posts: 80
robertidaniel wrote:
My and my friends have just started playing warzone and we too found some flaws. Most of the were mentioned in this thread (like similar names for stats, weapons, inconsitencies in rules) but from the perspective of someone who didn't play warzone before we could say that:

1. There are too many special rules in every book. I understand that a unit can have 2 special rules and some generic ones, but the way we see it - it's impossible to remeber what your units can reallly do on the battelfield.

2. Some special rules are extremly complicated (like Bauhaus Marshal / Captain supply tokens).

3. I know that hardcore warzone players may disagree, but i think that close combat needs some changes. It's hard to "see"" CC fights in your head the way they are now. For me, all models engaged in CC should be able to make some kind of action at the same time, like attack, counterattack, parry, dodge. The way i see fight right now - one guy runs to the other (engages). If he has one action point left - he strikes at the enemy, who patiently wait if his armor will save him. If it will, he still waits. For his turn of course - maybe, just maybe he will be activated to strike back. If not, he receives another strike and waits for armor to save him. It' just unnatural and takes away the narrative element of the game. If i tried to make a battle report after the game and describe a CC duel of two lords i would be unable to imagine it.

4. Again, this one may seem strange for those that know warzone for years, but i would love to see some kind of fluff entry for each unit in every book. For me, special rules and stats of each unit should be justified in each units backgrounds.


1. I agree with this to a degree. I find most of the problem is that they decide to give extra special names to the special skills. Perfect example, is Strike into the Heart of Darkness, it's just predator senses, why no just call it Predator senses?

2. The Marshal needs more than 1 or 2 Kapitans to be effective. And he's very pricey. But as far as Supply tokens go, just think of them as Resource Cards for a squad, that don't refresh. Basically, anytime a Kapitan or his squad kill an enemy model (or you t2b remaining Resource Cards at the end of your turn), you get a Supply token. At any point in the Kapitans squad activation, use or "burn" one of your Supply tokens to get a cool boost. A hussar can only be given 1 skill per turn though!

4. In the pre-1.5 books the units did have fluff with them! I still have the digital copies of the all of them I think. Let me know if you would like them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:54 pm
Posts: 3
Elcarcharias wrote:
4. In the pre-1.5 books the units did have fluff with them! I still have the digital copies of the all of them I think. Let me know if you would like them.


Sure i do :).

Could you send them on my email?

sonic150@op.pl

That would be nice :)

Elcarcharias wrote:
1. I agree with this to a degree. I find most of the problem is that they decide to give extra special names to the special skills. Perfect example, is Strike into the Heart of Darkness, it's just predator senses, why no just call it Predator senses?


Not only that, some units have just an insane amount of special rules. Check amoured hussars - 4 active special skills, 2 passive plus some generic ones. I understand that some units can be "very special" and have that many rules but for me there are just tons of special rules in every book. Of coursem that is only my opinion, maybe other players are fine with this but i think that books for armies could use some more generic special rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:25 am
Posts: 80
I may have spoke too soon, the fluff is only in the print rule books!

I'll see what I can do to get that stuff though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:04 pm
Posts: 30
Here's my humble penny:

I love wz because 15 years ago the fluff and Paul Bonner's art of the Inquisitor, the Praetorian Stalker and others had me mesmerized. It was the first miniature game I ever played and the reason I dived into wargames (I still have my wz minis from back then). So when I rediscovered wz about a year ago, I jumped to the opportunity to check it out. But my gaming group were warhammer fantasy 8th regulars (me too). It was impossible to steer them in the direction of a new wargame. Or was it?

Thankfully they were already fed up with whf 8th for a few reasons:

1) The game was eating up all our free time. The most dedicated of us (including me) would spend hours reading and re-reading the rules, studying the units' skills and so on. There were so many variables, special rules and bad rule writing, that it was impossible to remember everything. Add to that each unit's special rules...

Also each game would last 2-3 hours. You had to roll (and occasionally reroll) for just about anything. Charges, spell casting, spell countering, every other magic item, morale, rolling for spells, effects... Add to that the setup time, saying our hellos and all and we could safely say that night will find us still playing. Some of the group are married (even with kids) and you can imagine the difficulty of some of my friends.

2) The game was terribly imbalanced. Some armies were auto-loss against others, some units had abysmal tactical (in games) and strategic (in tournaments) value and some units were so broken that had literally no weaknesses (you had to use a great part of your army to put them down and with terrible losses).

3) The rules were frustratingly clunky. Also morale, warmachines, armor 1+ etc. Things that were so easily exploited.

So when I told them about wzr, I used the following arguments: The game as the pdf says lasts only about an hour. The rules are simple, yet intuitive. There are Stat cards so you don't have to burn your brain, trying to remember everything. It's like warmachine mk.2, only not so expensive.

So they got in.

And then reality came knocking. Excluding the prices this game is closer to warmachine mk.1 and warhammer fantasy 8th, than warmachine mk.2 because:

a) Everything I said in (1). E.g. Last week after a year of playing wz I played a 650pt game that lasted exactly 3 hours (4,5 with the setup etc). You really can't say that we lack experience, thus making the game faster. That is too long. And I still spend ample hours reading rules, re-reading, you get the idea.

b) As in (2). I can't say that the game is broken of course. But some squads have zero weaknesses (e.g. Brotherhood army), at very low costs. Art powers that cost as a rocket launcher, can one-shot juggernauts with armor 20, and you never roll get the gun because the power bounces to just about ANY model in the squad? Yes. Squads that murder everything in both close and long range? Yes. Amazing armor, Impenetrable armor AND con? Yes. Fearless to 99% of the army? Yes. Each army should have holes. Each tactic should have holes. Otherwise why bother playing? Other armies have powerful squads (the Orca, the Behemoth, some cybers) of course. You want to keep those stats and skills? Do it. But add at least 50% to their point cost and I bet no one will wonder why.

c) Like (3). Many skill or card names are plain lazy. Also you should really take a look at warmachine and wild west exodus. They have really intuitive rules regarding movement, cover and other effects. Not to mention that many other rulings never use dice rolls.

In conclusion:

Respecting the fact that you guys have a specific vision for your baby, what I would suggest is: Find the identity of the game and stick with it. Do you want it to be like whf 8th? Fine. Keep all the 1pt/model and 3pt/model stuff and the ton of rules, but don't say that the game is easy to learn, or that is fast paced, or that is short. You just make fools of the rest of us for using these as selling points.

Otherwise do what Privateer Press (IMHO wisely) did. Murder your darlings. Cut rules and skills that slow down the game, make the stats and skills to be more representative of each army to give each army flavor and reduce the number of skills per squad (0-1 to troopers, 1-3 to anything else). I mean have you seen Blood Berets? And they are still average on tactical value. Make packages (do I want Impenetrable armor and CC murder or Camo and longarms?) to have options open. Finally simplify EVERYTHING. E.g. Rapid deployment: Any roll of 20 kills the squad, except Bauhaus. Declare if delaying or not. Delaying needs LD roll and failure forces instant RD. During Rd roll and if successful, land. If failed scatter and get ST10 autohit. If you land on terrain extra ST10 autohit. The end. Also nerf RD squads more or make them more pricey.

After all a simpler game is easier to keep it balanced.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 3:55 am
Posts: 53
Excellently said!

especially these 2 points:

Mickey wrote:
Respecting the fact that you guys have a specific vision for your baby, what I would suggest is: Find the identity of the game and stick with it.


Mickey wrote:
Murder your darlings. Cut rules and skills that slow down the game, make the stats and skills to be more representative of each army to give each army flavor and reduce the number of skills per squad (0-1 to troopers, 1-3 to anything else)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:01 pm
Posts: 20
I am thinking a lot about gas weapons because to me it just don't make sense. Why should an army spent resources on gas mask that really don't help much, leaving heavy armoured hi tech expensive units to be gased to death pretty easily. So I was thinking, why not make gas masks pretty effective - something like it malfunction only on roll of 20 BUT make gas masks pretty expensive so it will be about decision making if to spent precious point on something that might or might not be needed. Some units like capitol heavy infantry or juggernauts should have it by default and some should not be able to equip masks at all like etoiles mortant (light raid units) or vorreiters - I don't believe you can wear gas mask and drive motorcycle in high speed. Also it might cost 1 action point to put on the mask and it could make your units more clumsy - reducing RS and CC, range perhaps (this might not affect imperial infantry as they should be trained for it, others could have this training for points). So what do you think?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 6:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:10 am
Posts: 437
While I do agree that modern gas masks are far more effective than in this game, making all units immune to gas if they have them just means that nobody will bother taking gas. It's also a lot of unnecessary complexity to introduce for not much gain by adding more rules around the masks encumbering their users.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:55 am
Posts: 5
Hi

Any news/rumors/preview of the new rules?

saluti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:41 pm
Posts: 6
I think all Warlords shoud be immune to effects of critical force since right now they are extreamly vulnerable to high strenght opponents in close combat. Or atleast keep it if they had one. In my opinion this mean that whole gamd is to try to catch the warlord and get 200+points for that. Also I think it is weird that for example Scorpion Warlord is weaker than it`s support counterpart. Please tell me if there is a good reason for them to be so weak against for example Mekas?

PS: Sorry for possiple typos I m writing on my smartphone.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron



Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
skymiles_red v1.0.1 designed by Team -Programming forum-سيارات للبيع .