It is currently Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:27 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 69
Hi there, we are working on WZR 2.0 :)

So please let us know what you would like to see or change in new re-incarnation of WZR rules. Thanks :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:38 pm
Posts: 344
Location: Indian Land SC
Hey Jarek! Good to see you back over here. First thing is we would all like to see more of you guys on here :D

My request would be that none of the rules changes would make anything wve purchased so far, like the card packs, not usable.

Reorganize some of the rules so they are easier to find. Clean up and stream line some of the rules, make them more clear.

Create and include some colored templates in the book that can be printed out and used, shotgun, flamer, large and small blast templates.

Over all, I'm happy with how the rules work. I don't think they need a lot of changes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 3:55 am
Posts: 53
Here are a bunch of things I'd like to see (some of which it seems likely you'll be doing as a default anyway):

-actions being repeatable especially move actions
--attack actions could then be grouped with a rule like "only 1 attack action may be performed per turn"
Or
--have a 1 action melee/ranged attack that is RoF/RoA 1 (regardless of printed value) and a 2 action melee/ranged attack that uses a weapons full RoA/RoF.
*repeatable move actions would just make life easier than having to work out how many move actions you need to get somewhere before acting. The attack action change is a necessary change if repeatable actions are possible as they exponentially increase the effectiveness of a model with a high RoF/RoA

-change how terrain effects movement
*especially if the above action change is made. I'm not a big fan of the current terrain movement rules in general although I'm not sure why

-allow the Engage action to be taken with a move action (so able to move 3xM in a turn), or change the engage action (to give a normal move and a melee attack)
*melee units seem to have some trouble getting to where they need to be to do damage, this would give them a needed speed boost, if you don't want them faster then they will hit a bit harder

-Engaged models do not reduce their number of actions, and remove free closing actions.
*this just needlessly complicates things, and the basic 2 action rules would allow you to do the same things anyway, ie move action then melee attack action

-rename the Engage action, or explicitly state that you can become engaged with just a move action
*a common mistake early on is that the only way to get Engaged is by making the Engage action. Changing the terminology or clearly stating that this is not the case will solve alot of issues.

-make Armour, Con (vs gas), and WP (vs psychic attacks) follow the same basic principles (any future odd attack types should also follow this principle too).
*this will just neaten and streamline everything

-be clear what armour modifiers are used against (eg vs psychic attacks and normal attacks but not gas)
*this isn't very clear at the moment

-Rename Armour Value or Armoured Value
*the similarity is way to confusing

-standardized the ranges on things like Get the Gun and Shielded/Guarded
*if all short ranged abilities have the same range it becomes easier to remember the ranges

-rename Critical Force and Critical Damage, so they are not so similar and give each its own full explanation
*the two are easily mixed up and people often assume critical damage is gained from high strength like critical force is.

-Clear up or remove the distinction between Movement and Movement Value
*the two terms are very similar but have very different gin game effects that are easy to confuse

-Clarify the LoS and Facing areas rules, possibly reintroduce a size stat
*Relic Knights and Malifaux both have very clear and well written rules for this that might be worth drawing (more) inspiration from. I assume Warmahordes and Infinity (among others) do as well but I am not familliar with those games

-the concept of a Hit and Wound Effect should be rolled into a single concept
*Since both are in effect the same thing, from what I can tell the few (if any) exceptions could just be addressed as they arise.

-Either ignore Target Priority altogether or make Target Sense a very limited special skill (not one that every model can gain)
*given the generally high LD in the game this rule just seems to be there for the sake of rolling more dice

-Make Initiative the lowest roll that wins.
*this is the only instance in the game where you want to roll high, everything else is roll low, so just make it like the rest and have a lower roll is better general principle

- Standardise how psychic powers work, ie action point cost, how squads with powers work, how lords joing squads work etc.
*right now it feels like all the psychic powers are better off having their own contained rules (which might be another way to go), to learn how the powers work (and not get a nasty surprise) you need to read the core psychic rules and each faction psychic rules, imagine if you had to do that for shooting attacks...

-Be more consistant with what is considered a Heavy Weapon, currently a Charger, the Orca's Autocannon, HMG and Shotgun are Heavy whereas the Grizzly's 230mm mortar, all the artillery Korps big guns (except the 125mm Feldkanone), and most man portable HMG's (except the charger) are not Heavy weapons.
*Whilst the rules changes here aren't that important it is bizarrely inconsistant and stops the game being more intuitive

-Change the abbreviation for Shotgun and Strength range.
*ST and St are way to similar and super prone to typos

-Split up Strength as a range and the (G)renade weapon type. Currently the 230mm mortar on the Grizzly is a (G) weapon so should it use the Grizzly's Strength as a range (the rule specifically states use St instead of Range)? B2B (G) weapons make no sense, with a range of B2B literally none of the Grenade weapon rules apply to the grenade...
*some simple chages could be:
*- change (G) type weapons to Indirect
*- at St as a range type to the Weapons Stat Values
*- remove the (G) type from B2B grenades

-Clarify how Doomtrooper Special Skill works, are they a squad, can they join units etc. Give Doomtroopers some added bonus when feilded as a team, like a Dodge (1-5), extra wounds or similar.
*currently the skill is very unclear, also Doomtroopers a an awesome bit of fluff but they aren't particularly worth taking due to a rather high likelyhood of dying.

-Give more models a higher fear value
*the high LD values mean fear is generally a bit of a joke rather than being useful

-Rapid Deployment
*it is clear this needs changing, but I'd feel wrong not saying it

-Structures need a lower AV and or Sp across the board or need to be undamageable
*AV12 SP4 for a wooden box? no part of a Necromower is that tough...

-Adjust some vehicles AP, and/or which vehicle types get access to Fast Move and Full Throttle
*currently a Vulkan with fists can move 21" and attack in melee (if it makes it into CCW range), where most CC units can move a max of 10" a turn.

-Why is the Necrobeast a vehicle?
*seriously why?

-Drop the OOC for games of 1000pts or less, or even entirely. I'd like to see something like the WZ 2nd ed, eg: 1 Troop lets you get 1 Support; 2 units let you get 1 Light Vehicle; each unit lets you get 1 lord; 4 units lets you get a heavy vehicle, must always have 1 warlord.
*Unless you have a rule that lets you change which slots a unit fills at low points values the OOC is very restrictive, severly limiting your choice. If you can change slots a unit fills then you are basically ignoring it anyway. The OOC feels too much like 40k to me, where the above has a more traditional 'Warzone' feel.

-Adjust the mission rules so they are doable.
*the generic missions seem fun but they are crazy hard to complete in smallish games (less than 1500pts)

-Reduce the amount of special rules models have. Possibly do an upgrade type system so you can buy the upgrades you want whilst keeping the basic unit pretty simple. Malifaux 2nd ed (M2E) did this to great effect.
*To casual players or player like me that play heaps of different games, having this many special rules can be seriously off putting as the amount of info you need to remember. NOt to mention how hard it is to fit all that info on a stat card.

I think that is about it. I'm really looking forward to what Prodos comes up with for WZR 2.0 as I think the rules could use a fair bit of clean up. That said I am pretty sure you lot can do the game justice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:25 am
Posts: 80
Raven911 wrote:
Hey Jarek! Good to see you back over here. First thing is we would all like to see more of you guys on here :D

Reorganize some of the rules so they are easier to find. Clean up and stream line some of the rules, make them more clear.

Create and include some colored templates in the book that can be printed out and used, shotgun, flamer, large and small blast templates.


I'll second these points.

Lone Mishaman wrote:

-be clear what armour modifiers are used against (eg vs psychic attacks and normal attacks but not gas)
*this isn't very clear at the moment

-standardized the ranges on things like Get the Gun and Shielded/Guarded
*if all short ranged abilities have the same range it becomes easier to remember the ranges

-rename Critical Force and Critical Damage, so they are not so similar and give each its own full explanation
*the two are easily mixed up and people often assume critical damage is gained from high strength like critical force is.

-Clear up or remove the distinction between Movement and Movement Value
*the two terms are very similar but have very different gin game effects that are easy to confuse

-Clarify the LoS and Facing areas rules, possibly reintroduce a size stat
*Relic Knights and Malifaux both have very clear and well written rules for this that might be worth drawing (more) inspiration from. I assume Warmahordes and Infinity (among others) do as well but I am not familliar with those games

-Make Initiative the lowest roll that wins.
*this is the only instance in the game where you want to roll high, everything else is roll low, so just make it like the rest and have a lower roll is better general principle

-Be more consistant with what is considered a Heavy Weapon, currently a Charger, the Orca's Autocannon, HMG and Shotgun are Heavy whereas the Grizzly's 230mm mortar, all the artillery Korps big guns (except the 125mm Feldkanone), and most man portable HMG's (except the charger) are not Heavy weapons.
*Whilst the rules changes here aren't that important it is bizarrely inconsistant and stops the game being more intuitive

-Change the abbreviation for Shotgun and Strength range.
*ST and St are way to similar and super prone to typos

-Give more models a higher fear value
*the high LD values mean fear is generally a bit of a joke rather than being useful

-Structures need a lower AV and or Sp across the board or need to be undamageable
*AV12 SP4 for a wooden box? no part of a Necromower is that tough...

-Adjust the mission rules so they are doable.
*the generic missions seem fun but they are crazy hard to complete in smallish games (less than 1500pts)



I'll second these points as well


A few more

With Flamers and Garrisoned squads I think that should be looked at again. I understand how a flamer shot into a 1 lvl bunker could hit every unit, but I dont get how a it could hit every unit in a multilevel building (Like a 3 story Wood Building at av 16 sp 10). Maybe have it so that it affects models on the same level as the entry point that was targeted instead.

For certain weapons like the Feldblitzer I would add the phrase "When using the ‘Heavy Gun Support’
Special Action the LE template always scatters D20/4 in addition to regular Scatter as defined by Scattering of an Explosion Template"


Love the game in general though, appreciate you guys asking for feedback even if something isn't included. Keep up the good work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:05 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Columbia, SC
Rapid Deployment
Enough said.

I've taken the liberty of copying a number of Lone Mishaman's suggestions:

-rename the Engage action, or explicitly state that you can become engaged with just a move action
*a common mistake early on is that the only way to get Engaged is by making the Engage action. Changing the terminology or clearly stating that this is not the case will solve alot of issues.

-be clear what armour modifiers are used against (eg vs psychic attacks and normal attacks but not gas)
*this isn't very clear at the moment

-Rename Armour Value or Armoured Value
*the similarity is way to confusing

-rename Critical Force and Critical Damage, so they are not so similar and give each its own full explanation
*the two are easily mixed up and people often assume critical damage is gained from high strength like critical force is.

-Clear up or remove the distinction between Movement and Movement Value
*the two terms are very similar but have very different gin game effects that are easy to confuse

-Clarify the LoS and Facing areas rules, possibly reintroduce a size stat
* Malifaux has very clear and well written rules for this that might be worth drawing (more) inspiration from. Or use the rules similar to Warmachine.

-Make Initiative the lowest roll that wins.
*this is the only instance in the game where you want to roll high, everything else is roll low, so just make it like the rest and have a lower roll is better general principle

-Change the abbreviation for Shotgun and Strength range.
*ST and St are way to similar and super prone to typos

-Structures need a lower AV and or Sp across the board or need to be undamageable
*AV12 SP4 for a wooden box? no part of a Necromower is that tough...

-Adjust some vehicles AP, and/or which vehicle types get access to Fast Move and Full Throttle
*currently a Vulkan with fists can move 21" and attack in melee (if it makes it into CCW range), where most CC units can move a max of 10" a turn.

-Why is the Necrobeast a vehicle?
*seriously why?

While I agree with many of Lone Mishiman's suggestions, I do not agree you need to standardize too many things. Standardize things too much and you will have trouble defining each faction. I also disagree that you should reduce special rules. I enjoy the complexity and variety in the game.

Thanks for the list though, Lone Mishaman. Saved me some time.

Looking forward to a slick new version.

One last thing: At the very least, make new stat cards downloadable for free. It is a goodwill gesture to faithful fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:58 pm
Posts: 58
Woot! I am very excited for some new Warzone rules! I love the game and the minis, and would love to see a few tweaks to solidify things!

I already posted a huge rant thread in the feedback section, but I'll post again the bits I feel are important.

-Rapid deployment, as everyone else has said, is pretty broken.

-TTB to gain action points: I understand this is an unpopular opinion, but personally I feel the ability to burn cards to circumvent the normal action economy is not a good thing. It makes certain units and weapons which are already very alpha-strikey, far more so.

-Armor values. I'd love to see a little more variety in armor values. I have the same gripe with Infinity too actually. A light infantry with armor 12 and a heavy infantry with armor 15 are not that different. The impen armor doesn't even come into effect until weapons with at least strength 16 (which are rare). Or hell, Hatamoto impen armor doesn't even take effect until they start getting hit by weapons with strength 18! I would love to see some greater variety in weapon strengths and armor values.

-Template weapons with ROF > 1 should be rare. A flamer is already a very powerful weapon, able to hit multiple models. Forcing multiple models to make multiple saves each is incredibly strong, and means a light flamethrower can pretty reliably wipe out heavily armored troops.

-Vehicles are kinda hit-or-miss. Some armies annihilate them, but against armies without solid anti-tank weapons, they're kind of unstoppable.

-The scenarios are really fun and creative, but honestly anything aside from battle lines deployment is really tricky for decent sized games, and escalation is just a mess.

-Structures as others have said should either be invulnerable, or actually worth shooting at. As is they're so tough they'll never get shot at.

But again, I already ranted plenty in another thread.

I'm delighted that you guys actually have some presence online! Would love to see more of that. I'm very excited for more Warzone updates!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:36 pm
Posts: 54
Hi Jarek. Glad to see you asking here.

My general feelings about what could fit in WZR 2.0:

- Update of the decks. I know many people bought them, but you also give them for free as pdf so it would not be dishonest to chane them a bit. Not changing them would mean the game does not change, so what's the point of a new version called 2.0 ?

- Having the decks updated regularly with the inevitable errors and erratas. MANY erratas are now lost in the Facebook abyss, which is a shame since correcting a pdf document is not a long work.

- Unit cards available as free pdf too, and updated as often as possible with erratas and errors.

- Make the game system give more ways to play more cards.

- More real community management on the official forum by Prodos. Make it live before it sinks.

- Play the game. Seriously. When you or Rob say on the facebook page something like " Jarek has never lost with Cybertronic" the only thing it means is that Prodos guys don't play. NOBODY never loses, unless you play 3 time or only against children. When i heard you on doomtrooper radio saying "i can master Warmachine in one day, WZR needs months of practice" it sounds highly arrogant, and highly wrong. I am no Warmachine fan but only a fool would not recognize the strengths of the game, and Privateer is highly more involved in the developement of its community than Prodos, and also was in the early years. Rob said in the Facebook page "i am not the rules guy". So in the end, who plays WZR at Prodos ? The game is rather good, but if you don't play it again and again and again, you won't make it.

- if you played the game, you would have noticed the rules for scenery destruction are nearly impossible to use as a simple tree is very hard to kill, and remains a light cover after that. You always better try a lucky power shot on anybody stands behind that tree.

- Remove the weapon type modifiers. They are pretty rarely useful in the end. A few unit suffers a lot from it, and few other can make combo with it (necromutants), but in the end, it is a rule that would easily be taken out and make the game lighter.

- Fear is useless. How many units and characters are fearless in this game ? a lot, and the others have high LD. Make it more usefull (but not too strong. Difficult point here)

- Work on the profiles. How can a Razide have less strength and Constitution than a human ? Many profiles don't reflect what the creature is supposed to be.

- Work on the Heavies. I don't think any is worth its cost.

- Watch your website. Inquisitor Hamilkar still have the horrible KS version shown instead of the actual (and beautiful) sculpt. The pictures of the Tiger Dragons show a miniature with a broken weapon ! This website is plain amateur stuff.

- Re sculpt Mishima blades. Your mini range is awesome, stop letting those ridiculously soft spears and blades put shame on the game.

- Change Facing Area rule. Nobody wants to consider an imaginary silhouette to know if LoS can be drawn.

- Reduce the cost of lords so that they are playable. I don't think anybody uses the Doomtroopers or guys like the Crucifiers right now.

- Vehicule movement rules could be simpler

- More scenarios stuff. Check out the Infinity system for scenarios, that's awesome.

- Less specific special rules/skills, more generic special rules/skills. That's one of the very good thing Malifaux (and Epic: Armageddon for those who know) did for its new version.

All in all, i think a 1000 pts game should be easier to play in 2 hours. Right now i think few people manage to make it shorter than 2h30 and most need 3, which is think is too much for a skirmish game.


Good luck!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:38 pm
Posts: 43
First of all I'd like to say that it's good to see that Prodos can see the need for changes and improvement of the rules.

That said, I really like the game and quite unexpectedly it's become my main wargaming system.

Raven's arguments are good and I agree with him. The most important one is:

Quote:
Clean up and stream line some of the rules, make them more clear.


The general idea behind the rules is good, most don't need to be changed but they need to be clarified. A lot.

It is unacceptable for similiar (or even the same) rules and abilities to be described differently in different places. For example the descripiton of grenades not needing LoS is different for Airborne, Bauhaus artillery and Life Dragoons - are they meant to work the same way or not? I guess the intention was for them to work the same, but the way they are written nobody knows for sure if that's the case. Oh and I've seen at least 3 different interpretations how exactly Life Dragoons' mortar works.

Even basic rules such as aiming can be interpreted differently (literally, the statement about aiming working only for one shot concenrs only bonuses to ST and RS, so it could be argued that you can choose the hit location for vehicles for all shots).

These are just two exmples, but they show the amount of work before you. There's a lot to clarify.

When it comes to balance between factions, I think it isn't bad at the moment. The most broken thing I've found so far is infiltrating Free Marines thowing C4 - if there's quarters deployment and they've got initiative they can kill half the enemy army in one activation. The main problem is with named characters - most seem to be a bit overcosted compared to custom warlords (Everassur and Shiryo are pretty good examples).

I've also repeatedly heard opinions that Cybertronic (one of the first factions created) has fallen behind the other factions. The fact that nobody took Cybertronic to Prodos Expo tournament suggests that there is some merit in these opinions. That said, I own a Cyber army and have managed to beat all other factions so I don't think any great revoluton is needed, just a few tweaks (that can all be addressed by changing point costs, there's no need to change the rules on unit cards):
- armoured chasseurs don't seem to be as good as capitol heavy infantry while costing the same - so either make the first unit a bit (1-3 pts) cheaper or the second a bit more expensive,
- attila cuirasseurs are clearly too expensive, that's the only Cyber unit I've never fielded this year (Mirrormen are decent only with Pieter Diamond),
- Cybertronic faction upgrades are mostly a waste of points, I suggest a price drop for most or changing some of them (I believe lots of similiarly useless abilities can be found in other factions),
- scorpion's survivability seems a bit too low for what it costs (its damage dealing capacity isn't much greater than etoiles mortant with a flamer for example, or tiger dragons with hmg+some nasty ki power, while etoiles unit will have at least 5 wounds (3-4 for tiger dragons) when costing almost the same .

Finally - I still really enjoy the game as it is, so there's no need to publish WZR 2.0 quickly. I'd rather wait 3 months longer (or whatever time it takes) for a better playtested ruleset than have it right now in a worse shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 3:55 am
Posts: 53
Assur wrote:
Finally - I still really enjoy the game as it is, so there's no need to publish WZR 2.0 quickly. I'd rather wait 3 months longer (or whatever time it takes) for a better playtested ruleset than have it right now in a worse shape.


Absolutely this, take the time you need to make the game truly great!

Charles Retro Z wrote:
- Remove the weapon type modifiers. They are pretty rarely useful in the end. A few unit suffers a lot from it, and few other can make combo with it (necromutants), but in the end, it is a rule that would easily be taken out and make the game lighter.


I actually quite like these (which is why I didn't mention it) but it would be interesting to have them a bit more formally standardised (eg, light infantry are weak vs blast, power armour are weak vs plasma) heck you could build it into the weapon type, for example Blast: models in light armour get -2A vs a Blast weapon, then you just add into the armour section different armour types (light, med, heavy, powered, etc). Plus it lets you do some neat stuff like undead units (Necromutants and Undead Legionnaires) are +2A vs Peircing to help get across that you have to blow them apart or hack them to bits rather than filling them with lead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Warzone 2.0
PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:38 pm
Posts: 344
Location: Indian Land SC
One request, please dot make it drastically different. GW ruined 40k when they went to 3rd edition on. I like the basics of WZR.


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

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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 .