Prodos Games LTD Forum
http://forum.prodosgames.com/

Warzone 2.0
http://forum.prodosgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2340
Page 3 of 7

Author:  Netrunner [ Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

I would change a pinning and broken rule - to only broken.

Good idea to change RD that they cannot use Res cards in the turn they arrived.

Author:  Dullahan [ Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

I'd like to see a reserve function other than rapid deployment and escalation. I think that would add an easy way to give yourself more options to protect against RD.

Author:  tezrek [ Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

For one, I think all the factions should be completed, like Imperial.

I often play against Cybertronic, and while I admit that my adversary is kinda new to wargame, I think they need a little tune-up. Again, any faction is overpriced compared to Imperial.

RD need a tweak: limiting it kinda reduce the options of some army: Dark Legion and Capitol come to mind.

Terrain is to hard to destroy. I first used the rules not too long ago, to not waste a shot, and was very surprised by how hard it is to do anything to anything.

Some deck my need tweaking. I don't play all faction, but I do hear some people complaint that they don't have anything as good as Imperial turrets.

Also, please, don't made our cards/books obsolete, especially the newer, collector edition. They barely have any shelf-wearing!

I really enjoy Warzone: Resurrection, don't go to far in one shot :)

Author:  Assur [ Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

Here’s a list of rules I’ve found confusing (and I think they should be clarified in 2.0):

1. aim action – as already mentioned, the rule only says that the bonuses to RS and St apply to the first shot. Nothing like that is mentioned about choosing the hit location for vehicles (this is not a bonus to any stat) – but it seems the intention was that the hit location choice also applies only to the 1st shot

2. grenades not needing LoS – problem also described in my post on the 1st page (different descriptions for different units, unclear whether the special rules for scattering replace the basic ones or should be applied alongside the basic ones thus resulting in a possible double scatter – personally I follow the latter interpretation).

3. Mishima LD rerolls for Rapid Deployment tests – it was unclear if the RD test gets a reroll from Mishima special rule – someone even mentioned that there was a clarification that there is no reroll (never seen it myself) – well the Praetorian Goliath strategy card clearly states that this is a LD test so there is a reroll, but I shouldn’t be looking for the answer on a strategy card – if something is a LD test please write it clearly in the rules

4. templates and power shots – again I heard that there was somewhere a clarification that there are no power shots for templates – nothing like that can be found in the rules so we apply power shots whenever a RS test is made for an individual model (power shot affects only that model)

5. infiltration – is it obligatory to use this rule? Reading the rule literally it would seem so, but I doubt that was the intention.

6. Free closing action – it can be abused because of unclear wording (see CTC issue IX page 21 to see what I mean, I wouldn’t allow the action to be made in such a way, but the rule is unclear so some people apparently do) – it should be clarified that the action is to be made by the shortest route possible and can be made only if the enemy model is not within the performer’s CCWR

7. Clarify how cover is measured (as Dunnagh said). Measured from the shooter’s weapon/head/from the base (currently I measure from the best possible point of the shooting model)?

8. The exact timing of playing cards shoud be better explained. For example the diagram on page 51 suggests that it's not possible to play cards before any squad is activated (right after strategy crds window) or after all models form a squad have been acticated but before a new squad is activated. Cards in advanced games section doesn't mention such restrictions. There aren't many situations when it matters but they do come up from time to time.

9. Explain clearly which Armour Value modifiers modify WP during psychic shooting actions - obviously strength and type of the attack are meant to apply, that's why psychic attacks have these - but it isn't stated anywhere clearly. And what about other modifiers - for example modifiers increasing Armour Value from tactical and gear cards?

I’ll edit the list should something new come up.

Author:  Netrunner [ Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

Good idea is to add size characteristic. I would say 2nd edition made it great. If something is small is hard to hit it. If something is bigger then is easier. Simple as that. Now we've got only bulky skill - that Vulkan is bulky but Pretorian Behemot is not...

Author:  Dullahan [ Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

This is slightly off topic but goes back to earlier posts in the thread, it's very refreshing and makes me feel better about the game in general that the community is much healthier on facebook than it is here on the forums. I wish the forums were as active, but it's great the community exists someplace.

Author:  AcesHigh [ Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

Wouldn't know myself. I make the occasional dummy Facebook account in order to support projects and people that are Facebook believers, but generally despise it.

Not a fan of Facebook business practices. But that's been argued to death since it's creation.

My point: a business shouldn't put all of their eggs into one (or two...Twitter) social media baskets. Gaming companies in particular need better forms of knowledge management.


Edit: and making some FB warzone groups hidden probably wasn't a great idea either.

Author:  Raven911 [ Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

I agree with Aces High. Not everyone uses Facebook. While it can be useful for a company, their website should not be neglected. Especially their forum where their customers frequent.

Author:  Dullahan [ Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

Don't get me wrong, I agree. And I understand the positions on facebook as well, and do think it's wrong you can't view the groups without having an account.

I think that at this point the Facebook groups are mostly fan created and aren't official. I would love love love for these forums, the Facebook page, and the Prodos blog to all be on the same page with relevant updates and such. You're absolutely right the official site and forums should not be neglected, I agree 100%. My point was only that it just seems a larger portion of the community is more active on Facebook.

Author:  AcesHigh [ Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Warzone 2.0

Valid point and I agree.

Page 3 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/