It is currently Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:13 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:46 am
Posts: 307
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
General remarks – I really like where the rules are going. A lot of good stuff in them. For example, I really like the ‘special skills’ and the way the weapons will be done. I do have some reservations on close combat though. So far it seems it will be a lot weaker compared to ranged combat. Getting into close combat was always tricky in Warzone with so many guns on the battlefield. So close combat can use a boost. Unfortunately the beta doesn’t involve close combat troops, so it’s all a bit theoretic. I hope Prodos Games will get a good balance between shooting and close combat. But I’m sure the final rules will be great :)

Detailed input:

Model height (p2) - The concept seems a bit odd now IMO. Why not use the system from Warmachine & Hordes where all models have a fixed volume, even if they are larger or smaller. By making it “a minimum of X”, models on tall bases are screwed. By using fixed volumes you don’t hamstring people who want to do epic basing or conversions.
Something like: small bases: 1.5” high, medium bases: 2” high, large bases: 3” high.

Shooting and line of sight (p3) - the rules are clear. I assume there will be a chapter on terrain and what layout gives the best playing experience? You don’t want an Infinity table, so you are shooting through 6 cover pieces most of the times (making shooting impossible)...but playing on a football pitch also sucks.

Intervening models cannot completely obscure a target as both are constantly moving (it is a battlefield after all!)
Even when firing through a Grizzly? I understand the rules are an abstract version of reality, but this seems a bit odd.

Pre-Game (p.9) - Each player rolls a D20 for Initial Initiative. Highest roll wins. The winner sets-up first, within 6” of their board edge. The winner may choose to give initiative to the opponent (to their left if more than two players).
This seems counterintuitive. The winner sets-up first. Doesn’t look like a winning prize, setting up first. I’d change it to “Highest roll wins. The winner sets-up second, within 6” of their board edge. The winner may choose to give initiative to the opponent”
And of course, then let the winning player start the game.

***
And I wonder why you’re not using the Ld of the force’s commander/hero in the die roll to push for initiative. So Ld+D20...highest total wins. This way, you’re adding a bit of your hero’s strategy to the total score. Then again, I don’t know how high the Ld scores are going to be. So if they are all about equal, scratch this suggestion ;)

Basic Actions (p. 11) - Engage action: What is a “Watch action”? Do you mean Sentry? And what happens if a countercharge is successful? Do the charger and countercharger fight? This really needs more explanation.

Hide action (p.11) - How does this interact with the “Sniper” card mentioned somewhere else?

Close Combat (p11) - one action only? That seems terrible for some of the close combat models. For example, if you start your activation in melee and make an attack, what will you be doing with your second action (yes, even Doomtroopers can roll a 19 ;))? Melee combat already is a weaker form of combat in a game with a lot of gunfire, so making it 2 actions seems like a good way to compensate.
Can you make one regular close combat action and one special close combat action? Like a regular attack and a ‘Swing’ for example? If so, cool.

Target priority (p.13) – So if I park my heavily armored troops in hiding behind some light and heavy cover in front of the rest of my models, I can force my opponent to either try to do some ineffective shooting or hope he loses actions with failed LD tests?
I think it would be good to let models shoot at enemies which have less cover than the closest models. So if the closest models are behind light and heavy cover and in hiding and another unit is only behind light cover...let them choose which element they want to fire at without a LD test.

Armour tests (p14) – Still the same system...shame. I really hope you guys choose a system with a single table to calculate damage and not three separate parts which need to be combined.

Close Combat (p15) - Engaged models have only 1 Action Point to spend. This point can only be spent on a close combat attack OR a move action.
Honestly, I think this is a terrible rule...first the basic actions state models can make 1 close combat attack and then engaged models only have 1 action point to spend. This really doesn’t help close combat troops at all and I can imagine it is an ideal way of blocking some of the more powerful ranged heroes. After all, he can only move or make a close combat attack. So either Bob Watts pummels the EDD with his Atlas...or he moves away and takes an automatic hit from the chainsaw...

Shotguns (p20) – Can I choose which type of bullets my models will fire in close combat?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:45 am
Posts: 1040
Location: Kenilworth, Warwickshire, UK
I just want to start off by saying that was a fantastically put together response. Very easy, very clear. :)

I'll attempt to answer what I can...

Model Height (p.2) - I agree. It's up to Jarek at the end of the day. I can see your argument though, equally, what if someone cut off the lower part of their models, and had them all wading through swamps? Standardised height might be a good way to go...

Shooting and Line of Sight (p.3) - Again, good point. I think it's because Prodos are thinking in terms of the miniatures currently being used. I'd imagine this will be more specific in future updates. Tracked and wheeled vehicles larger than (x) should have the capability of completely blocking Line of Sight. This would need a diagram as well I think...

Pre-Game (p.9) - I disagree with you! :) I think it's a good mechanic, whereby you roll to see who wins the initiative, but that player must also deploy first. Considering the roll is not really a test of skill, it balances it that way. Many would prefer to move their models first, rather than deploy first.
However, adding the commander's leadership might be interesting...

Basic Actions (p.11) - I imagine "Watch" is sentry. Nicely noticed.

As for Close Combat, I think the idea is that Prodos are avoiding making the game, which is a Science fiction game, well known for all of it's guns, into another Close Combat game. Of course, Close Combat specialists will have their own special rules...
Perhaps then, there could be a general rule called 'close combat specialist', whereby they get more actions in Close Combat than usual... I don't know really!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:46 am
Posts: 307
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
@Pre-Game: The way you put it sounds good...I can relate to that :)

@Close Combat: I understand if Prodos wants to focus on ranged combat...but that's a bit hard with Warzone. There are so many models focussed on close combat. So either they change the models, or they make close combat competitive enough to make close combat models interesting. But we'll see! I have good faith in them :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:45 am
Posts: 1040
Location: Kenilworth, Warwickshire, UK
I simply do not know enough about Warzone's previous incarnations to make a proper comment about Close Combat.

Glad you have faith in them though, I do too!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:46 am
Posts: 307
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
Well, if the Machinators are a sign of where Warzone's heading, you're right. In all three previous editions, they were close combat troops with swords and bucklers. Now they're wielding small arms. So probably their role is somewhat similar (close range shock troops), their use will be different.

But I'm not that much of a fluff-freak that I want everything to stay the same. In the end I want a kickass game with great models. And so far I'm happy. The main thing I hope is the story and background will stay similar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:52 pm
Posts: 120
Location: France
Hi Guys.

Initiative phase:
In the case of multi players' games the winner could be allowed to switch his/her initiative rank with a player of his/her choice. I think it should be better.

Agree with Malebodgia. However deploy first means fisrt to go.

Weaponry:
A single stat for guns feel me to play WH 40K. What a pity!!!!

How strange a HMG have a ST 12 like a hand gun. Typo?

CC:
A single attack it's too less. Why not two attacks per minis (ie they have two actions). Guns have RoF. CC should be deadly.


Type of heros:
In my point of view the loss to use res card when the warlord is removed is a bit too much. Why a hero cannot command the force (ie activate capacities) with penalities ==> No radius command + lower initiative.

Someone can explain why a soldier couldn't bring to play a trick when the warlord is off?

Regards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:22 pm
Posts: 213
Actual WRZ is THE game of blades and guns.

Regarding CC you have to keep in your mind there are a lot of true CC units in WRZ like Wolfbanes.

It would be sad if the new version makes them to cannon fodder no sane player will ever field.

WRZ is a schizo game where people comes with a knife to a gun fight and have a chance to win.

That is a kind of spirit from the very first days of MC. Of course these insane guys with a blade cannot walk open to the opponents and hope to survive but they have normally special skill to survive like high movement, stealth abilities, magic, high armor, Para deploy, sneak attacks, mass attacks and much more to get to their opponents in a world of smoking barrels.

But Prodos are fans so they know about it and I am sure they will offer some solution(s).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:46 am
Posts: 107
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Advanced Actions
Sentry Action - You can place up to TWO models per 5 models in a squad (to a minimum of 2 models) into ‘Sentry’ mode. Models in Sentry can use ONE action (cannot be increased by any means) during the enemy’s activation phase. The following ‘Sentry’ actions are allowed: Shooting, Close Combat, Move or Dive for Cover.


What is the the reasoning for limiting the Sentry Action to only 2 models? This appears to be arbitrary.

(edit)The suppressive fire rule doesn't really address this situation as you have to have the model insight before declaring it. An model that moves into LOS is immune to Suppressive Fire.

Quote:
General Activation Notes
If one player has less units than the other, the player with the most can activate all their remaining units once the other players units have been activated.


This rule is problematical for armies with expensive troops versus those with less expensive troops. The less expensive troop army can "swamp" the activation sequence so that his opponent has to activate all his units before the cheaper troop army has to activate his better troops.

The side with fewer units should have some way of "passing" a turn, so that the game dosen't degenerate into an effective UGOIGO game.

Quote:
Every unit must be activated per turn.


If this is the case, there needs to be a "pass" action just to be complete.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:52 pm
Posts: 120
Location: France
jtisdel wrote:
Quote:
Advanced Actions
Sentry Action - You can place up to TWO models per 5 models in a squad (to a minimum of 2 models) into ‘Sentry’ mode. Models in Sentry can use ONE action (cannot be increased by any means) during the enemy’s activation phase. The following ‘Sentry’ actions are allowed: Shooting, Close Combat, Move or Dive for Cover.


What is the the reasoning for limiting the Sentry Action to only 2 models? This appears to be arbitrary.

Totally agree.

Quote:
General Activation Notes
If one player has less units than the other, the player with the most can activate all their remaining units once the other players units have been activated.


This rule is problematical for armies with expensive troops versus those with less expensive troops. The less expensive troop army can "swamp" the activation sequence so that his opponent has to activate all his units before the cheaper troop army has to activate his better troops.

I know 2ed so i speak about this set of rule. Following your reasonning Bauhaus have to be overwhelmed by others corpos however it was never the case. If you're overwhelmed your primary target is the best adverse squad or weaker one to elimane fast and focus on it (if you can). It's your commander choice. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:46 am
Posts: 107
Location: Dallas, TX
C. Paladine wrote:
Quote:
General Activation Notes
If one player has less units than the other, the player with the most can activate all their remaining units once the other players units have been activated.


This rule is problematical for armies with expensive troops versus those with less expensive troops. The less expensive troop army can "swamp" the activation sequence so that his opponent has to activate all his units before the cheaper troop army has to activate his better troops.

I know 2ed so i speak about this set of rule. Following your reasonning Bauhaus have to be overwhelmed by others corpos however it was never the case. If you're overwhelmed your primary target is the best adverse squad or weaker one to elimane fast and focus on it (if you can). It's your commander choice. :D


In earlier WZ editions (and other games with alternating activation) it is not so much a case of out shooting your opponent, but of being out maneuvered. Initially, you may be able to gun down your opponents, but as the game continues and you loose units (and activations) the advantage goes to the player with more units (activations) to achieve his goals.

If you're force starts off smaller than your opponents, you will always have to commit your elite unit before your opponent does. This occurs no matter what your commander may choose to do. As you start taking losses this only gets worse. In 1st and 2nd edition WZ there came a point where your force was "mission killed" simply because you didn't have enough units to overcome his numerical (activations) superiority.

See also this discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 .