It is currently Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:49 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:52 pm
Posts: 120
Location: France
Thanks for the link Jtisdel.

Totally agree with Peacekeeper.

Counter example: However Bauhaus should be overwhelmed (better stats and weapons) but sadly they did not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 69
Malebolgia wrote:
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.

Yeap, Minimum word will be removed.

Image

In this Example neither A B or C model take advantage of cover (cover is less than 1/4 of an inch) in order to gain benefits of cover it must be (for small models) 1/4 or more (25% of 1" for small bases)

In True LoS you could claim cover for model A as model is 25% covered. We want to avoid this kind of situation, after all this model is not kneeing 24/7 :)


Also as per cover definition, in situation below model CAN claim the cover as his facing area is covered in more than 25%. (therefore 25% sentence must stay in the rules)

Image



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.

Well, this is where special skills comes in play like Sniper, The rule of max 3 pieces of cover gives advantages to Close Combat units. (- You cannot shoot at a model which is behind more than 3 pieces of cover (including other models), unless you declare a ‘Lucky Shot’ attempt. A lucky shot hits only on the roll of a natural )

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.

No it says on page 5: "- If the Facing Area of a model is completely obscured it cannot be targeted."

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 ;)

We could look into this.

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.

LOL Typo, sry.

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.


Ok, there is reason why model can have only one action point, we want to avoid regular models (not CC ones) to jump from combat to combat in one turn. Same issue like in 4ed WH40k. That is why all CC has RoA. For one action you can make 1 ,2 or 3 even 4 attacks (depending on weapon).
BUT as Rob stated, Close Combat units gain benefits if they Engaged.

Lemme just show you a bit of big picture:
Example:

Unit with Special Skill : Sword Master, his RoA's +2 + for each eliminated model can move upto 2", effectively with 2handed Sword (RoA1) model can issue 3 attacks within approx 6" area from Primary target ( if he is lucky enough :) ) (dont forget that 2handes sword has CCWR 1.5"!)


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.

Target Priority can be bypass by lots of skills/cards ect. also ,after all this is strategy game so, you just provided nice Tactical tip :)


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.

there is only one table. I don't see any issue with St of weapon, just take 10 away = modifier to Armour Test.

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...

This is answered above, i think :)


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



Will be explained once the special rules for weapons are done.



Thanks for Feedbacks :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 349
Location: Canada
Yeah, with close combat I am fine with basic troopers not being great at it. And it sounds like specialists will have a lot of reason to get in to it. That is as it should be. I'm no longer worried that it will be like Infinity, where even CC specialists are better off just shooting things. :D

Also, loving the V-Rangers. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:46 am
Posts: 307
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
THANKS Jarek for the elaborate reply 8-). Much appreciated. It sounds like you really thought about everything, including close combat. Can't wait to see the final rules!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:43 pm
Posts: 164
C. Paladine wrote:
Thanks for the link Jtisdel.

Totally agree with Peacekeeper.


Uh.... What?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:52 pm
Posts: 120
Location: France
Quote:
See also this discussion.


Follow the link. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:48 pm
Posts: 54
jtisdel wrote:
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.


A couple of counter-points...

In games like 40k or Warmahordes where the activations operate as a "I activate everything, then you active everything" some of the issues with numerical superiority still occur. You can still easily be out maneuvered, especially if your opponent gets to go first. In some ways it is even worse because your opponent gets to move everything and can therefore put his entire army at a tactical superior position before you even leave your deployment zone. If the mission is about holding a couple of objectives he can already be ready to pounce on all of them.

"Swamping" still occurs just as easily in these games as well, just in a different order. In 40k if your opponent has five more units than you it still calculates him having five more units to shoot at you, five more units to move, etc. etc. The only difference between that style and the way WZR method is that those five extra shooting squads occur all in the same activation phase.

The only way to mediate this, regardless of how the activations occur, is for there to be proper balancing of units. If player A has more units than player B, player A's units should be less effective (for the lack of a better term). They should be worse shots, have worse armor, have worse equipment, etc. He may be able to fire more than player B, but player B should be able to withstand the fire better and have a better chance of killing player A's guys.

Finally one thing that I feel is in favor of alternate activations...minimizing the "angry turn". This happens a lot in Warmahordes games;

Whether it is through a series of great dice rolls and/or chaining off a series of abilities between several different units, a player can deal so much damage to his opponent in a single turn that said opponent has no chance of winning. The win condition has not been met yet, but for all intents and purposes the player has just won the game.

This is almost a staple of Warmahordes. The first player that can successfully fire off his "kill switch" combo will win the game simply because his opponent's army is so devastated that he can't mount an offense any more. I've seen games where people have lost before they took their second turn due to this. Alternate activation allows you to react to what your opponent does, giving you something of a fighting chance. It won't totally prevent "angry turns", but you will see this scenario happen less often.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:48 pm
Posts: 54
Couple things in v 1.2 that I don't like, and perhaps someone at Prodos can explain to me the reasoning behind it...

Focus Fire and Suppression Fire...why do they use fixed Str. scores instead of the Str of a weapon?

By doing this you can make some weapons more powerful that intended and at the same time some less powerful.

For example, a Pistol using Suppression Fire suddenly goes from a Str 12 to a Str 14 (??).

Meanwhile the Auto weapon you have, if using Focus Fire, drops down from a Str 13 to a Str 12. Also in both cases, regardless of the weapon type, the damage becomes piercing.

I understand that there are other bonuses attached to using these abilities. But, to use the examples above, I figure that an Auto weapon (or model using an Auto weapon) would cost more than a pistol (or a model only equipped with a pistol). As a result shouldn't you benefit from paying more points for that model by having your Focus/Suppression Fire reflect the weapon used?

If it was because these attacks were too powerful when used by stronger weapons, then shouldn't the rules themselves be tweaked rather than suddenly changing the Str and damage type of the weapon?

If nothing else I'm curious as to see why these rules work the way they do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 69
Deadjester wrote:
Couple things in v 1.2 that I don't like, and perhaps someone at Prodos can explain to me the reasoning behind it...

Focus Fire and Suppression Fire...why do they use fixed Str. scores instead of the Str of a weapon?

By doing this you can make some weapons more powerful that intended and at the same time some less powerful.

For example, a Pistol using Suppression Fire suddenly goes from a Str 12 to a Str 14 (??).

Meanwhile the Auto weapon you have, if using Focus Fire, drops down from a Str 13 to a Str 12. Also in both cases, regardless of the weapon type, the damage becomes piercing.

I understand that there are other bonuses attached to using these abilities. But, to use the examples above, I figure that an Auto weapon (or model using an Auto weapon) would cost more than a pistol (or a model only equipped with a pistol). As a result shouldn't you benefit from paying more points for that model by having your Focus/Suppression Fire reflect the weapon used?

If it was because these attacks were too powerful when used by stronger weapons, then shouldn't the rules themselves be tweaked rather than suddenly changing the Str and damage type of the weapon?

If nothing else I'm curious as to see why these rules work the way they do.


Focus Fire
St12 is minimum Value for Troops armed with Auto weapons.
Also, regarding all attacks being "piercing", its due to Squad Construction:
2 special weapons per squad (plasma, blast (small)
1 Heavy weapon per squad (Blast (large), rail and in some cases Plasma)

So, let say we let you to use "type" of weapon with Focus Fire, I can see easy way to abuse this rule, if squad has just one model with Plasma type of weapon who is participating in Focus Fire (or if, lets says squad is equipped with just one weapon with St 15...).
If we go with majority of "type of weapons" used, the Focus Fire will be even more difficult to balance (if you spend more points on Squads (more Specialists) then you get better Focus Fire.... difficult to fix that)

Suppression Fire- is only for quads with the SF skill in their description, can't see this happening for squads armed only with Pistols :)
Also its "abstractional" rule, forcing you to make decision - move fast and possibly get 1kg lead in head, or go slowly and avoid damage.
As you have a possibility to easy avoid the damage, it must, in the same time "punishing" you if you happy to take in on chest.

Also with Fixed Value its easer to "balance" and we want to keep this rule nice and simple.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: V1.2 feedback
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 13
A quick comment concerning suppression fire:

This squad action works on a whole squad as targets not only a single model right?
Shouldn't there be some incentive to have more than three models participating in the squad action? Either increase strength (e.g. ST8 + RoF of participating models) or make the constitution roll more difficult. Atm there is no need to have more than 3 model participate. Additionally I think cc troops are punished more as targets of this action than shooters being targeted, maybe add a penalty to shooting as well (e.g. -2 for every 3 models participating in the action unless a constitution roll is made).

A second thing when do I strike on sentry in cc? Before or after the engaging model? Or is there a roll off. I think this needs to be clarified. In general I am very happy with the rule set, keep up the good work! 8-)


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