Excelsior Entertainment Forums

Warzone => Game Questions => Topic started by: Raga on August 18, 2010, 02:09:49 AM

Title: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 18, 2010, 02:09:49 AM
Below is my version of rule modifications that balances most problems with 1st edition.

Warzone v1.5 Home Rules

Heavy Weapons
Units with 7 or more models can have one additional heavy weapon (Rulebook Page 65)
Burst is not interrupted by missing the target
Penalty for not being Braced is difference between Strength and damage multiplier
Lock on Target does not require being braced and ignores Extra Cover
Availability of AP grenades is the same as heavy weapons

Shotgun
Considered 2-handed sidearm
Automatically hits every target under a Template and in LOS

Template Weapons
Cover affects only chance to hit, it always deals full damage (rule simplification)

Secondary Attack
Available for 1-handed weapons only
May be performed every action (not once a turn)

Deviation
Second digit shows direction (Imperial Bridgehead Template)
First Digit shows distance: 1 – 25%, 2 – 50%
Does not affect AP grenades and AP rockets (miss is a miss)
Weapon deals damage if Template is still in weapon range

Indirect Fire
Includes grenades, grenade launchers, mortars
Ignores Cover
Spotter is no longer needed (Attacker must have LOS)

Hiding and Spotting
There is no bonus for subsequent spotting the same model
Perfect Success does not affect spotting
Individual models within 3” of squads are considered part of them (as per shooting)
All units in Deployment Zone start game hidden, models that cannot hide, lose hidden status when activated for a first time
Model can pass through a hidden model if at the end they do not touch their bases, hidden model can decide to attack or let the model through
Abilities and special equipment do not stack

Close Combat
All attacks can be parried (even shots - deflecting arm holding a weapon) except attacks by surprise
Attack by surprise: sneak attack and back attack
Back attack: when activated, attacker cannot enter LOS of defender before attacking
Difference in strength is subtracted from parrying of a weaker model
Sweep disables damage modifier

Ranged Combat
Distance of 1 inch or less between the models Block LOS
Models cover each other as normal cover
Every attack is nullified by 3” of the forest and covers that obscure whole model
Template that covers only models not in LOS of attacker deals damage only when Deviated

Vehicles
Hit Location Table:
Closed Vehicle – all attacks hit Body
Open Vehicle – 1-15 Body, 16-20 Crew
Losing Control when:
Driver rolls 20
Driver is Hit
Driver is Wounded
Wounds of a vehicle drops to 0:
Open Vehicle – explodes, crew can jump/catapult with LD roll
Closed Vehicle – explodes, crew dies
Wounds of a Driver drops to 0:
Ground Vehicle – automatic loss of control, collision causes explosion
Flying Vehicle – automatic loss of control, explodes on ground

Miscellaneous:
•   Extra Cover:
Works in every Cover
Cover value increases armor (soft cover increases armor by 2, hard cover by 4)
Is a free action when model performed only Move and Infiltrate actions (gaining ground - Gears of War inspiration)
•   Healed mortally wounded models are Prone
Prone – model loses Waiting, close combat attacks against this model get +4 to hit, model must spend first action on standing up (action considered move)
•   Using Special Power Action that does not affect other models is a visible action but does not cause to lose hidden status (can be spotted when performing it) – Shadow walker can poison its sword, Wild Roses can drink whiskey etc.
•   Tangling large models (Mourning Wolves) – first successful tangling in a round is ignored, two models are required to hold one tangle
•   Curator of Demnogonis has additional First Aid ability

Heroic Abilities
1 slot for specialists and individual models
Can be Duplicated
For Specialists: Close Combat Training, Crack Shot, Keen Eyes, Scout, Very Strong, First Aid
Unavailable for Dark Legion

Special Equipment
1 slot for Squad Leaders and Individual Models
Wolfbane Relics are Considered Special Equipment and can be duplicated

Dark Technology
2 slots for Squad Leaders and Individual Models

Dark Symmetry
Dark Gifts can be duplicated, but not Gifts of Apostoles

Modification of Abilities and Special Equipment
Close Combat Training – affects all close combat attacks (even sidearm and shotgun shots)
Born leader – model can Give Order and Rally twice a turn
First Aid – works like a corporate medic
Command Helmet – increases Command Distance by 2”
Laser Sight – does not work with Heavy Weapons and Sniper Rifles
Ignoring/Healing wounds – integrated with armor roll
Model cannot increase base Actions beyond 4
Model cannot increase base Wounds beyond 3

Explanations
Ignoring/Healing wounds – model with Combat Medic Unit making an armor roll of 1-10 passes the armor test (it does not give additional roll as before). It almost does not work with 30 armor (except perfect hits) but makes low armor troops more resistant to flamers and high damaging weapons
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Petru5 on August 18, 2010, 07:39:14 AM
I'm gonna ask a question of you, but I don't want to come across as snarky.  The question isn't intended to be anything more than one to satisfy my curiosity...

Why not just play 2nd edition or UWZ? 

From what I've heard, 1st edition is 'broken' (i.e., there are major imbalance issues), 2nd corrects these issues, but loses all the flavor of the mythos and UWZ combines the best of 1 & 2 into a wonderful gaming experience.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 18, 2010, 10:14:20 AM
You partially already answered your question, but I will try to explain it more.

Second edition is solules, poor and crude. It is balanced but nothing more.

UWZ has more color, more rules (really a lot of rules), but has many restrictions for armies, statis individuals that cannot even swap pistol for a knife, and has a lot of bugs. Even if you have a rulebook, you need a tons of faq to interpret it the right way.

First edition is closest to Mutant Chronicles RPG (which we play from time to time) has Personalities, total freedom of equipping units and choosing forces.
There is no restriction that rorbids me to play only with Free Marines, Mortificators or Wenusian Rangers.
When you played 1st edition for a couple of years you don't want to loose its flavor.

Personally I prefer to do minor changes to first edition and try to balance it than changing to UWZ and wouldn't be able to use half of my models the same time.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Coil on August 18, 2010, 10:19:55 AM
Balancewise I think that cutting out the heroic abilities and dark gifts and also most of the optional equipment helps a lot.

The dominance of the HMGs was a problem in 1st ed and decreasing the ranges would help give other weapons a role.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 18, 2010, 11:00:39 AM
Coil: you are somewhat right. Dominace of HMGs is a problem, but only for individuals like ISC Agent (4 actions, 4 move, 3 str and 3 wounds), as he could shoot Charger/Deathlockdrum for two actions and vanish behind the wall.

We go towards reducing restrictions for heavy weapons for troopers (you can aim without bracing and penalty for not beiung braced is not -4 but difference between damage miltiplier and strength) and making it harder to spot (you don't get +4 to spot the same model for each action) plus abilities and equipment do not stack. So individuals with HMG could get hit from waiting, and normal troopers (especially close combat ones could get really close).

We changed parrying (penalty to parry for a weaker model is difference between strength) so even grunt with 0 str can try to parry Alakhai (he must roll 2 but he can)

And we made vehicles like 2nd edition (the only loactions are body and crew in open vehicles) and removed additional effects of loosing wound (except loosing control) like destroying weapon, engines and gas tanks.

And the most important is, we integrated ignoring wounds with armor roll so it almost doesn't work with 30 armor but makes wonders if you have low armor.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Horned God on August 18, 2010, 01:18:53 PM
The original poster discovered the reasons why there was a 2nd edition!

Congratz, you should work for a government agency like the IRS.

I think you like 1st edition warzone because it more like VOR, a make-it-your own type of approach.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 18, 2010, 08:46:44 PM
Horned God: I don't think I ever seen that poster. But I really don't need official reasons why the 2nd edition or UWZ were released.
I will stick to 1ed and maybe someday I will switch to unoficial 4th edition (when it is finished - but 1st edition background suits me better)
Can you explain to me the thing about IRS? (I had to check what it is on internet :P)
VOR seems interesting (except these ugly models - that seem more beautiful than 1ed Etoiles Mortant :P), but I learned 5 minutes ago that something like that even exists.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 19, 2010, 06:02:37 AM
As I mentioned above i prepared my suggestions about rebalancing 1st edition.
Lots of them are only clarifications but there are some new rules or modification of existing ones.
Some of them are obvious but not written clearly in rulebook.
I hope they are logical and easy to understand. If not just criticise me.
I'm waiting for your conscructive opinions and suggestions.

Updated and moved to First Post of this Topic
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Horned God on August 19, 2010, 08:40:19 PM
Sorry Raga I forgot some of you guys are from other nations. The IRS is the Internal Revenue Service of the U.S.. The 'tax-man'.

I like your proposed changes for 1st edition. By the way I own some of the 1st edition books and I like how they are laid out and colorfully done.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 20, 2010, 03:52:05 AM
Horned God: I still don't understand why I should work there :P
Tax collecting in Poland seem a bit different than in US.
So I don't have any clue if you have some typical opinions about IRS.
If it was some kind of joke or sarcasm, sorry I don't get it. (But I don't mind knowing it :D)

I still hope that somebody using 1st edition would make some commnets to the topic.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on August 20, 2010, 10:56:13 AM
Well, i use the 1st edition books myself, i just love those books and they are much better to "corrupt" someone into the game than the UWZ brick :P. Even my sister likes the art. Also, i don't know, the first edition had a "movie-like" flair that UWZ doesn't seem to have. I think that they achieve different things well, respectively.  We just re-started playing lately and here's what we've changed so far:

Aiming provides +2 MW and +2 DAM
We found that +4 was too strong, in that almost all troopers could become pseudo-snipers, even undead legionnaires. With this rule, it does make "elite and few" troops a bit more resilient against the "mass swarm". Snipers still get the old +4MW and +4DAM, but in order to aim, they must spend an action to set up (which will last until they move).

Heavy weapons cannot be aimed:
Their range already saves them from a negative modifier most of the time, and their damage is immense by all accounts.

We do not play with heroic abilities, special equipments (including necrotech or AI programs) unless stated by the rules of a particular troop or individual type.
These things were pretty much why all hell broke loose in the 1st edition, especially in point matches à la 40k. They are far better used in a roleplaying context, or within a campaign story ran by a game master. For point matches, we don't use them unless it's already in the unit's description.

No more than 3 identical actions per activation
We found that things went out of whack when units moved 20+ inches per turn, making the encounters too binary, relying on initiative. All movement actions are considered equal, in that you cannot move 3 times and then charge, or infiltrate twice and charge twice. Charging doesn't count in your max number of close combat actions, nor do secondary/combined attacks. Of course, burst firing count as a single shooting action.

This forces elite troops/individuals to vary their actions and think slightly out of the "no-brainers" box. It's especially visible on Nepharites who have 5 or 6 actions. They are still extremely dangerous, but just can't spend 5-6 actions moving or shooting; they have to be creative to get the most of their value.

Spotting and hiding
The maximum bonus for consecutive spotting actions (on the same target) is +4. However, we've also changed the hide rule so that you can't hide in plain sight of an enemy within 6" (i.e. you need cover to do so).

--------- The Rambo factor

Upcoming for us is a way to better spread the heavy weapons in forces. In the basic 1st edition weapon, there's just no reason not to give individuals the biggest gun of your army, then your elite and lastly, the grunts. This is due to the fact that Heavy weapons costs do not reflect the MW or AC of the carrier, while the stats of those weapon are often completely superior in every way; the cost being the only balancing factor in there. In the end, why would you give a Trencher unit a Charger if you have room for it in a Blood Berret Squad, or, even better, a 4AC 16MW Captain?

The "bracing" action is a way to make them a bit more cumbersome, but high ST individuals disregard it, and even if not, then it only emphasizes that individuals should get the big guns (as they tend to have more actions to shoot after bracing than their trooper comrade)

While we want to change that, we must also consider that some individuals are typically armed with heavy weapons in the Mutant Chronicles (Razides, Doomtroopers, Nepharites, etc); but the result must make it a choice rather than a no-brainer. Personally, considering all this, i do not think that giving bigger squads more heavy weapon is the key.

-----

Lastly, we'll look at the Dark legion's force. I think that UWZ did the right thing in making some divisions at least. The "pick what you want and mix match it up" tend to remove the theme from the army. There might be other armies that benefit from it too, but we're far from there yet.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 20, 2010, 12:48:28 PM
Oakwolf: I must say that your rules are not balanced and would do nothing good in our battles.

Aiming giving +2 MW and +2 DAM
You say that almost every troop was pseudo sniper... Well most of them do not live long enough to try.
This rule says: throw away your useless corporate handguns and smg's (and all other weapons with dam 10-12)
Taking under consideration Corporarions that have 12 dam on assault rifles, you cripple them enough to be no threat for high armor units.

Heavy wepons cannot be aimed
We tried this one and it caused: deploy minimal squads and maximize quantity of captains with sniper rifles.
Well, according to rules every ranged weapon that must be braced (has damage multiplier) is a heavy weapon.
It may be not stupid with HMGs having at least 15(x3), but cripples all of the LKM's
Bauhaus has few types of units and now becomes not playable, especially interesting units as Dragons and Venusian Marshall (Dargon Kampfkanone). Try to kill with them Capitol Heavy Infantry (ordinary trooper) with 30 armor (Base 26 + Extra Cover)

We tried to play without heroics and special equipment but the game becomes so poor. It is the main advantage of 1st edition. And it is the only way to create individuals that can stand up (survive a round or two) to Alakhai, Karak and other models with 30 armor and Ignoring wounds. You should also forbid to use personalities.

No more than 3 identical actions?
The rule is not bad itself but there are some exceptions that make it laughable.
Well lets say I have Golgota, Ragathol, Cardinal Dominic (or any other model with 4 or 5 actions) in close combat with several models and I can attack only 3 of them, and do what with other actions? Swear? Stick tongue at them? Maybe Nepharite of Algeroth should run away from a Wolfbanes?
Tell me what will model with 4 or more actions do while: Banzai Charge (Mishima), Frenzy (Templars), Wolfbane Frenzy (Sean Gallagher just died), Sacrificial Run (Lutherans), Invoke Frenzy (Gift of Algeroth)? Can they attack and move for all of the actions or not? What About Vehicles with 4 actions they must stop every turn (laughable), Flying vehicles with 4 actions cannot stop, they must move every action.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on August 20, 2010, 01:15:46 PM
I didn't come here to argue, just offer what we found worked best for us, but we probably don't play the same way. Have fun :)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 20, 2010, 01:27:20 PM
Oakwolf: (you posted while I was modyfying my previous post) Don't take it personally. I don't want to argue either. I just try to point you some exceptions (ie. your new friend with different army and tactics) that will force you to revise your rules.
If you find some mistakes in my rules just point them. I will appreciate it. Have fun too  ;)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on August 20, 2010, 07:46:08 PM
Very well, i do appreciate discussions, but yeah...i don't want to "convince" you that we got the truth ;) . Keep in mind that we create our scenarios and games together, we rarely resort to the “make your list I make mine”. Before, we used the game to enhance roleplay sessions. Balance in this game is now an affair of player circles. For us, these work, for you, it might not.

Let's see if i can help you see my point of view (not necessarily agree wiith it, mind you :P):

It'll be lenghty, so brace yourself  ;D

No more than 3 identical actions

The rule is not bad itself but there are some exceptions that make it laughable.
Well lets say I have Golgota, Ragathol, Cardinal Dominic (or any other model with 4 or 5 actions) in close combat with several models and I can attack only 3 of them, and do what with other actions? Swear? Stick tongue at them? Maybe Nepharite of Algeroth should run away from a Wolfbanes?


All the models you mention have the ability to do more than just 4-6 of the same. A Nepharite of Algeroth surrounded by troops is not restricted to a mindless butcher. He can sweep attack twice with its azogar (ouch), force his way out of close combat, annoyed, and then shoot his voriche before charging someone else. That's how it can achieve things that mortals could never dream of, but it can fail too (if completely surrounded and unable to kill anything). It’s even easier to do for models with the art or dark symmetry. This makes them act more heroic when you look back at the whole flow by the variety of their action, rather than repetition.  Try it :)

It is extremely rare for 4 action individuals (with the amount of different actions there are) to be stuck, but the rule makes you think on how to get the most of your heroes. I play with Nepharites at times, myself, and have no problem with it at all.

Tell me what will model with 4 or more actions do while: Banzai Charge (Mishima), Frenzy (Templars), Wolfbane Frenzy (Sean Gallagher just died), Sacrificial Run (Lutherans), Invoke Frenzy (Gift of Algeroth)? Can they attack and move for all of the actions or not?

We simply decided that 3xM was the fastest something could go per turn. For us, more than that made the game weird. We had  no need for individuals to be able to run 20+ inches.

Of all Mishima troops, only Tiger Dragons have 4 acions. The Banzai charge grants them +1Move anyway. It becomes a tactical decision depending on the situation (do they need the CC and ST stats or keep flexibility?) . Granted, Banzai charge’s most powerful asset is that it can be called on Panicking/broken troops, which Tiger Dragons are immune to, so it is rare that they will Banzai, since they are very stealthy troops. There was no complains by our mishima player.

Wheeled Templars only have 3 actions per turn they are not forced to use all their actions to move/charge. As for Karak, he can run a very decent (for us, at least) 15” per turn…and still have 3 actions for the fun of it (2 heavy weapons, dark symmetry…there’s not a chance to loose an action with him :P)

Invoke frenzy, like Banzai, already grants a +1M that helps alleviate all movement loss, but in any way, the +3 strenght is extremely good too (most foes will loose their parry!). The most obvious troop with mitigated benefits from the gift are already high elites: Destroyers, Soul Reapers, Praetorian Stalkers pairs (!), Brass Apocalypts). The mitigation stops as soon as they do reach combat though (where the extra AC will come into account)

Wolfbane Frenzy (Sean Galagher) affects all wolfbanes, but no wolfbane troops have 4 actions. Only Wolfbane heroes/heroines do, and they still get +1 Move anyway. As above, the extra action will get used once the enemy is reached.

I do not own Dark Eden, nor anyone I play with expressed any interest to play with its troops, so I cannot say anything about Lutherans’s sacrificial runs.

What About Vehicles with 4 actions they must stop every turn (laughable), Flying vehicles with 4 actions cannot stop, they must move every action.  

There are only 3 vehicles that have 4 actions, and the only flying vehicle that has 4 actions is the unarmed Pegasus. We’ve not played with it yet, due to the Great Grey requirement. I’ve no doubt we’d come up with something very fair for the little bike : ).  Vehicles have extremely high movement already. The slowest vehicle, the GT Offroad, can move 18 inches in 3 actions (the Ilian Cart can nitro ^ ^), which is double that of the standard infantry, and shoots while doing so. As for the Necromower and Fenris Bike, they can can shoot too, so it will very rarely loose the action. It’s up to you to ensure that you can use your 4 actions (it’ll reward the sound tactics, including ramming, hit and runs, shooting etc)

No house rule is perfect, but what troops have a real consequence? Cairaths, Suicide Warheads .

The only troop (that we use) that has a flat out loss with it are Suicide Warheads, but we decided that it needs an action to detonate itself. The test we had still presented them as very dangerous canon fodder (large explosive templates moving 12” per turn for 20 points).

The Cairath comes to mind as well. The reason it is impaired by this rule is that it cannot hide or take extra cover (like Battlehounds of dog soldiers, for example). That said, it is very cheap, has no weapon to pay and its strikes are...a nightmare to deal with. Keep in mind that it will make use of its 4th action as soon as it can do both move and attack in an activation (i.e. when it reaches the enemy), and also when an enemy model hides (it has 15Ld, which is excellent to spot with).

All other troops with 4 actions can do more than just run and fight, they can hide, take extra cover and sometimes, this might entice the player to use often  neglected options (Machinator gunner, for example)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on August 20, 2010, 08:49:49 PM
Continued...

Aiming giving +2 MW and +2 DAM, except snipers

You say that almost every troop was pseudo sniper... Well most of them do not live long enough to try. This rule says: throw away your useless corporate handguns and smg's (and all other weapons with dam 10-12).
Taking under consideration Corporarions that have 12 dam on assault rifles, you cripple them enough to be no threat for high armor units.
 

If you have a problem with troops dying too much, try this rule and the next one. We find it logical that a 1 point pistol has little chance to poof the more enduring troop types. When aimed, that 1pt  pistol still has 1/10 chance of hurting max armor troops. But these weapons are basically emergency sidearms. They can kill infantry that are close, but are not made to pop tanks or super heavy infantry. I play with troops that have 12 damage rifles, and I am always surprised how, eventually, these weapons find their mark.

Heavy wepons cannot be aimed

We tried this one and it caused: deploy minimal squads and maximize quantity of captains with sniper rifles.
Well, according to rules every ranged weapon that must be braced (has damage multiplier) is a heavy weapon.
It may be not stupid with HMGs having at least 15(x3), but cripples all of the LKM's
Bauhaus has few types of units and now becomes not playable, especially interesting units as Dragons and Venusian Marshall (Dargon Kampfkanone). Try to kill with them Capitol Heavy Infantry (ordinary trooper) with 30 armor (Base 26 + Extra Cover) .


We don’t use minimal squads here to maximize individuals, because we mostly play by scenarios we make. The snipers you had probably were equiped laser sights to make them very powerful, but remember our 3 action rule and we do not use those equipments for “match points”. (As for snipers, the “set up” action removes a lot of mobility to the individual),
The Kampfkanone still fires at a respectable 13x2, but it is its range which really makes the squad shine. At 14MW with 20” short range, Dragoons can enter a shoot out at 2vs1 against most infantry and come out on top. Also, should you have paid the rocket launcher option, Extra Cover becomes much less of an issue. The Dragoons are made to fight against infantry, not vehicles or super heavy troops, and they do their job very well. If their presence forces enemies to go into extra cover, it restricts their movement. The Venusian Marshal does not have to brace that weapon to fire it (ST 2).


We tried to play without heroics and special equipment but the game becomes so poor. It is the main advantage of 1st edition. And it is the only way to create individuals that can stand up (survive a round or two) to Alakhai, Karak and other models with 30 armor and Ignoring wounds. You should also forbid to use personalities.



We play by scenarios that we “want to see”, so sometimes a personality will pop, and it’ll be seen as an extra challenge. The Dark Legion is where you find the “Big Bads”, and the brotherhood is not far behind, admitingly. We accept it as part of the Mutant Chronicles that it takes 2 Doomtroopers, often more, to kill those famed villains, simply because when we played the rpg, it was just like that (it took a full party to bring down a Nepharite, for example, and odds were that some would die in the attempt). We just do not use personalities without talking about it, they are not well balanced to be used blindly. Same goes for special equipment; at least for myself, the special equipment was solely fun from the rp aspect of individual’s customization, but for point matches, I really disliked the impact.

In my opinion, there’s no point in trying to make a human stand 1v1 against Alakhai, only the Cardinal could do so and not face dreadful odds. The greatest heroes of corporations are already personalities in the books, but player-made individuals will still give him a fight regardless. With the rule of 3 actions, he won’t be cleaving your deployment zone in half on the first turn either.

Well, that’s what I could say to the issues you raised. We may disagree but i do hope you had fun reading  :)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 22, 2010, 11:22:39 PM
Oakwolf: I was thinking all the weeked about your posts and I coud again give my comments but I will try to make it it short.
Your modifications are good only for your armies and your scenarios. Our scenarios seem a bit different because it didn't work for us.
If it works for you I give you my blessing.
I don't want to argue any more, because I made my rules for ALL of the armies the player could EVER use. Including all compendiums (even Imperial Bridgehead, Cathedral and Dark Eden). I want them to be balanced for all of the units.
The main reason I posted it here is that I would like all of you to read it (maybe test it with your armies) and give your comments what doesn't work and give me examples what I missed.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 23, 2010, 12:02:59 AM
Oakwolf:
I will give especially for you my favourite Dark Legion Army for 1500 points:
10x Undead Legionnairies + Nepharite Warlord
10x Undead Legionnairies + Nepharite Warlord
2x Pretorian Stalker
2x Pretorian Stalker
Ragathol
Golgotha
Necrogmagus (the only Nazgaroth in my army and one of two models that can hide)
Golem of Darkness (only with Azogar - a cheap and fast close comat unit)

Lowering aiming bonusses makes my undead legionnairies a bigger crap (which they already are  ;)) - no big deal  :)
No aiming for heavy weapons cripples Stalkers but not much - I can assume nothing changes.
Nazgaroth - I never aim. I prefer to make 2-3 bursts and hide and/or extra cover in the end.
No more than 3 identical Actions..... I already play like this and I don't need such a rule.
Legionnairies - 3 actions so I cannot break the rule (my Warlord has lance of pain so he moves 3 times and uses a gift)
Stalkers - 2 move (out and into cover) + 2 attacks (still no breaking the rule)
Ragathol - 3 move/attack actions + 1 invoking red dust (hiding legionnaires) + 1 reviving dead legionnairies (Time Compression / Dark Healing)
Golgotha - teleport (Gift of Algeroth) + 2-3 attacks + retereat (combined with using harmony or healing)
Necromagus - 2-3 attacks + extra cover and/or hiding
Golem - I usually move him 3 times and hide (still no change in play)

Your 3 action rule do not exist for assertive players like me and forces other players to play the same. I am really against affecting gameplay of others.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on August 23, 2010, 05:08:27 AM
Just to illustrate how our games are different; my basic Algeroth cohort is like that:

Undead Legionnaires +Necromutant
Undead Legionnaires +Necromutant
Undead Legionnaires +Necromutant
5 Necromutants + Centurion (1 tormentor if i feel like it)
Ezoghoul or Razide.

As we'd go up in scale, so would the number of squads (but we wouldn't go as high as 1500 since it'd be too long to play). Eventually, 1 Nepharite would show up, along with brass appocalypts for elites. If we want to spice up things, Golgotha or a Bio Giant could make an entry.

Personally, i only field stalkers pairs when they are pitched against doomtroopers (it makes an awesome deathmatch :P). But yeah, we're biased by the roleplaying game.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 23, 2010, 06:00:16 AM
One of my friends usually plays Imperial like this:

2x minimal trencher Squads with 2 (Destroyers each)
2x Trencher Captains with sniper rifles
2x Blood Berets variation (Rams, Hunters or Golden Panthers)
1x Captain with MHG/Puker/Sniper Rifle
1x ISC Agent with Deathlockdrum
4x corporate medics
+ sometimes 1x Hurricane Walker (Stinger wersion with 2 Southpaws)

I would love to play with loads of Cannon Fodder but it is Imposible with him.
He is a powergamer so if I want to have a slight chance of winning I cannot make a weaker army.
I could use Necromutants instead of Stalkers but that would be a suicide (we start at the distance of 60 inches), I could maximize Casters or Nazgaroths and you don't even imagine how often I loose and promise myself to use Alakhai or Karak (with Wheel Templars) next time (But in the end I don't, because when I win, I have more satisfacion).
I imagine that you play scenarios for fun. I have plenty of examples what is unbalanced (My friend uses every trick he finds to win) and I'm balancing 1st edition for everyone who plays against him. Try to understand my reasons :)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on August 23, 2010, 08:05:18 AM
Ah, this explains everything. Thanks for taking the time to post that; it puts your thread in context of your games.

Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on August 23, 2010, 12:45:32 PM
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to modify the rules to win with my army (I have 3 armies to choose and I can easly win using standard rules)
Our group has armies of: Brotherhood, Dark legion, Imperial, Mishima, Capitol and Bauhaus.
We tested almost every configuration of armies, we went through playing without special equipment end heroic abilities, we played campaigns with experience points and victory points. Everyone used to sit near deployment zone and waited at the range of HMGs and sniper rifles and the one that tried to come closer always lost. The Objectives (take and hold, retrieve the artifact, rescue the prisoner etc.) changed the gamepley. It forced the armies to move their butts.
But the other problems always remain:
- what to do to make bigger squads efective enough than maximizing quantiny individual models
- how to move squads to assault rifle range
- how to make close combat troops usable (to let them survive to close combat range)
- how to make all the wepons in armories usable (handguns, smgs, shotguns)
- how to make winning depandant on strategy and not quantiny of individuals with HMGs
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on September 23, 2010, 12:01:20 AM
Yesterday we made a real test of our rule modifications - moved to the first post of this topic.
I hope that it is the last rule update and we would not be edited for a long time.
Starting distance: 50 inches
Terrain: 2 dense forests (A4 size) at the edges of battlefield and lots of walls (about 25% blocking LOS and the rest where heavy covers)
Visibility: fine weather, enemy deplyment zone seen in about 80%
Point Limit: 1500
Armies: Imperial vs Capitol

Imperial:
3 Squads of Regulars with 2 chargers each (7 models each) (Specialists: Very Strong, Sergeants: Bionic Eye)
2 Regular Captains with Sniper Rifles (Bionic Eye)
1 Squad of Sterlings with 1 Destroyer (Sergeant: Subdermal Armor)
1 Squad of Black Berets with 1 Gehenna Puker (Sergeant: Subdermal Armor)
1 Black Beret Captain with 2 Chainrippers and 2 Interceptors (Crack Shot and Laser Sight)
1 Hurricane Walker with 2 Soutpaws
1 Gray Ghost
1 Corporate Medic

Capitol:
2 Squads of Heavy Infantry with 2 M89 each (7 models each) (Specialists: Very Strong, Sergeants: Command Helmet)
1 Squad of Martian Banshees (Sergeant: Subdermal Armor)
1 Banshee Hero with M50 Assault Rifle and 2 Car-24 SMGs (Pain Resistant and Laser Sight)
1 Squad of Desert Scorpions (Sergeant: Laser Sight)
1 Desert Scorpion Hero with Punisher Blade and Silenced M50 Assault Rifle (Scout and Laser Sight)
1 Mitch Hunter
1 Seconding Brotherhood Mystic (Great Coordination) Arts: Exorcism and Telekinesis
2 Corporate Medics
2 Great Grays Piloted by Desert Scorpion Captains (Equipped as normal Desert Scorpion)

First Impression: No Heavy weapons on Individual Models...!!!
End Turn Summary:
1st Turn: 1 wound on Great Gray Pilot, 2 Wounds on Hurricane Walker
2nd Turn: Hurricane Walker Destroyed, 1 Great Gray Destroyed, 3 Capitol Heavy Infantry Dead.
...

Battle Result is not important (my Capitol won!!! :D) but the effects are:
- no first turn massacre - on the contrary to standard rules
- Squads had no problem with getting to Assault Rifle range (even to 12 inches)
- there were some forest encounters (Sterlings vs Martian Banshees) (Desert Scorpions vs Imperial Rerulars)
- every squad was able to kill at least 1 model
- no serious weapon/model domination was noticed but Banshee Hero, Desert Scorpion Hero, Black Beret Captain and Hurricane Walker had most kills
- Damage of Rocket Launchers (tested with Hurricane Walker) dealt to models behind heavy cover is improved by 20% (models with 26 armor must roll 14, not 18 as was with standard rules)

Now this topic fits more to "Open Discussion"
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on September 23, 2010, 07:58:14 PM
To ease the understanding of your battle report, maybe a precise listing of the rules you used would help those unacquainted with the thread.

cheers
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on September 23, 2010, 11:32:13 PM
Listing of the rules is moved and updated in the first post of this topic.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on September 24, 2010, 07:03:01 AM
I definitely like what you've done for the regeneration/Auto-heal rule. Removing an extra roll (which is good for gameplay) and balancing it at the same time.

I think it's a near-perfect solution for trooper types, but rises some question for the following unit:

Mercurian Maculator.

Basically...the "Green Gorilla"'s main attraction is its resiliance over the bio giant, behemoths and other nasties of the size. Its weapon is only average and its melee combat is close to pathetic in comparison. I think that this is the only unit that suffers majorly in overall worthiness.





Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on September 24, 2010, 10:23:14 AM
I do not understand what you exactly mean.

I compared Bio Giant, Behemoth and Mercurian Maculator and I think that "Gorilla's" main attraction is not its resilience.
It is LMG and ability to hide (the only giant model in the game as I recall) in water so over 12 inches it has -8 to spot.
Maculator's fighting range is 40 inches, behemot's is 20 and Bio Giant's is close combat (I don't count its shotgun).
The lake/swamp fielded as element of terrain can be big enough to slow all opponents down and keep them in range.
Let's keep in mind that Maculator is 25% cheaper than Behemoth, and only 10 points more expensive than Bio Giant (who has 40 inches disadvantage compared to Maculator)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Melanieshaman on September 24, 2010, 03:24:57 PM
I get WHY you are doing this, but why not just adjust the army building rules in UWZ, and some  selective editing of what you do not like about it.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on September 24, 2010, 11:09:08 PM
Our MAIN reasons for playing 1st edition are:
- there are no army building rules
- most of individuals are customisable to specialise in long/short/close combat range
If we want to play a scenario in certain enviroment we don't have to field grunts that are useless in some conditions.
The army flexibility is the advantage of 1st edition.

I know you can say that UWZ armies don't have to be balanced cause they already are - so I could switch to UWZ instead of rebalancing 1st edition.
I prefer to rebalance and clarify some rules of 1st edition (they fit 2 printed A4 size pages) than try to understand UWZ rules (I have UWZ Rulebook and I really tried to play).
Just compare quantity of UWZ and 1st edition Game Questions in this forum...
I just (subjectively) think that my way is faster and more clear for me.

One more thing:
I don't want to convince anybody to play 1s edition (I would be happy, but it is not my intention).
I would like to know opnion of people who play/played 1st edition and could give me some clues what issues are not included in my modifications.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: master of muppets on October 19, 2010, 03:37:36 PM
i like first edition as well but .....
2ed had sametime combat rolls and a better weapons range modifer
as well as inderviuals can be affected by panic with half wounds {1ed has better panic rules tho}

i tryed to play uwz but found it annoying to look though to many pages

does anyone have any ideas how to make the weapons ranges form 2ed into 1ed
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on October 19, 2010, 03:45:31 PM
as a side note for UWZ, the book is -not- a functional gaming tool and i don't think it was designed as such.

I'd advise you to print out the book and sort out the sections you need, as well as unit cards.

Sadly, i have no clue about 2ed  :-\
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: master of muppets on October 19, 2010, 06:26:14 PM
oakwolf
i would recomend checking out second editon rules as {not army  :'stats :'( }  as they are pretty much the same as 1ed but are written in a more clarfied way

also the weapon range system is good    and the attack in cc at the same time is  awesome for speeding up gameplay and making nailbiting action and panic can affect inderviuals .....tho if you take those rules and replace the first ed  its almost the same 
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: master of muppets on October 19, 2010, 07:55:13 PM
we found that

units may only use 1 action to shoot per turn    units that are on wait may still shoot by passing a ld test and -2 to mw  ,and this is enough penalty to not overbalance to once a turn rule   units that may secondary attack or some such multi attack per action may still do so

we found that a hmg will line up to rake a squad it will burst fire them  mabey kill a guy prehap two  then get shot to ribbons if its still out in the open  as all troops should

we found that units with high ratefire have it but dont just kill everything

this is the 1ed expansion chronopia rules for shooting   and it works for warzone to

also we play with a standard range set 5-8 pistols 8-12 smg 12- 24 assult rifles/lmg/hmg 15-24 rocket launchers and snipers
yes i know it removes the small differences in guns range from the corps but it makes life easyier and the range mod and dam stay the same  also it makes hmgs a lot less of a handfull 

also models have only six clips if they fail on a 16 or higher they lose a clip  ammo is infinate provided you never miss   {just like the movies]  16 is the mw cap   {only for 500 or less games}

to speed up and give inbulit negitives and postives to close combat  we use the 2ed style combat rules and apply them to 1ed stats     try it it works well 

run -if a unit chooses to run they must spend all their actions to do so and they gain +1mv per action spent

my group{gamers guild} found that this works best   
we play all sorts terrain types and game types  we found this blanket rule just works for warzone well

we are playtesting a diffent style of army construction  at the mo its you choose a hero type figure {not a personalty ::) } or a vecile then get it some kit if you want minus this from 100 pts then add the total to 300 this will give you the number to buy him a force   you may then purchace from any unit list in your chosen army without haveing to stick to the squad buy conditions eg you must have 3 of x unit and a sargent etc   you must have 4 non speclist units to each specilist    just like a normal squad does

we are divided over single model activation   or grouping your force into 100pt squads and activating them like that   this will give you a flexiable squad construction and result in brutal firefight and fast paced games with a high panic /route rate   that helps bring the game to a close quick
we are kinda useing these rules for a necromunwhatva :-[ style warzone campain {i know gw suck but hey small scale gang warfare where every model is diffent is kinda fun especilly when they gain experince and stuff   

 
 

what do you think?
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on October 20, 2010, 12:57:28 AM
I don't get the structure. Can you give an example?
Please give exact Capitol or Imperial (for example) models that can be fielded for 1000 points.

1 shot per activation?
Minimial squads of Cadavers + Horde of Golems of Darkness with Azogars + one Nepharite/Tekron
Horde of Illian Wheel Templars
(good examples? - Thank You)

Ammo clips are only fluff and we play only with 1000-2000 point armies so it would make a lot of confusion.

Weapon ranges: I really tried to do that, but it cannot be done. You have to modify every single weapon (cost) but it still hadicaps some corporation and gives enormous boost to special weapons (Fusieliers, Surveilers, Flamers).

Switching 1st edition to 2nd editon close combat rules is a bad idea.
It powers up individual (high CC) models even more (and I try to do everything against individual models abuse)

Running: you Handicap Mishimian Banzai Charge (now every corporation has it)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: master of muppets on October 20, 2010, 02:34:07 AM
just a quick summary of a few concepts we are play testing without going into massive detail as i hate typing
 
units only being able to spend one action per activation making ranged attacks works quite well 
a model can shoot again from wait but has to make a ld and has -2 to mw   
try it    if you want futher details then  i guess i can type them,  but what more can i say


ammo clips as i said  were used for games of 500pts or less we  use them in 300pts    so its not to much problem  keeping track  damagex2/3/4etc weapons run out of ammo quite quick whenthey try burst fireing
and normaly they are heavy storybased games with a gm

as for weapon ranges it dosent give massive boosts to many weapons as they still get their negtives for fireing over the min range and damgae witch are diffent in some cases and the same in others   and flamers use a template anyway how does a standard range affect that?     
the game has a rule for weapon types eg sidearms etc ,why not standard ranges caping out at 24

hmgs and snipers are a pain when they can shoot futher and hit harder than most weapons but standard ranges  stop this as well as only one shot per activation
eg if a inderviual with a heavy weapon fires on a unit  it will only kill 1 prehaps more depending on the multipiler etc  but they may return the with 1 shot each
where as normally the inderviual will potentialy get 3 ac   at x3 for each shot   sounds like a recipe for squad killer to me    if a power unit isnt backed up it will get owned


also i cant give you a 1000 point army as it would be of normal 1ed construction   i stated that the playtest army constuction  is for 300 pts armys   not 1000 pts    witch tend to be only a handful of figures
any way ...choose a inderviual unit/special charecter minus its cost from 100 then add the remainder to 300 and you may spend the total on any comination of troops from a single list and not be bound to normal squad structure
  another way to put it is every model you buy is bought as a inderviual    as long as you stick to 1 heavy weapon per 4 non heavy weapons    but these numbers may be made up from any combo


either activate them as they were all inderviuals or as lots of 100pts that have to act as a squad with a leader and command distance   we are undecided witch is best  more playtesting

im aware that 2ed combat rules dont quite fit 1ed   but   their is no adjustments for your oppents skill in cc
just roll under the number given

assuming you know 2ed {yes the stats were generic and flavorless but the rules were a good advancement a 1ed but 1ed has the flavor and customization

but for example if a unit has 13 cc   and it is fighting a unit with 15cc then useing 2ed there is a adjustmet for skill    for example        the 13cc becomes a roll of 8  and the 15 becomes a roll of 12 then modifers are added      but if the 15cc comes up against a 12cc then it will have to roll 13 and the oppoent 7
witch accounts for units abiiltys to fight and defend themselfs agaisnt different enemys
 also when a unit engages another unit in cc and dosent kill them then most likly that unit will spend its next actavation action attacking back   so why not do it at the same time and speed things up?  if you charge then you get to resolve you action and damge before they get to attack back     and then combat continues as normal with both units spending actions and rolling untill one is dead or they have spent all action     if you charge a unit that has already spent its actions then you just get to lay into it
for futher details read the 2ed close combat section  and just use the basic idea of sametime attacking and working out the cc
yes its different but not really and it really does have the same result but is faster and creates a tension of  close combat

we play 1000 pt+ games with these rules adjustments just fine and they flow and we played even amounts   
of standard warzone 1ed and the results of battles were just the same   it did not seam to hinder stragety or unbalance the rules in favor of anything except it depowered the lmgs/hmgs  while still retaining the power comparison to other weapons       
no more hmgs slaying whole units is a win in my books


im not very good at typing and grammer and apologise in advance   im to impatient to type and keep track of mistakes 

stephan
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on October 20, 2010, 03:07:58 AM
If the HMG operator kills 1 model per turn so I prefer to have 2 normal troopers at the same cost and range (same chances and one more wound)

I know 2nd edition close combat rules, but it should not be use with 1st edition stats.
The greater difference in CC of attacker/defender gives the greater difference to hit.
The models of equal CC have always 50% chances to hit themselves - it is okay
But model with lower CC has less chances (on the contrary with models with higher CC) to hit with 2nd edition rules than with 1st edition - I call it Individual models abuse. Difference varies from 5-15% (parry included in calculation).
Keep in mind that wounding individual models is more difficult than wounding ordinary trooper.

You make your homerules for your restrictions (no Heroic abilities, Special Equipment and Personalities) if it is okay for you, do it.
I try to make my modifications compatible with all optional rules in compendiums (except the one for quick battles) that is why our points of view differ.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: hammer326 on March 02, 2011, 01:11:29 PM
thank you for starting this thread, I am new to the game and have the 1st ed. rules and really like some of the balancing agents proposed. well done all of you!
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: dmcgee1 on March 03, 2011, 05:02:15 PM
thank you for starting this thread, I am new to the game and have the 1st ed. rules and really like some of the balancing agents proposed. well done all of you!

WELCOME ABOARD!

Nice to see new faces, always!
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on March 04, 2011, 07:22:09 AM
Indeed welcome around,

See i might actually return to 1st edition as well, as i'm faced with consistency issues with the UWZ version.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on March 05, 2011, 08:21:01 AM
Indeed welcome around,

See i might actually return to 1st edition as well, as i'm faced with consistency issues with the UWZ version.

Glad to hear :)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on March 06, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
It is ironic, because UWZ did solve quite alot of things that plagued seriously the 1st edition but there's something missing, and it's mostly about the mood and feel of the game, how troops behave compared to the background, and there are some aspects of melee vs ranged that still befuddles me even when taking all the terrain/environmental aspects.

I'll follow up with a question for 1st ed.:   Are the demnogonis last ritesmen immune to panic/rout?  I'd guess so from the text, but it's not written anywhere.





Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: dmcgee1 on March 06, 2011, 01:07:48 PM
It is ironic, because UWZ did solve quite alot of things that plagued seriously the 1st edition but there's something missing, and it's mostly about the mood and feel of the game, how troops behave compared to the background, and there are some aspects of melee vs ranged that still befuddles me even when taking all the terrain/environmental aspects.

I wish I knew how you and your group played.  Close Combat works great in UWZ; it's one of the great aspects of the game.  We (our proup) love it.

As for what may be felt to be missing, you are not alone.  I cannot say more other than to say that I see good things ahead.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on March 06, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
That's good to hear. Consider me a fluffmonster, so to say, i want things to be as clost to the rpg as is possible. I cringe everytime i think of necromutants fleeing in UWZ :D.

As a note, the very low range of skill variation might produce a generic "blanket of imcompetency" to the experience of UWZ.  You can't rely on your troops to do something when you need it, but instead, it just happens randomly over time. That is perhaps why CC troops failed for us. If they aren't killed by ranged fire, they generally have 1 single activation and sometimes one single action (charge) to make or break their game, after which they are promptly wiped by short range HMG/LMG/SMG/Shotgun fire. At those smaller ranges, cover is rarely in effect, and environmentals are unpredictable to cause havok.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: dmcgee1 on March 06, 2011, 07:56:09 PM
That's good to hear. Consider me a fluffmonster, so to say, i want things to be as clost to the rpg as is possible. I cringe everytime i think of necromutants fleeing in UWZ :D.

As a note, the very low range of skill variation might produce a generic "blanket of imcompetency" to the experience of UWZ.  You can't rely on your troops to do something when you need it, but instead, it just happens randomly over time. That is perhaps why CC troops failed for us. If they aren't killed by ranged fire, they generally have 1 single activation and sometimes one single action (charge) to make or break their game, after which they are promptly wiped by short range HMG/LMG/SMG/Shotgun fire. At those smaller ranges, cover is rarely in effect, and environmentals are unpredictable to cause havok.

How many HMG/LMG/SMG troops are you using, and why are you charging into them?  Tactics are essential to using ANY troop as efficiently as possible.  I would love to discuss this with you.  We had a Mishima player who was ready to throw in the towel until we showed him how to use his CC troops in a much better way.  Now, he loves his Mishima troops.  We have another player who loves Cartel agents, and yet another who loves his Children of Illian and his Capitol dog force.

CC is not only a good option, but it adds much more flavor to the game.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on March 07, 2011, 03:13:51 AM
dmcgee1:
I must ask because I don't know you. How long had you played 1st edition? - I'm just curious

How many HMG/LMG/SMG troops are you using, and why are you charging into them?  Tactics are essential to using ANY troop as efficiently as possible.  I would love to discuss this with you.  We had a Mishima player who was ready to throw in the towel until we showed him how to use his CC troops in a much better way.  Now, he loves his Mishima troops.  We have another player who loves Cartel agents, and yet another who loves his Children of Illian and his Capitol dog force.

The aspects you mention are true for any edition - not only UWZ. Proper tactics can solve any situation on the table.

I understand that there are some players who started their Warzone adventure from UWZ (later edition is usually better), but I don't understand what motovated people to move to UWZ (from 1st edition).
In my opinion fluff factor cannot be taken under consideration (UWZ and 2nd edition have no advantage over 1st edition)
Gameplay? 2nd edition sucks... and how about tons of faq for UWZ?
1st edition was a skirmish game and if someone doesn't like skirmishes - switching to WH40k is a much more logical option.
So what is it?
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: dmcgee1 on March 07, 2011, 06:18:54 AM
Raga, firstly, allow me to apologize if I have come off as a "know-it-all."  I have got to learn when to keep my mouth shut and learn when situations which apply to UWZ do not, necessarily, apply to 1st ed.

I never played 1st ed.  However, I know folks who have and readily admit that it was overpowered, especially concerning individuals.

I will refrain from further discussing close combat in 1st ed.  If my comments regarding tactics came off as presumptious, again, I apologize.  I did not mean to imply that anyone was playing incorectly; rather, I meant to say that I would love to discuss the differences so that I may be better educated when offering my opinions on the matter.

I also have to learn to convey my humor in a better manner.  When I asked "Why charge weapons which will cut down your troops," I was pointing out what I am sure is obvious to everyone, including yourself, that it is akin to a suicidal move.  My humor, apparently, missed the mark.

That said, you are obviously satisfied with 1st ed.  In fact, you appear to have a great affinity for the game, and I do not wish to dissuade you from it.  If, at any time, I appear less than knowledgeable about 1st ed., it is because I am so.

I tend to disagree with your assessment of UWZ as less than advantageous compared to other versions, but, again, that is my opinion which is, admittedly, ingorant to 1st ed. and slightly less so to 2nd ed.  I think that UWZ is a great system.  As to the "tons of FAQ," I can only say that one of the main reaqsons that there is so much is that so many have interpreted things differently as to warrant clarification.  Are there matters of editing which could have been handled better?  Probably.  But, overall, the game is solid, easy to play, and - most importantly - fun.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Oakwolf on March 07, 2011, 07:31:04 AM
You didn't come off as all-knowing,  Mcgee,  no worries :P.And you can join a 1st edition discussion especially since i compared it to UWZ, to bring perspective and insight that you have.

Overall, I believe that UWZ reflects the megacorporation fighting forces better than 1st edition (there's a few annoying things like vulkans not being support, etc), while 1st ed. respectively reflected doomtroopers better or a skirmish game like Raga said.

But there's one faction that dramatically changed style, and it's the dark legion. In 1st edition, the faction was not balanced for match play, but if held with a leash, it could present a very interesting fight for the mega corps (doomtroopers vs dark legion is, after all, the root of the rpg).

In UWZ, necrobiotics feels like playing with humans, and it should definitely not be the case. It breaks the idea that the dark legion is an alien mindset, completely at odds with humanity. Fighting the dark legions should be a different experience than fighting the mega corps or human "traitor" cults.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Raga on March 07, 2011, 09:34:55 AM
dmcgee1: Do not worry, you have no reasons to apologise. Like always I was misunderstood :)
(I wish I could write here in my native language)
Another point of view is always welcome and I only wanted to know your experience with 1st edition.
I also understand your sarcasm about HMGs and charging :)

Long ago I stopped comparing 1st edition and UWZ... they are different and cannot be tagged with "better" or "worse".
I am not fully satisfied with 1st edition, that is why I started this topic.
I was interested in 2nd edition and UWZ but I was satisfied even less with them.

I meant no harm, I wanted only to satisfy my curiousity. :)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Archer on March 07, 2011, 10:01:17 AM
The funny thing for me, as having played all three versions is that UWZ is the better balanced game for all aspects of play.  There are places that need some revision- I completely agree there but not all that many.

First Edition was a damn good game.  It was broken in the Create-A-Character aspect but it is said that y'all don't need to use that facet of the rules.  For the most part, those around me at the time played to the fluff more than to "What can I Afford on this Individual?" style.  But it was also balanced in how powerful an HMG was in the hands of troops... and how dangerous Close Assault could be (Not Close Combat; that was a so-so aspect for me).

  Custom Individuals were good for Doom Trooper themed games against the Hordes of The Dark Legion.  And always a blast...

  I know I never had problems with the DL in 1st; they were always a tough battle but I knew I usually had a chance every game no matter what I faced (Ratboy's infamous 7 Model DL army was a nightmare but I'm one of two players that beat it)... 

The game was flavorful and cool... and if you left out the abuse-able parts, played VERY well.

2nd... was just too bland, far too standardized and CC was just plain wrong.  The designer of 2nd had his heart in the right place though and I give him credit.  But he changed far far far too much.  (I recall saying such during the end of development testing)

UWZ kept most of the standardization of 2nd but returned the fluff and some of the individuality that was lost in the transition from 1st to 2nd.  There are parts of this version I do not like but they are minor and not a hit against the rules as a whole. 

For my playing preference, I prefer 3rd to 1st... but will play 1st over 2nd any day of the week.

Free Marines w/Mk1 GL and anti-tank rounds for the win. ;)  (cheezy? kinda is yes... :) )


The easiest thing to tone down the busted aspects of 1st is lose the custom ability section, make the machine pistols and such have the shot/dmg profiles from 3rd and a few minor tweaks to some rules... Use the stat-lines from 3rd for the troops and have at it. :)
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: dmcgee1 on March 07, 2011, 03:19:27 PM
(I wish I could write here in my native language)

I meant no harm, I wanted only to satisfy my curiousity. :)

I get that there are differences in the languages used, and English is a terrible language from which to translate.  That is one of the reasons that I try to use correct English when I type on the forums (I hope that doesn't sound arrogant).  It allows online translators to comprehend better the ideas that I am trying to convey.  That said, nothing is perfect, and I am understandingof that (especially after having ruffled a few feathers, and having my feathers ruffled a few times).  It is what it is.

I know that you meant no harm.  I appreciate you saying so; thank you.  My concern was that I had offended.  Thanks for setting the record straight.

My statement still stands, though.  I like UWZ compared to the 2nd ed., and compared to 1st ed. based only on the descriptions I've heard.

Thanks Raga.
Title: Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
Post by: Horned Owl on March 29, 2011, 06:15:24 AM
(doomtroopers vs dark legion is, after all, the root of the rpg).

@Oakwolf: Probably I´m misinterpreting you, or you may have played the RPG differently than my group did – a huge part of the appeal of the RPG was how many different campaigns were possible within its setting. Apart from the all-out assault on the Citadel, there were Capitol rags-to-riches stories, downbeat Freedom Brigades trench campaigns, decadent Bauhaus and Imperial nobility and officer corps intrigues, secret orders´ agendas, corporate espionage, film noir private eye investigations (as suggested in McBride´s log in the Freelancer´s Handbook), Homebuilder construction efforts, forbidden love between triad girl and samurai, psychological horror, trying to pierce the Cybertronic phenomenon, diplomacy between the megacorps... well, you get the gist... and sometimes all rolled into one.

Where I agree wholeheartedly with you is that the world, style and flow of Mutant Chronicles has changed with every subsequent version (and here I don´t even mention the movie), and that at some point those who started off with the RPG, Siege and Fury may cease to feel at home in the background as it is represented.