Excelsior Entertainment Forums

Warzone => Game Questions => Topic started by: Oakwolf on October 20, 2010, 02:10:33 PM

Title: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 20, 2010, 02:10:33 PM
Quote
Page 120 & 127: Ranged Weapons Used in Close Combat
Q: How can I tell if a weapon can be fired in close combat, verses being used like a club? What is the damage if I do use it like a club?
A: If the weapon has a modifier listed under its CC category, it may be used in close combat and does the listed amount of damage. It is assumed you would be using the weapon in the most effective manor, whether by shooting it or using it as a club.

If the weapon has a dash, it cannot be used at all. The wielder would not be able to use it to effectively attack in close combat. Models with no usable weapon and no close combat weapon may not fight in CC.

The FAQ text puzzled me a bit, so i would just want to be sure i got the correct interpretation since it basically differs a bit from what the rulebook seems to imply (p. 50-51 section 8.7.5). I have read a few discussions about it on the forums and it has confused me further.

So based on the FAQ, will a trooper with a kratach do dmg 10 in CC rather than its ST?



Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 20, 2010, 07:09:13 PM
Unfortunately, this is one subject that seems to generate a lot of debate.  As it stands, now, officially and technically, the FAQ is correct.

There is a lot of discussion going on right now as to how to work this.  There are good points on whichever side of the debate we find ourselves.

One of the "house" rules that has a lot of merit is the following:
I am a huge proponent of the FAQ'd way of doing Ranged Weapons in CC.  John "Archer" Tinney and Jeff "jjdodger" Dodge are not.  This particular issue has given birth to an "argument that won't be resolved anytime soon."

Archer prefers to play it exactly as the rules state:  "Improvised clubs only, CC modifier, ST+0 DM. It is open to abuse any other way."  In part, I agree with him.  My Ilian Templars with Sectioner bayonets do a whopping 17 damage on a charge under the rules of the FAQ.  However, the rest of me hates it when my militia gets jumped by Mirrormen, only able to manage 4 damage against an AR 21 target.  jjdodger advocated John's philosophy, as well.  I almost had Archer swayed, and tried to put the pressure on Jeff.

Fortunately, I am enough of a pain in the ass to keep the argument going; so much so that it actually engaged that little part of Jeff's mind that comes up with wacky ideas to shut me up.  He proposed the following:

"What if we had a weapon called The Improvised Club?"

My brain then perked up. "What?  You're taking all the wind out of my sails - STOP!"

"No, I think this will work.  Give the weapon a basic stat line, say CC 0  DM ST+2, same as a Bowie Combat Knife.  That way, you can put a bayonet on it, remove the horrible CC modifier that rifles get by, in effect, turning the weapon into a Melee Weapon, and do decent DM in CC."

"Let me get this straight; you are prosing a rule that makes sense, is not overpowering, yet gives shooty troops a fighting chance in CC, and appeases all sides of the argument?  I like it (while being secretly envious that I didn't thik of it)."

"Good, type it up and present it to the FAQ Team."

"Yes, sir, Mr. Dodge, sir, right away!"

Please, consider the following:

p. 125
20.2 - TWO-HANDED WEAPONS

    This weapon stat Line is used for any model that wishes to use its weapon in CC as a melee weapon.  The weapon must be capable of being used in CC (cannot have a "--" CC modifier).  Flechette weapons may be used as Ad Hoc Weapons in CC.

    Ad Hoc Weapon in CC
    (concussive)
    CC    PB    SR    MR    LR     ER        DM
     0     --    --    --     --    --      ST+2
    Special Rules
    Natural Attack. Bayonets mounted on Ad
    Hoc weapons increase CC and DM as
    written and add (slashing) to the waepon's
    profile; -1 CC for each additional Load Out.

p. 134  
    Scythe of Semai HMG
    (ballistic)
    CC    PB      SR     MR    LR     ER         DM
     0   3(x3)  1(x2)  1      -2     --     13(ST+2)
    Special Rules
    Sectioner Bayonet (slashing).

This allows for all the fluff and for a bit of "realism" (read:  "makes sense").  Try it, if you are looking for a different way of makng CC work for non-CC cpecialits.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 21, 2010, 06:34:20 AM
I tend to like the way the FAQ did it for its simplicity, but yeah the issue of bayonets would come up inevitably.

It also brings me to the shotgun's dash in CC. If riffles can be used as clubs or even shooting, then shotguns should have been allowed too. The poor venusian ranger sgt. is one of the few lost souls in CC of the game, and there's no reason for a ranger to be that hopeless in CC.


The improvised club rule has a little problem: it leaves some troops with an integrated bayonet out of the loop (Belzarach and Yari). These were supposed to be the better riffle users of the lot. But the house rule turns the table around, since those troops could not get a load out for their gun.

I believe that weapon costs probably included the CC modifier as a way to balance them as well. So imho the CC modifier was there for a reason, and giving everyone a CC 0 improvised club gives a surprising bonus to those who had a CC - 4 gun compared to those who already had CC 0 or -2.

The best example are DL troops with the belzarach vs those with the kratach. With the improvised club rule...the belzarach stays the same with ST+2 DAM, while the Kratach used as a club gets +4 to CC and +2 DAM and still has a slot for a bayonnet on top of that, so with a sectionner, the undead legionnaire would get CC 0 ST+8 DAM, while the necromutant would be stuck at CC 0 and ST+2 DAM. This strikes me as wrong (the belzarach was and should always be potentially better in CC than the kratach)

In a way, the same applies to the Yari with the exception that it already had a ST+6 spear to it (meaning it gives +4 compared to the club rule, instead of +6 as the rulebook).

Lastly. The house rule for the scythe of Semai should use another bayonet than the sectionner if it intends to remain +2 DAM.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 21, 2010, 08:09:10 AM
The Scythe of Semai was "re-written" to take your points into account - the bayonet's damage is in addition to what is listed; please, tell me if it was not clear or if it needs to be written in a different way to make it so.  We should do the same for the Yari.

p. 132  
   Yari Shogun Assault Rifle
   (ballistic)
   CC    PB      SR     MR    LR     ER         DM
     0     0       1     -2     -4    --        10
   Special Rules
    Yari Bayonet (rending) - DM +4.


The Bezarach does not have an integrated bayonet, unless lised in the Model's profile.  Therefore, if a bayonet is mounted, if used in CC, it is considered an Ad Hoc, and follows the Ad Hoc weapon stat line.
Again, these rules are, in no way, official.  It was a great idea, in my opinion, and I mentioned it as food for thought (read:  Playtest!)

It also brings me to the shotgun's dash in CC. If riffles can be used as clubs or even shooting, then shotguns should have been allowed too. The poor venusian ranger sgt. is one of the few lost souls in CC of the game, and there's no reason for a ranger to be that hopeless in CC.

Read the part about Flechette weapons (the group to which Shotguns belong).
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: luckyone on October 21, 2010, 08:16:58 AM
We will have to play test this next month Dave.

Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Dragon62 on October 21, 2010, 09:38:19 AM
Dave i believe if you check with Thom the Bezarach has an integrated Sectioner Bayonet that does dam 11 in CC. Thats why the weapon has no loadout ability and no penalty for use in CC. This also holds true for the Scythe of Semai HMG, it also has an integrated Sectioner Bayonet hence the no penalty CC.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 21, 2010, 11:27:51 AM
Thanks for zooming my eyes on the flechette part, i had skipped it for some odd reason.

I will also playtest this in my group. Look at the changes:

As per Rulebook

Belzarachs: CC:0  DAM: ST
Invader: CC: -4 DAM: ST

Both are pretty crappy weapons in CC due to the pathetic damage, but the belzarach was still much better. The increased CC also explained why it was a largely inaccurate weapon for shooting.

As per FAQ

Belzarach: CC: 0 DAM: 11
Invader: CC -4 DAM: 10

Now there's a major improvement in damage, making belzarach equipped units a threat in CC. A side effect, though...is that it completely discredits bayonets that increase damage from ST (ex. sectionner, Yari Shogun). Bayonets that increase CC become much more interesting by the same token.

With the improvised weapon rule

Belzarach: CC:0 DAM: ST+2
Invader: CC:0 DAM: ST+2

Important note: the belzarach does not have an optional load out, so cannot mount a bayonet!

The rule is greatly beneficial to ranged troops with weapons that used to be crap at hitting in CC, and even more so if they can put a load out. Troops like the ashigaru and necromutants get the shaft, comparatively speaking.


Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 21, 2010, 12:31:57 PM
Point by point:

Thanks for zooming my eyes on the flechette part, i had skipped it for some odd reason.

I will also playtest this in my group. Look at the changes:

As per Rulebook

Belzarachs: CC:0  DAM: ST
Invader: CC: -4 DAM: ST

Both are pretty crappy weapons in CC due to the pathetic damage, but the belzarach was still much better. The increased CC also explained why it was a largely inaccurate weapon for shooting.

The reason for the Belzarach being inaccurate is two-fold:
a.)  It is little more than a heavy sub-machine gun, not truly an assault rifle.  It is listed as an assault rifle mainly due to its damage, and its lack of multi-round fire at shorter range bands.
b.)  It does not suffer in CC, as most other assault rifle do, due to its short length (hence its inaccuracy).

As per FAQ

Belzarach: CC: 0 DAM: 11
Invader: CC -4 DAM: 10

Now there's a major improvement in damage, making belzarach equipped units a threat in CC. A side effect, though...is that it completely discredits bayonets that increase damage from ST (ex. sectionner, Yari Shogun). Bayonets that increase CC become much more interesting by the same token.

I agree with you on these points.  However, if you were to put a Sectioner Bayonet on a Kratach, suddenly, you have Legionnaires or - holy shnikeys! - Wheeled Templars running around doing 16 DM; 17 on a Charge![/b]

With the improvised weapon rule

Belzarach: CC:0 DAM: ST+2
Invader: CC:0 DAM: ST+2

Important note: the belzarach does not have an optional load out, so cannot mount a bayonet!

The rule is greatly beneficial to ranged troops with weapons that used to be crap at hitting in CC, and even more so if they can put a load out. Troops like the ashigaru and necromutants get the shaft, comparatively speaking.

The following models are equipped with the Belzarach:
Destroyers - (ST 7 and also has a Dispatcher blade - no need for Belzarach to be equipped with a bayonet; though, if it was, they Destroyer would be doing DM 12 in CC - the same as the Blade, and the Blade can Sweep.)
Necromutants - (ST 5 - they should avoid CC at all costs, but they have a chance to score damage if they do find themselves so embroiled.)
Necromutant Leader - (ST 5 and they're Zombie Masters - that what zombies are for, to handle the dirty work.  Throw a few of them in front of you, and run the other way! ;))
Necromutant Spotter - (ST 6 - just like regular Necromutants, but stronger!)
Undead Crewman - (ST 4 - He's a zombie.  If he gets into CC, at least the Carronade can still fire on its own!)
Neronian Legionnaires - (ST 4 - what do you want; they're not-as-brainless zombies...)
Necrotyrants - (ST 4 - they're Unscrupulous.  That won't do them any good if they're tied up in CC.)
Blessed Legionnaires - (see Zombies.)
Blight Commando/Sgt. - (ST 4 and all the goodness of Aura of Darkness; folks gotta pass a LD Test just to attack them in CC!)

I do not really see a play-balance problem here, but, I would not be averse to adding a Dark Legion Bayonet to the Belzarach, as the picture in the DL Armory shows.  I will run that one by Thom to see what he has to say about it.

As for the Ashigaru, I believe that we took this into account, nicely.  The weapon has a 1" reach, which means they don't even have to be in base-to-base contact to conduct CC, and can lend support to those who already are by virtue of that reach.  Further, they were doing ST+6 prior to the "re-write" - a coincidental 10 DM (they're ST 4) - same as if they'd have fired their weapon.

With the "re-write," they are, still, doing DM 10.  Worked out nicely.

To me, I would've been content to play by the FAQ.  However, because of the confusion created by the rules, as written, it left open for interpretation exactly what an "ad hoc" weapon was.

Having been in the military, and having wielded a bayonet, I know that not only would I attempt to stick my enemy, but would be pulling the trigger the whole time.  Yes, an M-16 makes a horrible spear, but, it is what it is.  That said, to me, the entire reason that the CC modifiers are listed is because it is difficult (not impossible) to bring a weapon of size to bear in the furball that is hand-to-hand combat.  Now, stick a Yari polearm on the end of that rifle, and see if it makes the job easier.

So, Dodger came up with what I think is a great way to interpret ad hoc weaponry.  It ain't official, and would not be used in a tournament - the FAQ would rule in a tourney.

If this still seems funky to you, please, try it, and report back.

Thanks.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 21, 2010, 06:16:07 PM
Here’s some food for thought in reaction/accordance to what you’ve pointed out.


The reason for the Belzarach being inaccurate is two-fold:
a.)  It is little more than a heavy sub-machine gun, not truly an assault rifle.  It is listed as an assault rifle mainly due to its damage, and its lack of multi-round fire at shorter range bands.
b.)  It does not suffer in CC, as most other assault rifle do, due to its short length (hence its inaccuracy).
As per FAQ

Hehe, I’d just want to bring you back into the light here :P, if you allow me. The Belzarach is stated it is very large and bulky (for your own pleasure, check the book at p. 480). The inaccuracy is due to the major recoil of the heavy rounds.
There are more things that make it classed as an assault rifle; It can fire at LR, something no submachine gun can do. It also has a negative modifier at point blank range, which is on par with most assault rifles.

The logical reason it has a CC 0 modifier is because of the traditional integrated bayonet since the original mutant chronicles RPG (and following warzone editions). Fluff, while just that, is often the root of rules, well implemented or not ;)

I agree with you on these points.  However, if you were to put a Sectioner Bayonet on a Kratach, suddenly, you have Legionnaires or - holy shnikeys! - Wheeled Templars running around doing 16 DM; 17 on a Charge![/b]

And I agree that this is the main problem with the FAQ, but it had the merit of keeping the CC modifiers of the assault rifles, which I believe should be kept to keep the RC specialist from becoming all-purpose units overshadowing CC specialists.

 
The following models are equipped with the Belzarach:
Destroyers - (ST 7 and also has a Dispatcher blade - no need for Belzarach to be equipped with a bayonet; though, if it was, they Destroyer would be doing DM 12 in CC - the same as the Blade, and the Blade can Sweep.)
Necromutants - (ST 5 - they should avoid CC at all costs, but they have a chance to score damage if they do find themselves so embroiled.)
Necromutant Leader - (ST 5 and they're Zombie Masters - that what zombies are for, to handle the dirty work.  Throw a few of them in front of you, and run the other way! ;))
Necromutant Spotter - (ST 6 - just like regular Necromutants, but stronger!)
Undead Crewman - (ST 4 - He's a zombie.  If he gets into CC, at least the Carronade can still fire on its own!)
Neronian Legionnaires - (ST 4 - what do you want; they're not-as-brainless zombies...)
Necrotyrants - (ST 4 - they're Unscrupulous.  That won't do them any good if they're tied up in CC.)
Blessed Legionnaires - (see Zombies.)
Blight Commando/Sgt. - (ST 4 and all the goodness of Aura of Darkness; folks gotta pass a LD Test just to attack them in CC!)

I do not really see a play-balance problem here, but, I would not be averse to adding a Dark Legion Bayonet to the Belzarach, as the picture in the DL Armory shows.  I will run that one by Thom to see what he has to say about it.

Note: Necromutants shouldn’t have to avoid CC more than Blood Berets. In fact, they should actually be encouraged by the rules to get in there to get an edge over the sharpshooters. That is valid for all Belzarach toting troops, who pay for their other abilities in addition to the gun. Imho, one should not dismiss them in cc as part of a house rule balance simply because they have X ability or lack of.

I ran some tests here, and since I often play against Imperial, the debate is very visible in our games: I play Algeroth + Horde, with plenty of Belzarach armed troopers.


Our match ups:

Blood Beret fighting Necromuntant:
Original rule
To hit: 25%
To Damage: 35% (18 armor)
Improvised weapon
To hit: 45%
To Damage: 45%

Necromutant fighting Blood Beret:
Original rule
To hit: 35%
To Damage: 25% (20 armor)
Improvised weapon
To hit: 35%
To Damage: 35%

Ashigaru fighting Blood Beret
Original rule
To hit: 35%
To Damage: 50% (20 armor)
Improvised weapon
To hit: 35%
To Damage: 50%

So what does this all means?

Chance to hit:
This felt completely backward when testing: the worst assault rifles get the biggest bonus with the house rule. The Blood Beret basically was handed 20% more chance to hit compared to the rulebook. The best assault rifles in CC were stuck with nothing more. In the same manner, this is also unfair for troops who already pay for a sidearm or close combat weapon, especially when CC related load-out options are available for assault rifles.

Damage:

Most rifles were handed a free 10% more chance to damage, but comparatively, the Yari Shogun assault rifle was left out. It’s not as annoying as for the hitting chance, but still is an undeserved bonus in comparison. As before, this seemed unfair toward close combat and sidearm equipped troops, especially when CC related load-out options are considered. For example, a kratach with a sectioner will be bringing CC 0 and ST+8 damage, better than most CC weapons.

So far

There’ll be more to come, but so far I think that the FAQ is still a better thing to go for, simply because it retains the CC modifiers of the weapons and as such keeps the balance that was laid out between CC specialists, All-rounders and RC specialists. The real crux of the problem seems to be the load-out section, namely bayonets, so I’d be tempted to revisit that section instead of going for the house rule.

I really appreciated the house rule because it illustrated different issues, but I think that there might be a way to blend it with what the FAQ had gone for.

I’ll be back with suggestions once I have tested them properly.

Thanks for reading :P
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 21, 2010, 07:04:22 PM
Excellent points.  I like the math, too.

Thanks for straightening me out on the Belzarach - I was going more on looks than on actual reading ;).  I tend to agree with you on the integrated bayonet, but the rules either missed this, or left it out for a reason; I'm not sure which.

I look forward to more discussion.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on October 21, 2010, 09:15:28 PM
Why do I even bother....  because I helped write and test these damn rules...

The FAQ is wrong in omission of key information.   if you do a search for Sidearms, you will find the full clarification on the rule to include page numbers.

Only sidearms may be used with their weapon damage.  All other weapons, unless otherwise stated use the model's STR score.

Mistah Talamini was *supposed* to spell it out a while back but did not the last time this question arose...
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on October 21, 2010, 09:22:18 PM

SIDEARM class weapons may be used in CC and their normal damage value is allowed- for example, Joe Grunt of the Cap Light Infantry gets charged by a Karnophage  and lives through it.  On his turn he can choose to use his Pistol (using his CC score) to pistol-whip (dmg 4) or shoot (dmg 8 ).  The score to hit for shooting him is teh CC score.


Relevant sections of the rules are section 8.7.5 (Close Combat and Ranged Combat), 19.1.3 (Weapon Damage)  and 21.1 (Sidearms)

Side arms are the only shooting weapons that use their damage in CC as you can shoot with them

PER THE RULE BOOK (section 21.3, page 131) Rifles are only adhoc clubs.

  And to pull from the page you quoted (page 120) it states:

Weapon Damage

  The Damage of a Weapon is dependent upon the situation.  While in Close Combat, a weapons damage is derived from the Strength (ST) value of the model striking with it (unless its a Sidearm, which relies on the bullets to do the damage). The better or more deadly the Melee weapon is, the greater the bonus to the model's ST value.


Word for word and it clearly... CLEARLY... answers the question of the damage a non-Sidearm firearm does in CC.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on October 22, 2010, 04:37:19 AM
Section 8.5, page 49 (top of page)

Unless otherwise stated in a model’s profile, models may not make Ranged Combat attacks while engaged in Close Combat. Nor can they use any special equipment that is not related to Close Combat while engaged in Close Combat. Items that require no active effort on the part of the user (such as gas masks and environmental suits) are an exception to this rule.

Section 21, page 127 under heading of Close Combat:

 "This range comes into play when a model is in Base contact with an enemy model and attempting to use an equipped weapon on that enemy model.  While Melee Weapons are best at these ranges, most other weapons suffer problems.  Sidearms are compact enough to allow a model to use it in Close Combat Range to shoot an opponent with greater Penetration and Harm, which is reflected in their bonus to hit.  ALL OTHER WEAPON TYPES, with the exception of SOME SPECIAL) are difficult to use at close combat range, with the butt of a weapon's stock being used to bludgeon an opponent, since the barrel cannot be brought to bear at an enemy that is so close."/

(section 21.3, page 131) Rifles are only adhoc clubs.


Weapon Damage (page 120)

  The Damage of a Weapon is dependent upon the situation.  While in Close Combat, a weapons damage is derived from the Strength (ST) value of the model striking with it (unless its a Sidearm, which relies on the bullets to do the damage). The better or more deadly the Melee weapon is, the greater the bonus to the model's ST value.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 22, 2010, 05:04:58 AM
This discussion i now leaving the realm of FAQ, and is now generating discussion on how to best make a change to what is, otherwise, a rule in need of change.

Would a moderater be kind enough to move this thread to the Warzone thread under Game Questions?

I apologize for discussing my opinions in he FAQ section.  I should have merely stated that the issue is FAQ'd. and until such a time as that is officially changed, then that is the way it is.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 22, 2010, 06:19:31 AM
Agreed with the discussion being un-FAQ material, but i appreciated it any way.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on October 22, 2010, 06:47:10 AM
This discussion i now leaving the realm of FAQ, and is now generating discussion on how to best make a change to what is, otherwise, a rule in need of change.

Would a moderater be kind enough to move this thread to the Warzone thread under Game Questions?

I apologize for discussing my opinions in he FAQ section.  I should have merely stated that the issue is FAQ'd. and until such a time as that is officially changed, then that is the way it is.

Dave- I'm just tired of correcting this damn issue is all and I really wish it would be changed/clarified already so the question might stop cropping up.

No hate or discontent here.  Just tired.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on October 22, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
And cranky. :P

Sorry!
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 22, 2010, 07:20:51 AM
It is fine, but keep in mind that some people are new to the UWZ edition , and can sometimes come to the problem on their own so they post here. Since the forum posts and FAQ leave some questions to be answered...well, a curious person will start a thread, just like i did (i switched to it recently from 1st ed.).

It's not to harass those who already debated the idea  ;), especially not the cranky ones!
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on October 22, 2010, 07:24:42 AM
It is fine, but keep in mind that some people are new to the UWZ edition , and can sometimes come to the problem on their own so they post here. Since the forum posts and FAQ leave some questions to be answered...well, a curious person will start a thread, just like i did (i switched to it recently from 1st ed.).

It's not to harass those who already debated the idea  ;), especially not the cranky ones!

No sweat Oakwolf.

  This particular subject is a sore one for me.... I am usually very agreeable on many things but on this one, its grrrrrrrrr.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 22, 2010, 10:02:15 AM
There's valid reasons for it to be sore, because the system is good, with a few discrepancies like this one.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 29, 2010, 03:36:46 PM
Well, after testing this a bit and discussing more, here’s what we’ve settled on:

Premises

i.    We appreciated that the FAQ kept the CC modifiers of rifle weapons. This serves to distinguish ranged troops further from assault ones, since they, in our opinion, already have a hard time in UWZ.

ii.    We liked the fact that the improvised weapon rule, as defined earlier in the discussion, used the ST stat in close combat, rather than ranged damage, for assault riffles. Belzarach troops doing 11 DAM in cc was a kick in the balls for troops with pistols or smgs (or the yari shogun rifles).

iii    We assumed that any improvement in CC should be reflected as extra cost.

iv.    The bayonet section was a mess, no matter the ruling you pick, they were either useless, overpriced or overpowered.

So here's what we settled upon as house rules:

1. All weapons with a dash in CC may be used with a -4 modifier. This allows shotguns or other clumsy weapons to be used as clubs. Weapons used as clubs inflict ST for damage (this include assault rifles without bayonets, of course). The damage type is concussive.

2. The bayonet section is replaced as follows:

Bayonet (2pts): Bayonets can take many forms, but all improve the weapon's effectiveness at close quarters. A bayonet allows an assault rifle to inflict ST+3 rending damage in close combat.

3. Weapons of exception. Some rare large weapons were designed to function in close combat by default, but their effectiveness varies to extremes depending on the rule taken (from crap in the rulebook, to awesome in the FAQ).

These are the Belzarach and Scythe of Semai.
To represent their natural CC oriented design, they are allowed to fit a bayonet as described above. Obviously, no other load-out is permitted on those weapons.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 31, 2010, 11:34:15 AM
You mention something that continues to make me scratch my head; CC troops already have a hard time in UWZ.  I find this comment puzzling.

UWZ is very balanced, and CC troops stand just as much a chance to inflict damage as ranged troops.

The book states - very clearly - that UWZ game boards should contain a lot of terrain.  Are you using a lot of terrain?  If not, this may be why you find it difficult for CC troops to earn their points.  Aslo, environmental rules should always be used.  This is a great leveler of the playing field.

Our group uses a very good mix of CC and RC troops when we play, and it is the CC troops many of us fear most, as once they do get close, they are gonna put a whooping on some unfortunate shooty troop.

I, myself, and trying to get my Mortant painted so that I can counter the CC troops that invariably mess up my tactics.

When you say that they have a hard time, how?  Thanks.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on October 31, 2010, 06:47:39 PM
Did you check the house rule btw? i'd like your feedback on it. It seems to work very well for us so far, or should i make a separate post for it?

Anyway as for your question. It is the general feeling we have atm, because the result is much alike what occured in Necromunda (cc is cool, but shooting is better, statistically). Perhaps we need even more terrain...i don't know. Also we haven't dabbled in the environmental rules yet, so we'll try this too.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 31, 2010, 07:42:05 PM
I did check it out, but I will withhold judgement until I've gotten some other folks to check it out.  Plus, I'd like to see you use the rules for terrain and environments before making final judgement of the Dodger Rule.

I promise to keep an open mind about it, and will see if I can get some playtesting in.

The reason I inquired about your comment concerning CC is that it is a common misconception of many players who decry that it is too tough for CC troops.  Invariably, many are, simply, not using enough terrain and are ignoring the environmental rules.  Not only do they balance the game, but they make it much more fun.  They also make troops who have environmental training useful, not to mention environmental loadouts, and such.

Unfortunately, Necromunda suffers from the sparse terrain that is common for WH40K games.  Check out some of the pictures from Talamania to see the judicious amounts of terrain we use.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on November 01, 2010, 01:50:26 PM
I did check it out, but I will withhold judgement until I've gotten some other folks to check it out.  Plus, I'd like to see you use the rules for terrain and environments before making final judgement of the Dodger Rule.

I promise to keep an open mind about it, and will see if I can get some playtesting in.

The reason I inquired about your comment concerning CC is that it is a common misconception of many players who decry that it is too tough for CC troops.  Invariably, many are, simply, not using enough terrain and are ignoring the environmental rules.  Not only do they balance the game, but they make it much more fun.  They also make troops who have environmental training useful, not to mention environmental loadouts, and such.

Unfortunately, Necromunda suffers from the sparse terrain that is common for WH40K games.  Check out some of the pictures from Talamania to see the judicious amounts of terrain we use.

I agree to this. So I’ll post a thread specifically for testing the house rule, let’s call it “Bayonet revision”

I think you hit the nail on the head with the 40k syndrome. The tables are often almost clear…and they even have a current (highly powerful) tactic called “the IG parking lot”. I don’t know about you but…placing figs in a deployment zone only to thereafter roll dice and remove figs back into trays is not…great fun, especially for the opponent.

Anyway, back onto topic. The reasons I (personally, my friends are not concerned here) found that CC troops had difficulty, was as follows:

1.   The number of actions needed for a CC trooper to get 1 chance to kill vs is much greater than for a shooting trooper, which is to essentially move into a position then engage.

2.   You are right when you say that both types of troopers have the same odds of killing their prey (basically), but the occurrence is much more difficult to achieve for the CC trooper, while the RC combatant can perhaps get that occurrence on turn 1.  So…just extrapolating that reasoning, both troopers need to shoot or strike roughly the same numbers of time to get a kill, but one of the two gets far more actions to attempt it…so perhaps the CC trooper should get a better chance to kill on its strike? Just food for thought.

3.   The way weapons are made, it is relatively safe to say that a CC trooper will typically get 1 activation before being shot down or its unit at least mauled by return fire. I’m talking of LMG/HMG/SMG/Flamer/Shotgun fire that is rather cheap to get and can cripple any troop that comes in range. Granted, multiple wound characters do help, but as with characters in UWZ, everything falls when shot by a unit. Then you have vehicles, and flying ones which are hard counters.

Overall though, I am eager to test with an extra amount of LOS obstacles, as this could help put some pressure on the shooting troops to make use of their extra range…but the question is to balance it out as to not make the LR or ER completely useless.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on November 02, 2010, 06:19:12 AM
The last point you raise is, in my opinion, the most important.  LR and ER range bands should not, by default, be useless.  They should not, however, be easy to exploit, either.  The balance should be in the forces one brings to the fight.  We manage to control/balance this by several means:

 - Design forces as we would for a tournament; i.e.: Design with no prior knowledge of which field upon which your army will be fielded.  Therefore, you may choose to spend points on Survival Training/Load Outs, or choose different troops to adapt to the environment.  Roll for environmental type and level.  Vulkans are my favorite unit, yet suffer in level 3 jungle (or higher) due to limited visibility.  My Bauhas Snipers HATE that!  But, when playing in a tournement, one must design a balanced force where the strengths can be exploited, and the weaknesses minimized.  If everyone knows the battle going in, and the terrain does not favor CC troops, then CC troops should be left behind, unless they have Stealth or other abilities to keep them concealed until they are ready to strike.

 - Play with clear objectives and/or turn limits.

 - Lots o' terrain (it bears repeating):  Terrain allows cover, and LOS-blocking movement.  It forces a shooter-heavy army to find fire lanes and back up units with cover fire, and gives CC troops ample oppurtunity to get into position to attack.

 - Re-examine player tactics.  When all else is equal (PC, dice rolls, terrain, etc.), superior tactics win games.  If a player is running CC troops into the open, they are going to draw fire.  Put them behind other units, or move them behind LOS-blocking terrain.

Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on November 04, 2010, 10:34:58 AM
T add to what dave says here....

When I was running events prior to the EE boards being available for use, I always tried to make the lanes of fire no more than 36 inches... on average they were in the neighborhood of 30 or so.  Even, there would be stuff out there that could be hidden behind.  But there was always better and more occluded/shielded ways to get there.  Just took longer in most cases.

  In certain environments, it was not as easy to do... which is where the Environmental Effects come in.  The Desert board was both a favorite and a hated board for many players...  AS the Jamming rules saved alot of CC troops from ranged death (yes Dave, I can hear you cursing me already... :) )

Night-fighting areas were always the CC and CQB specialist's playground, unless there was elite units with nite-vision.  Then it was careful thinking on manuever unless you had your own.

One always tried to plan for most-common denominator in terrain/environmental, gambling on being right about selections.  I've been doomed by this as has Dave in a few cases.... but as he's said and I will repeat-examine your tactics and see if there is something you can do to fix the trouble you are having.

Terrain is a big help as is Environmental Rules.

CC troops in the Jungle rock. :)
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Oakwolf on November 04, 2010, 01:34:19 PM
Apparently the environmental rules are not as optional as the book say it is. After running through and making a few sample tests, it definitely helps to balance things out and our next game will be in the jungle.

Ah btw archer, if you could help me test the house rule in this same forum i'd be greateful.

and lastly...question, where is the jam rule defined?

I can read in the general environmental effects section that on a 20 the weapon jams...but what occurs then? In 1st edition you'd loose all actions left. I couldn't find that precision though. *waves for assistance in a sea of UWZ pages*
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on November 04, 2010, 05:21:58 PM
If I can find my book, I'll let you know where it is.

I've a bad feeling it was in an Errata document....  I'll go looking.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on November 04, 2010, 05:39:13 PM
Found it- well, part of it.  :P

Pg 101 Section 16.2.1 General Effects.
Weapon Malfunction
  Units that suffer this effect suffer a series of jams and weapon failures.  This could be to frozen gun actions, sand in the firing mechanism or moisture.  The effect of this is a jam will occur on any to hit roll greater than 20 minus the environmental level.

For example-

  Troops in a Desert Environment 3 would have their weapon jam on a roll of 20-3=17 or better.  The results are treated as if you had rolled a 20 normally as per the book.

 There had been a clarification (based on practical experience of all us ex-military types) making it an action to clear the weapon for use again.  To my knowledge, it never saw the board or the FAQ.  Might want to check that...

I know we use it (hence the McGee Curse) and as per the Book, units with Survival Skill lower the overall general effect (Survival 2 in a Desert 3 environment suffer problems on a 19 or 20).

If Dave or a FAQ guy knows where further clarification may be, I'd appreciate it too...
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on November 04, 2010, 05:41:09 PM
Apparently the environmental rules are not as optional as the book say it is. After running through and making a few sample tests, it definitely helps to balance things out and our next game will be in the jungle.

Ah btw archer, if you could help me test the house rule in this same forum i'd be greateful.

Enviro is the great equalizer- more so than terrain sometimes.

As for the house rule, I'll look at it.  I personally don't mind the bayonet rule but I don't use them on anyone other than Imperials (cause they have them. :) )
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on November 04, 2010, 09:36:06 PM
Jamming has been FAQ'd, I blieve.

If not, if a jam occurs (including weapons that need no Target Roll), place a marker next to the model.  The model must spend an AC to "unjam" the weapon.

Archer, your Desert example is wrong.  If Survival Training/Gear equal or exceed the level of terrain, then there is no roll made for environmental effects (though permanent effects still apply).
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on November 05, 2010, 03:27:54 AM
Wrong?

My example did not show a higher survival over Desert. :)

But thanks for the further clarification and the FAQ response. Appreciated!
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on November 06, 2010, 07:08:52 AM
You stated a Survival 2 suffers jam on 19 or 20 in level 3 Desrt.  Actually, Level three Desert sufers a jam on 18-20, therefore, Survival 2 only suffers on a 20.
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: Archer on November 07, 2010, 05:33:09 PM
Ah- in reading the example in the book, I mis-read the example. :p  Thanks!
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: shantaram on December 17, 2011, 09:42:28 AM
I was looking for this topic all over and since i'm new member since yesterday and now able to use the search engine, i finally found the long sought after answers :D

I am a absolute fan of the Imperial Wolf Packs and there were a few things about cc that unsettled me. I know this thread is more than a year old, but still i wanna thank archer to point out (apparently again) that any ranged weapons in cc except for sidearms make ST-damage by quoting p. 120. We made the house rule that butts of weapons make dam ST+2, but this i even like more :) I have always very much disliked that a HMG even at a -3 or -4  was supposed to make more damage in cc than my Headhunters with a freaking battle axe. But this makes it official now for us.

Another thing that oakwolf pointed out i totally agree with: (I'm not sure if i got the quoting right)

Quote
2.   You are right when you say that both types of troopers have the same odds of killing their prey (basically), but the occurrence is much more difficult to achieve for the CC trooper, while the RC combatant can perhaps get that occurrence on turn 1.  So…just extrapolating that reasoning, both troopers need to shoot or strike roughly the same numbers of time to get a kill, but one of the two gets far more actions to attempt it…so perhaps the CC trooper should get a better chance to kill on its strike? Just food for thought.

The way we handle this is the following and i would not mind oppinions on that, even though it might stretch the rules of uwz a little far:

We basically use the cc rules of 2. Ed. of combating simultaniously. IMO, this has two advantages:

1. It makes cc a lot more fun and more flavourful.

2. It somewhat resolves oakwolf's problem in most cases. A lot of times a cc-specialist needs all three actions to charge an enemy because you need to cover open ground whilst a rc-specialist does not have to do that. He can fire 3 times in a row. Thus the cc-spec has only one action to do damage this turn. If the charged model survives and its unit activates before the cc-spec's unit activates again, the charged model will have 3 actions to hit back without any ground covering needed. Even if the charged model isn't also a cc-spec, it'll still have three actions to hit whereas the originally charging model just has to take it. So what's the point in using three actions to charge somebody?
If, on the other hand, cc is played simultaniously, the originally charging model is not at such a disadvantage and it will be rewarded for being as courageous to charge by being given the chance to hit back. This rule will always make the better cc-spec even better, but it doesn't give a rc-spec such an advantage in cc. imo, that's the way it should be and it's my fault if i charge a model that is better in cc than mine. However it shouldn't backfire at me if i charge a rc-spec, that afterwards gets 3 chances to kill my cc-spec (disadvantages of rc-weapons in cc considered) without him being able to do something about it.

What do you think about this house rule? What flaws do you see in it?
thx for your honest oppinions.

Last thing: I too find it necessary that shotguns are usable in cc, but with a -3 or -4. There is no reason why they shouldn't.  


Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: micmellon on December 19, 2011, 03:41:35 AM
Welcome in the UWZ Forum. Always good to see somebody ready to enter the discussions and to come up with new questions.

I have to say that I played 2nd Edition but I don't remember how the CC was. Maybe somebody else can give you an advice.

But anyway it was great that you dug this topic out. We had just an internal discussion about this and now most issues should be solved.
 
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: shantaram on December 19, 2011, 07:46:08 AM
Hi micmellon and thanks for welcoming me :) Soon a few friends of mine will be up too i hope, so there might be some interesting discussions in the future.

As for the 2. Ed cc-rules: We don't exactly play after those rules. Especially we dont play with that utterly complicated way to calculate hits and damage (some will know what i'm talking about...) We just took the simulatneous way to fight in cc to uwz.

This means, anytime somebody rolls for a hit in cc, the defending player rolls at the same time. As i read on this forum, some people say, this was changed in uwz because the defending model gets basicly a free action to hit back every time the active model spends an action to hit, which some might find unfair, because a very good cc-specialist can take out a lot of enemies, without even being active. I say, just don't cc-attack a model which is obviously way better in cc...

Also, we took the firststrike-when-charging-rule from 2. Ed.: So if a model charges another model, the controling player gets to roll first. Only if the defending model survives it gets a chance to hit back. This only when charging. If the defending model is on wait, it can countercharge and also gets firststrike and charging bonusses - both players role at the same time. If it braces, non of them get firststrike and no other charging bonusses - still both players roll at the same time.

Some might argue, this is bad for the attacking model. I say, for the above reasons, it makes the better cc-specialist better, the way i think it should be.

Also this rule gives more reason to a model that is not good in cc to actually have to break away and not just try to hit back 3 times.

To sum up. I think this doesnt make cc specialists worse but better and gives some swordplay flavour to cc.

I am pretty confident of this rule  8) ) but maybe there is some flaws i don't see...

maybe this has become a general discussion ;)

Alex
Title: Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
Post by: dmcgee1 on December 19, 2011, 09:41:44 AM
maybe this has become a general discussion ;)

Alex

Still appears to be safely in the realm of a "Game Question."  ;D