Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Warzone => Open Discussion => Topic started by: Enker on February 02, 2006, 01:03:38 AM
-
I don't know if there is such a topic in this forum. I find this very important.
What would you like to change in Warzone 3rd Edition?
I'm asking for changes in game mechanics, rules or whole typs of models.
Please don't write changes on a specific model (e.g. "Ameratsu is far too good"),
and I think old discussions like the BH Battlesuit thing should not be revisited in detail,
just mentioned by someone maybe. You could write down your house rules here, too.
Perhaps EE will listen to this proposals and get them into a expansion book.
-
We have a house rule for Impenetrability.
We took 2nd edition rule which rifle damage will do no damage. However you can still shoot model with impenetrability but it will only consider a hit unless you roll a 1. In UWZ, this also increases the damage by 4 as well.
-
so unless you have AV rating, only a 1 is good??
omg :o vehicles would rule all :D
-
There really isn't anything that I would change. This is by far the best rules system I've ever played.
-
so unless you have AV rating, only a 1 is good??
omg :o vehicles would rule all :D
That is what rocket launcher is for and HMG. :o
-
HMGs aren't AV, I believe you meant Autocannon's, but thats beside the point.
Almost all AV weapons are carried by squad specialists, which means there is a very limited number on the field, given that many vehicles have tactical sense all squads with specialists armed with AV weapons become your priority, let alone snipers who can shift target priority to the specialist model himself not just his squad. Because of the limits of the number of specialists really no more than about 25-28% of your army can be specialists, and should those models be eliminated victory for the side with the vehicle is practically guarenteed. Although this would be the one rule that could prompt me to go up against a Huricane Walker with my Holy Carnager Polearm wielding brotherbound (Antitank spear of doom!).
-
i've heard a few saying that vehicles are already strong, i'm afraid with that they'd really be too strong!
-
I'm on the fence with regards to impentrability. Withering gunfire does tend to do a number on vehicles more than I'd like but complete immunity to small arms fire is a bit too much.
-
My primary gripe to date is with the Vulcans being Elites rather than Support. No other force has this kind of powerhouse option where a heavily armored HMG weilding unit can actually be used to BUY the tough support units. If it stays that way, then one of the lighter support units in other factions should be changed to Elites....or a new unit added to balance things.
Overall, I think the rules are outstanding and easily the best I've seen in several decades of gaming....
-
I'd have to say that the only change I'd make would be to downgrade the Vulkans MHMG to a regular HMG and swap them over to Support or just raise the price a bit. Other than that, I really can't think of any needed changes.
-PFC joe
-
Yeah, the Battlesuit stuff is my only issue wich needs fixing (like making them a support choice).
-
Erm... what about Pathfinders? 1 wound models for 57 points per model (hey, Viktors cost THAT much)? Apocalypse? 5 models throwing 3 to 4 large templates each with no LOS to affected models (only to the center of the template) or target priority restrictions... Hurricane Hammer Class? 1 point more expensive than Guardian, slower and equipped with obviously inferior weapon (unless the x2 in dam is not a typo)... There are many problems with UWZ....
-
Well the Pathfinders do have both Ambush and Camoflauge, not to mention that the whole squad has grenade launchers. I've never gotten a chance to field them myself, but on paper they look like they could do a lot for an army. Also its been a while since I looked at it, but I though Valpurgious was currently the only model that got to choose from the spell list with Apocalypse on it, so thats only 1 model not 5.
-
Yep, they can - eat 200-400 points and die gloriously. No chance for a squad to pay for itself against any opponent with more than 1 neuron inside his skull. Too many expensive skills and weapons, not enough resilence. Try and field them...
Valpurgius is not the only model with Apocalypse - all Nepharites of Algeroth may choose it. Alakhai, Golgotha, Ragathol and the nameless guy - so it is 5 total. And according to THE BOOK it is absolutely legal (if not very sporting) to field all 5 in one force.
-
what would I do?...
1.) cahnge Impenetrability...give people a reason to use those RL's with an AV-0 rating.
2.) increase vehicle points costs so that vehicles won't be the kings of the battlefield.
3.) Increase the damage rating of GL's...this might make GL specs and Pathfinders a little more useful...
4.) Increase the Medic rating of most models that have the ability...
B.
bracing for the backlash...
-
1.) cahnge Impenetrability...give people a reason to use those RL's with an AV-0 rating.
That would be a big problem that would make some armies much less competitive, since there are some less-loved-by-designers armies without (or almost without) AV weapons (especially ranged AV weapons)
-
Yeah, the Battlesuit stuff is my only issue wich needs fixing (like making them a support choice).
I'd have to say that the only change I'd make would be to downgrade the Vulkans MHMG to a regular HMG and swap them over to Support or just raise the price a bit. Other than that, I really can't think of any needed changes.
-PFC joe
For the most part, I already use them as support. I usually build a force from a house other than Richthausen and use the Vulkans in the Support slot.
-
Erm... what about Pathfinders? 1 wound models for 57 points per model (hey, Viktors cost THAT much)? Apocalypse? 5 models throwing 3 to 4 large templates each with no LOS to affected models (only to the center of the template) or target priority restrictions... Hurricane Hammer Class? 1 point more expensive than Guardian, slower and equipped with obviously inferior weapon (unless the x2 in dam is not a typo)... There are many problems with UWZ....
Many? Really? Wow, without intending to sound sarcastic or insensitive - why do you play?
-
...here's a whopper for ya, how about, for one game session, absolutely disregarding points and come up with your force based on what would be fun to you and the other player. Don't consider points at all, just throw down what you would like to run and have the other player do the same. I've found the most enjoyable games are the ones when it isn't structured like a chess match with equal sides/ points. The vagueness of which side may have the edge or not makes for a very cool gaming experiance...it isn't about points or absolute logic but, well, try it, you may like it.
-
Many? Really? Wow, without intending to sound sarcastic or insensitive - why do you play?
Absolutely no idea why. Probably due to the fact that I've a lot of Warzone minis and do not want to spend money on other games...
-
Hmm, not much proposal for changes.
Don't get me wrong, EE is doing a great job and Warzone is a great game, but I have found some points:
1. I find vehicles too good. You can look at the threat for details.
2. The vehicle rules need some updates. They are keept too simple.
What's with open and closed vehicles? Passengers / Gunners are mostly useless.
3. Individuals could be a little bit better. They are nothing special now (but I don't want 1st Ed. Heros back).
4. The support system is good, but not perfect. E.g. you can buy 2x Battlewalker but just 1x Great Grey for one support slot.
That's a big advantage for multi model support squads.
Maybe there should be an extended rule to this like you must have 3 Grunt Squads if you want to field two Battlewalker (or 3 Orcas e.g.),
or the Grunt Squads must be bigger.
Or better, increase the cost of the second support model (e.g. the second Battlewalker).
5. The targeting system is not good. If I have a Rocket Launcher I have to shot at the nearest model, that's unrealistic.
In real life I think a soldier would shot an AP Rocket into a bulk of soldiers and not on the single one, which is four feet closer to him.
Or he would shot his Rocket into a advancing tank to take it out. There should be more freedom to choose the target (even without tactical
sense), esp. for the specialists. If an enemy is getting very close (lets say short distance) ok, then you should have to eliminate this one first.
6. Close Combat. Even if its realistic, its too hard to get into CC. And what is worse, the damage is too low. If you hit someone in CC
with a sword it should be devastating.
7. Some template weapons like the Grenades, Gr. Launcher, Pers. Flametrower, Shotguns (not automatics) are too week.
They should do a little more damage.
8. There are some squads that are nearly useless. All squads should be worth to put them in.
-
Everyone play nice ok now ok?
Keep it cool and no personal attacks.
/Your friendly moderator
-
Time to adress the somethings ;)
@ Enker
1. I think we already got your point about Vehicles beeing to strong in your opinion, no need to make a mantra out of it ;)
2. Gunners are supposed to shoot out of the vehicle and last time i checked thats what they doing in the multicrewd vehicles with a gun plattform (there arent much but thats a lack of models not rules). The simplified vehicle rules help the game go faster and you avoid wasting lots of points in an open vehiles where the driver can be shot out easy like in 2nd Ed. (no thx i dont want that back).
3. Individuels have a whole new Role in UWZ and its not the Role of Rambo taking on 3 Squads while smoking a cig ^^. The officers are supposed to "command", direct fire and keep the moral stable. They got very sold RC score wich makes them a solid support option for their squads (and strangly but true that is what fieldofficers usualy do ;D in rl).
4. The support system could need some work especily in the range of Battlwalkers come in units (why dont Hurricans come in units to ? ;D )
5. The target priority system works not bad, ofc there will be always exceptions but for the guy with your rocked launcher you should get an officer with tac sense and voila you have some flexebility in shooting. Total freedom of target choosing dont sounds like a good idea to me ;).
6. I dunno i think CC works well, maybe some of the DAM should be slightly increased but getting into it is just a matter of tactics. The use of Weather effects, smoke and a lot terrain helps. Ofc a charge against some Mounted HMG over open terrain wont work very well but this sounds realistic^^.
7. I see template weapons as very effective the Hiting power is ok for beeing able to hit about 4-5 Soldiers when closly grouped. As flamers, shotguns dont need a to hit roll they are very devastating (at least out of my experience). What i want to be changed is that to much Grenade launchers cant fire indirect wich is their sole purpose in my opinion. For direct templates i take an RL with AP anytime.
8. Wich squads you would define as useless?
@ all
During the Editions Warzone has undergone some important changes. One of them was that it changed from a Heroic Tabletop towards a squad based one. Some ppl wont like that some will prefer it to the older version, thats just a question of taste. But why not keep it as it is skip the heroic crap 8) (i guess you get it i dont like heroes wich singlehandly win me games ^^) stay to the current mechanics and advance them further.
So at this point the worked in FAQ + more balanced support units (so any faction is equal in strenght there and you dont have to field one Hwalker/shark against 2 Battlewalkers wich play in the same range ;) ). I vouche as well that they check all point costs again as the book is very big and there are a good bunch of mistakes in it maybe some prices are wrong (i.e. the HWalker problem pieta pointed out). At least in chronopia the recheck of point costs had brought a whole race back into competitve playing ;).
-
During the Editions Warzone has undergone some important changes. One of them was that it changed from a Heroic Tabletop towards a squad based one. Some ppl wont like that some will prefer it to the older version, thats just a question of taste. But why not keep it as it is skip the heroic crap 8) (i guess you get it i dont like heroes wich singlehandly win me games ^^) stay to the current mechanics and advance them further.
So at this point the worked in FAQ + more balanced support units (so any faction is equal in strenght there and you dont have to field one Hwalker/shark against 2 Battlewalkers wich play in the same range ;) ). I vouche as well that they check all point costs again as the book is very big and there are a good bunch of mistakes in it maybe some prices are wrong (i.e. the HWalker problem pieta pointed out). At least in chronopia the recheck of point costs had brought a whole race back into competitve playing ;).
I don't want the 1st Edition Heros back. The squad based system of UWZ is much better.
I only think the individuals could be improved slightly. For example four actions instead of three.
It's good to hear that other people think that the support units must be more balanced.
Yes, a recheck of the point costs would be fantastic.
-
I don't want the 1st Edition Heros back. The squad based system of UWZ is much better.
Hear, Hear, I have to agree with no more superduper heros as I mentioned in another thread about an Imperial Wolfbane hero (4actions) on a necromower (mv8) with a sword that allows an extra action per kill
I only think the individuals could be improved slightly. For example four actions instead of three.
This is my thinking too, but I think this should only be certain named heros and Force commanders ie the creme de la creme.
Another thought would be to give certain heros an inspiration skill so all troops who can see their hero in full battle LOS (not cowering behind a wall ;) ) could get a +1 to morale based actions, whether this would be in fear/admiration/loyalty depends on the hero in question and troop types, this would not make them to powerful but would give them a reason for being the hero/leader for that fraction ;D
-
4. The support system could need some work especily in the range of Battlwalkers come in units (why dont Hurricans come in units to ? ;D )
Spoken like a true Imperialist ;D
5. The target priority system works not bad, ofc there will be always exceptions but for the guy with your rocked launcher you should get an officer with tac sense and voila you have some flexebility in shooting. Total freedom of target choosing dont sounds like a good idea to me ;).
I think the rule about shooting the nearest trooper is okay anyone who has been in battle or training will tell you, you don't worry about the squad 50' away when theres another 40' away, you hit them first and worry about the others after them, thats why we have the tactical sense skill to add a little bit more tactical issues for the specialist to assess the tactical treat better (or use of the weapon)
6. I dunno i think CC works well, maybe some of the DAM should be slightly increased but getting into it is just a matter of tactics. The use of Weather effects, smoke and a lot terrain helps. Ofc a charge against some Mounted HMG over open terrain wont work very well but this sounds realistic^^.
Maybe they also need to set up the table with a bit more cover on it rather than it being an open plain, and use it as much as possible, I used to get into combat quite often with my children :)
-
5. The target priority system works not bad, ofc there will be always exceptions but for the guy with your rocked launcher you should get an officer with tac sense and voila you have some flexebility in shooting. Total freedom of target choosing dont sounds like a good idea to me ;).
But having officer with tac sense won't give tac-sense ability to RL guy...?
-
I think the rule about shooting the nearest trooper is okay anyone who has been in battle or training will tell you, you don't worry about the squad 50' away when theres another 40' away, you hit them first and worry about the others after them...
Well I'm an officer in reserve (2nd lt) and my training certainly differs from that. You simply don't target an AP Rocket Launcher (or whatever squad support weapon you may have) at men if there's a tank around. You don't need an officer to tell you how the weapon is supposed to be used most effectively. Remember that you can't use TS for grunts if there's enemies in Med Range.
My fav. gripes:
1) Targeting priorities need a little of bit of ... well ... refinement. Nothing complicated or extraordinaire - maybe something based on the size of target and on the status of the model (specialist's maybe having more options).
2) Medics definately need a boost or maybe not taking up a specialist slot.
3) Everyone should have a chance to attack in CC and breaking off from CC should be automatic for big models (ie. a size difference of 2 or more) especially if the opposing model can't even theoretically damage you (like a K9 against a Bio-Giant).
I don't see much other problems except minor oddities in some stats. In my opinion vehicles are just fine - they've never dominated any game I've played (read: my 'Tronic egghead took 3 wounds in CC from a Trencher Captain's spade after trying to decapitate him two times - I think I'll never forget that incident with the single-minded Trencher Cpt who btw survived the egghead and probably took photos of him with his spade jammed in the droid's groin).
I listed 3 of my cons ... and now I list 3 of my pros:
1) Deployment rules rock.
2) Game dynamics that are greatly enhanced by the various skills.
3) Enough differences between the factions make for interesting gaming experiences (read: I have 7 full armies all of which I play and all of which are different and must use differing tactics).
-
1) Targeting priorities need a little of bit of ... well ... refinement. Nothing complicated or extraordinaire - maybe something based on the size of target and on the status of the model (specialist's maybe having more options).
It could be somthing like adding the Size of a vehicle/big DL monster modell to the Tac Sense Roll. Wich would fit the game mechnics and would make it easyer to target the bigger vehicles.
-
I kind of like that Size autobreak thing, like a mount. Though I would make it a factor of ST and not SZ. Sorta like how a crowd of Children of Ilian don't get the full Swarm bonus on Death Eggs (i was really upset when i found that out) ( the EDD's owner was just as upset when they beat it to death anyway). I mean honestly, there comes a point when the only way you're going to slow down one of those fuglies in CC is if it happens to slip when it's pulping you underfoot.
-PFC joe
-
When it comes to changes
1) Shooting priority : I find better the rule of 1ed "the closest unit -> the closest model EXCEPT IF U ENCOUNTER a giant model (vehicle, monster etc) , then u shoot the giant. In case, a unit is closer than
6 inches, u anyway shoot the closest model". Sounds more logic to me...
2) Support of Rasputin/Lutherans : Well, especialy for the technologicaly more advanced Rasputins
having a single MMG as a support ( 38 points!!!) is realy weird! Maybe fielding a BATTERY of 1-3 MMGs
(and yes... 1-3 individuals MMGs in different positions) looks more fair to me
3) This is more personal... I liked the special type of units in Dark Eden 1ed sourcebook. This culd make
Eden forces more formidable and less depended on numbers, for example a bannerman/HMG combo in a soldat squad needs 8 of them, but adding the bannerman as a SPECIAL unit to a Vicar, u can have the 4 man + HMG squad and the bannerman through a Vicar etc
4) The Chasseurs rnt so powerful enough, compared to the plot of the saga... by making them stronger (and more expensive) u also make People Volunteer more logical choice, for those dont want to spend the cost of chasseurs ( take as an example the Hussar / Dragoon dillema in Bauhaus)
Thanx!
-
I personally think EE has done a great with their 3rd edition of the game. I only have a few things i'd like to see modified: 1) As with most posting here i think the battlesuits for Bauhaus should be a support choice. 2) Target Prioroty; tac sense is ok but if your squad is facing a partial squad and a vehical on next activation is going to barrel doen on you at opt. range +3/x3 you should be able to target the deadlier unit not get wiped out due to a failed tac sense roll. and 3) the final thing i'd like to see is for the Cartel i think Doomtroopers should be Elites not support. When you figure the basic elite squad is 5 men thats 5 wds 15 actions cost about 145 pts with DT 6 wds 6 ac and 95 to 115? pts then for support an APC, Scoutbike or even a support unit from any corp since the DM's come from the 5 corps. This is just IMHO
-
i vote for the vulkan menace
i also don't care much for the negative modifiers as you get closer to someone. The closer you are to someone the easier it is to hit them, not harder. I find myself backing up to make shots, and it just seems goofy.
-
i also don't care much for the negative modifiers as you get closer to someone. The closer you are to someone the easier it is to hit them, not harder. I find myself backing up to make shots, and it just seems goofy.
The weapon profiles are there for a reason so that various weapons will have a particular range where they excel. Assault rifles are good at SR/MR while SMGs are good at PB/SR etc etc.
The weapon section is one of my favourite sections of UWZ. :)
-
i also don't care much for the negative modifiers as you get closer to someone. The closer you are to someone the easier it is to hit them, not harder. I find myself backing up to make shots, and it just seems goofy.
once again I'll have to refer to the nerf challenge. With a rifle it gets exceptionaly difficult to hit anything ducking, dodging weavin and running at you when it's ducking, dodging weavin and running almost on top of you. Same as how knives win gun fights when you're within punching distance, it's kinda counter intuitive.
-PFC joe
-
3) This is more personal... I liked the special type of units in Dark Eden 1ed sourcebook. This culd make
Eden forces more formidable and less depended on numbers, for example a bannerman/HMG combo in a soldat squad needs 8 of them, but adding the bannerman as a SPECIAL unit to a Vicar, u can have the 4 man + HMG squad and the bannerman through a Vicar etc
I quite liked some of these units in the old Dark Eden Book, the idea of the Vicar being able to have his own personal Bannerman displaying his colours I like and as you can have only 1 Vicar in an Army it wouldn't be to powerful.
I also liked some of the corporation units for Dark Eden some of these have made it into the book but I really liked some of the artwork for the others:
Brotherhood: Missionaries, & Seekers (I love this picture) Crucifiers (in UWZ), Watchmen (in UWZ)
Capitol: Wolverine, Antagons (look a bit like the northern sons with two Machine pistols)
Bauhaus: Ulfwerner, Recitor (in UWZ)
Imperial: Conquistadors, Fallen Angels
Cybertronic: Surveiler (in UWZ), 19th Silent (in UWZ)
Mishima: Jade Ghosts, Enigmas
Dark legion only Nassals didn't make it.
I expect some of these units might make an apperance in a later book for Dark Eden, I hope so as the artwork makes them look quite good as possible models.
But as far as the game is concerned I think they made a great job of the rules and I throughly enjoy playing in this background with these rules.
-
i vote for the vulkan menace
i also don't care much for the negative modifiers as you get closer to someone. The closer you are to someone the easier it is to hit them, not harder. I find myself backing up to make shots, and it just seems goofy.
I'm not sure what kind of shooting you do and how often you go but weapons have optimal ranges and too close is as bad or worse as too far. I think this is what the modifiers represent.
-
i also don't care much for the negative modifiers as you get closer to someone. The closer you are to someone the easier it is to hit them, not harder. I find myself backing up to make shots, and it just seems goofy.
once again I'll have to refer to the nerf challenge. With a rifle it gets exceptionaly difficult to hit anything ducking, dodging weavin and running at you when it's ducking, dodging weavin and running almost on top of you. Same as how knives win gun fights when you're within punching distance, it's kinda counter intuitive.
-PFC joe
Punching distance isn't short range. It's hardly PB. I just flipped through the books and realized that I by and large agree with you. The only exception I can find is the brotherhood assualt riffle (and it was what i was basing my statement on, as i play brotherhood and it comes up often for me).
Even with your nerf challenge (especially with nerf weapons) I don't see how it is easier to hit someone at medium range then at short range. Nerf Weapons don't generally go medium range. I can totally understand negatives at point blank, thats not the issue. The issue is why would there be a penalty at PB, nothing at short, and then +1 at medium? Id even be for not getting the +1! then at least there would be no temptation to keep myself at medium.
But then mishima gets a little weird becuse their assault riffle has a plus one in point blank and then negatives at short and medium. There goes nerf theory.
I still love the game, and i think its pretty damn balanced so i can live with it, but i do think it doesn't make sense.
-
But then what the mishima call an 'assualt riffle' isn't very convincing, so the BH remains the only outlier (just dug through the box for an ashigaru to look at it)
-
the demon-poker (oniyari) is a spear that happens to fire bullets.
As far as rifles being more accurate at medium range it basicly boils down to this,
at closer ranges the target causes greater rifle aiming displacements with smaller moves. the further out it is (within reason) the less the rifle has to traverse to track the target. So the target moving in short range causes the rifle firer to have to turn his body more to track. At medium range just a slight shifting and at long range the target is smaller and harder to hit.
the Brotherhood rifle is magical.
honest.
actually they just have access to technology that helps them produce a more accurate rifle. it helps to be the ones in control of all that catolouged forbidden technology.
-PFC joe
-
What would be useful are rules to include minis that are completeley useless and therefore underrepresented in gaming.
As there are the mentioned medics.
The Paras are the next... Has anyone of you got one unit healthy on the ground? For half the point cost they would be useful, because you get about 50% of your minis out living. Makes a whole squad for the same price....
Some other units exist, where I ask myself for what they were included.
The concept maybe good, but when is such a unit fielded?
As the Brotherhood Pilgrim Executioner, the Bauhaus Ministry Executioners....
-
When it comes to changes
1) Shooting priority : I find better the rule of 1ed "the closest unit -> the closest model EXCEPT IF U ENCOUNTER a giant model (vehicle, monster etc) , then u shoot the giant. In case, a unit is closer than
6 inches, u anyway shoot the closest model". Sounds more logic to me...
Yep,
this I can fully support this. The Meat barrier agains vehicles that are about thrice the size of a mini doesn´t make sense to me. ( the Faceless-Barrier reminds me of something :o...)
-
I think Stealth must be improved... it´s to easy to spot someone in stealth Modus, you can spot them from anywhere on the Battlefield, with mostly over 50 % Chance to spot ( and no Range Modifier or Cover Bonus )
and if one Model in a Squad spots succesful, all other in the squad can shoot you, this is really devastating....
And you can´t run fast enough, 6 Inch are the most ( if the terrain is good ).
There should be range modifierers or cover Bonus, or they should have full movement in stealth....
And another change is the Mishima Dragon Pack... they are better Capitol Dog Soldiers, but not more.
To Field them as Support slot is just a joke.... no other cooperation has such a weak squad as support... i will always field any other support from Mishima, before fielding them ( you don´t have much support slots :) )
in my oppinion they have to be grunt, because they are as good as a grunt squad...
-
I think Stealth must be improved... it´s to easy to spot someone in stealth Modus, you can spot them from anywhere on the Battlefield, with mostly over ....
You can spot only on your LD distance (FAQ).
-
And another change is the Mishima Dragon Pack... they are better Capitol Dog Soldiers, but not more.
To Field them as Support slot is just a joke.... no other cooperation has such a weak squad as support... i will always field any other support from Mishima, before fielding them ( you don´t have much support slots :) )
in my oppinion they have to be grunt, because they are as good as a grunt squad...
Well at least you have a choice of choosing a diffrent support squad. I don't remember there stats ( i never use them ) but even if it is true there isn't a worse support squad, mishima isn't lacking in good support.
Now if you have issue with the Death Angel, well your out of luck, as that is the only support option brotherhood has. Other then cartel. MIshima can take from tribes too.
in short: mishima has it made even without there dragons :)
BTW mishima is the army i play second most (2nd to brotherhood).
-
The Paras are the next... Has anyone of you got one unit healthy on the ground? For half the point cost they would be useful, because you get about 50% of your minis out living. Makes a whole squad for the same price..
what version of the rules are you playing with and how badly are you playin them?
I never have a problem with losing Paradeploy guys. At most I'll have two or three die , but that's only because i'm droppin them practically ontop of the enemy deployment zone. I mean they come in minus a couple actions, but other than that, they're fine.
=PFC joe
-
Hmm, don´t know what kind of table you have, but on our table ( pretty heavy with obstacles ) it´s very hard to find a spot to drop them.....
But with much of open ground I wouldn´t field them either. Then they´re in the open hoping to be on next turn first. OK, if you win the initiative it´s worth the vabanque game....
But somehow everytime I saw parachuters drop I saw them die nearly the same instant....
We only tested them two times to devastating effect.....
50 % losses of a squad of Airborne´s
70% losses of very big squad of Crimson devils....
-
....
are you going off board? I'm not seein how you're losing models on a paradeploy....
-(a confused) PFC joe
-
I often use para-deploy effectively. It's loads of fun. I like the system.
Sometimes we play with house rules though. Only to modify the distance from terrain, because sometimes we paly with so much terrain that no where would be eligible, not even your own deployment zone.
-
....
are you going off board? I'm not seein how you're losing models on a paradeploy....
-(a confused) PFC joe
If a model's deviation makes it land within a certain distance of a piece of terrian (2" IIRC) it is assumed to have been injured in the deployment and therefore takes wounds, which will kill the average paradeploy model. Since UWZ is best played on terrain dense tables it makes landing them difficult. Of course this is all from memory, when I get a chance to look at the book I will give you a page number and my further thoughts.
-
If you land on top of terrain you have to move the model to the nearest open ground within 3". It's only if you cannot find a landing spot within those 3" that you die.
Para rules are on page 77-78.
In a PBEM game vs Ruther I just dropped my Shoch Trooper Captain behind a bunch of Black Berets and Charles and Charlie-boy and 4 of his buddies.
Then Ruther dropped his Storm Trenchers behind some of my guys and killed one machinator and wounded another. After that I dropped my STs by the Storm Trenchers and got 2 of them under the trusty ole chem-sprayer.
-
I know the rule and I know the terrain, but what're you counting as killin terrain? rocks and shrubs and stuff shouldn't count and unless you're playing in an urban environment (where we just allow you to land on top of buildings as long as you're not near an edge) you really shouldn't be losing that many guys....
(you can just -walk- them onto the board if it's that heavy)
-PFC joe
-
I know the rule and I know the terrain, but what're you counting as killin terrain? rocks and shrubs and stuff shouldn't count and unless you're playing in an urban environment (where we just allow you to land on top of buildings as long as you're not near an edge) you really shouldn't be losing that many guys....
I know you know the rule, was referring to GSB.
I agree that minor terrain pieces shouldn't count and I too would let paras deploy on roof tops if they are open enough.
-
lol sorry sorry, i was just tryin to wrap my head around losing half your guys. I mean, statistically, yes, if you drop that template half off the board you will lose half your troops. but I deploy nine inches away from a squad and I still manage to never lose more than two guys ???
I'm gonna go load up my board and dump neronian legionarres all over it and see how bad they do.
-PFC joe
-
Well, as I'm still at the office and haven't been able to recheck my book, and I can't speak for Lopis but I must say, wow, I've been playing para very wrong. We took the book to mean if a model landed within 3 inches of a peice of terrain (Tree, rock, building, crashed vehicle, ect.) that the model had been lost, not simply moved to the nearest clear spot. We always thought this was absurd but in the interest of following the rules and out of laziness to playtest any replacement just played that way. So if you landed 2" away from a tree you were dead even though you weren't even actually on the tree, hence making it an abilty one could rarely take advantage of.
Thanks for helping me out here. I may have more questions once I reread that section after getting home from the office, but this severly changes my postion on the Blood Berets.
Ok home for lunch now, and yes page 77 is very clear and coil is absolutely correct, I don't know how I got it wrong in the first place, but this means we've been playing the ability wrong since UWZ first came out...Wow. One follow up "the template can be no closer than 2" of any terrain over 1" in height" is this measured from the center or the edge of the small explosion template?
-
Yes the terrain is the urban type. Call it an old and heavy-fighted upon industry park.
And that doesn´t mean theyre dead at once. But if I remember right if the paras hit an obstacle they drop prone without actions left. So they lie flat like a stranded turtle on their backs and thats as good as dead....
I hope I didn´t mix up the rules on paras...
BTW there comes another question to me about the paras.
At what time can they be deployed?
Ok I can call them in on my turn if I want to, that´s clear. BUT do I have to follow my order of activation, or can I just drop them after all other units have acted?
Meaning, do I have to follow my activations and have the last opportunity in my turn following the last already fielded unit?
I would say yes, but the other option would leave far more possibilities.
Any other opinions?
-
Usually my Prone guys spend an action and get up next turn.
They can be deployed whenever, you just can't stack them IE reserve all your paradeploy units until your opponent has activated everythign and then drop them, that's a no no.
-PFC joe
-
My prones never rise again :-[......
And for the activation. Thx for confirming, even if another opinion would have made paras again more likeable to me.
-
Lopis: When you are prone in that type of terrain (industry park/rocks, ruined buildings etc.). You are mostly out of LOS or get some negative RC modificators..... So its not that bad.
-
I would think likewise, but every time I´ve seen someone come ´round the corner and kick the butts or the little turtles.
Tactic was to jump in the back of the opponent.
Perhaps I should try to just drop them in reaching distance behind a wall where nobody can see them. Then take two turns to move into a better position..
-
BTW there comes another question to me about the paras.
At what time can they be deployed?
Ok I can call them in on my turn if I want to, that´s clear. BUT do I have to follow my order of activation, or can I just drop them after all other units have acted?
Meaning, do I have to follow my activations and have the last opportunity in my turn following the last already fielded unit?
I would say yes, but the other option would leave far more possibilities.
Any other opinions?
We had a thread on this very topic as I had the same question. Here is a response that made sense:
I think the answer is actually a very simple one, one that I have been following since I have played this game and "paradeploy" was a part of it.
If you pass at any time during a turn when it would be your normal time to activate a unit you have declared that you are done activating units for that turn. You cannot bring in any offboard units after you have passed regardless of how many activations your enemy has left.
Offboard units = para-deploys and unseen assailants. Keep in mind that, I don't think "pass" is even a game term, but I can't think of any other term to use to describe the process of NOT bringing in any offboard troops.
So to make another example:
Coil has 10 units
Wedge has 9 units (3 of which are paradeploy units)
Coil wins initiative and goes first
Play alternates until Coil activates 6 units and Wedge activates 6 units as well.
Wedge has activated all his on board units hoping to save his paradeploy units for the end of the turn
Coil activates his 7th unit on the table
Wedge is now forced to decide if he wants to bring in one of his paradeploy units or pass. If he passes he his done for the turn and cannot bring in any more units.
This is how I have interpretted the current rules.
However, having said ALL this... I think that this is HOW it could/should work:
Since we use deployment cards we can use them to fake out our enemy right? Well, in the game of Chronopia you can use DC's to make your enemy THINK you have stalkers, or units with outmaneuver... why can't you do the same thing in Warzone? What I mean is this: Keep a DC aside for each of your paradeploy units. When it comes your turn to activate one of them you can reveal the card and say, "I am activating this unit of paradeployers". If you do not want to activate them, you can simply place the card face down on the table somewhere and say, "This unit of paradeployer's is going to PASS this turn and not deploy". This way you can bluff your opponent if you DON'T have paradeploy units in your army (using a False Lead), or you can actually pass with a real unit and hold off on bringing them in. The balance is that the opponent of the person with the paradeploy units will not be out activated at the end of the turn. HE won't have to face someone bringing in multiple paradeploy units at the the end of the turn in succession. IMHO, this tactic simply is unbalanced; it isn't fair by any standard. Using the DC's the way I have described would be much more balanced.
Hope this helps
Here is the whole thread in case you are interested.
http://forum54.oli.us/index.php?topic=209.0
Philly