Author Topic: Rebalancing 1st edition  (Read 10018 times)

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
« Reply #45 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.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 06:25:29 AM by dmcgee1 »
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Oakwolf

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Karma: +4/-1
Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
« Reply #46 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.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 07:42:02 AM by Oakwolf »

Offline Raga

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +2/-2
Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
« Reply #47 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. :)
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 09:36:36 AM by Raga »
Let us drink to the power drink to the sound
Thunder and metal are shaking the ground
Drink to your brothers who are never to fall
We're brothers of metal here in the hall

Offline Archer

  • Board Member
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
  • Karma: +64/-2
  • Warzone General extrodinare based in Reading, PA
Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
« Reply #48 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. :)
John "Archer" Tinney

"Ready?"
"Why do your people always ask if someone is ready, just before you do something massively unwise?"
"Tradition."

- Jeffrey Sinclair and Delenn, Babylon 5: "War Without End, Part One" y

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
« Reply #49 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.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Horned Owl

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +15/-0
  • Hoot!
Re: Rebalancing 1st edition
« Reply #50 on: March 29, 2011, 06:15:24 AM »
(doomtroopers vs dark legion is, after all, the root of the rpg).

@Oakwolf: Probably Iīm 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 ordersī agendas, corporate espionage, film noir private eye investigations (as suggested in McBrideīs log in the Freelancerīs 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 donīt 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.
"How was I supposed to know he was an unarmed man? His back was to me."