1st edition - Odd things

[Oakwolf]

Hello,

Just wanted to post what we've found as "odd" in the 1st edition. Mind you, there's a -lot- of weird rules and stuff in the 1st edition, but some things come out as downright strange and i just wanted to expose our little list in case someone would find it useful.

1. Blood berets' armor value. We've tested them countless time and adjusted their armor value to 26 for regular troopers. It seemed logical since there's no reason for sergeants to get a better value (they're equipped with the same armor, fluff wise), and extremely few human troops have that d  We applied the same for other clans special force (Shamrocks have 24), it seems to put back the elite into Imperial's special forces, which tended to die screaming to any Kratach shot.

2. Capitol heavy infantry cost. These troops either smuggled their armor through the black market, or there was a typo in their value. Since they're supposed to be heavy infantry, we decided it was the latter case and increased their cost to 18. It's difficult to pin point the exact cost, but we definitely don't agree on 16.

3. Cybertronic P1000. It seems to belong more in the 6-7point range than 4. We've settled for 7.

[Raga]

Why does Hussar Sergeant is more expensive then Trencher Sergeant?
Why does Hussar Captain is only 4 points cheaper then Trencher Captain? There should be difference at least 10 points (1 action and wound)?
Why does every army has cost between troopers and sergeants equal to difference between stats (1 point per cc, mw and LD), and only Imperial has cheaper sergenats?
There is no point in answering these questions and just comparing stats is useless. Example below:

Barking Spyders: Q: I was looking through CoW and saw that Barking Spyders did Not have to buy their equipment because it was already figured into their point cost. I looked at their cost and their equipment and it didn't add up. A type II grenade launcher casts 10 points, a gas Mask 2 points, Punisher Blade 3 points, Frag Grenades 4 points, and Gas grenades (I 'm assuming their like Mortar shells, but with a bigger radius) 4points. Add these together and you get 23 points. Barking Spyders cost 27 points. So a soldier that doesn't panic costs 4 points! There has to be a misprint here right?

A: When doing troop designs the strict cost of the equipment and abilities are not the only consideration. Some troops (such as the Barking Spyders) have their costs calculated with consideration of limitations in their flexibility (no heavy weapon, no choices in how they are otherwise outfitted, etc.) Therefore the cost of the troop comes out cheaper as a package deal. CoW pg. 31

Barking Spyders: Errata: Under the Special Rules sections Barking Spyders are referred to as "Arachna Souls". It should say "Barking Spyders". CoW pg. 31

Besides statistics there are some other conditions to be taken under consideration.

[Raga]

As always I have second thoughts about your posts.

Ad1. Fluff only - I couldn't find any information in Warzone books, but there is something in na Mutant Chronicles RPG about Imperial Military.
Officers are veteran and respected warriors and 'best of the best' so they can outfit themselves with better equipment (Combat Armor MK2) or assume that Sergeants and Captains have Tough special ability.
I don't see the reason to increase the Armor of grunts especially Shamrocks.
Shamrock (22 Armor) hit by a Kratach (12 Dam) has 25% to get the wound - as if he had an 27 Armor
Shamrock (22 Armor) hit by a weapon with 20 Dam has 45% to get the wound - even units with 30 Armor have only 50%
Can you explain to me why do you increase their armor?

Ad2. and Ad3. The example with Barking Spyders show why the cost should be not changed (If you change one there will always be reason to change another). The same applies to stats. If You change Imperial the same should apply to Shock Troopers, Desert Scorpions, Barking Spyders, Ashigaru and Blitzers. Be careful not to get to dead end.

We modified global rules a couple of times, and each time we started from basic rules (the modifications went to far). The same will happen to you.

[Oakwolf]

Yeah we can argue around the troopers and their point costs or stats for years, I suppose we are cursed to never agree. As a side note, we certainly didn't go back after using the modified rules we have = for us it makes the game feel better so why should we? The fact we play smaller games makes those little things more important, i guess, and remember we play a completely different way, with different goals and army compositions.

With our house rules (including a reduction of aiming's effectiveness, and a bonus to Blood Beret grunt armor), my legionnaires frequently face them and the fight is very bloody. Every failed armor roll by a Beret squad cripples them, and they can panic too (even though it doesn't make them free kills like most troops, it eats their actions away).

Initially, it came as an observation that Imperial special forces (the beret variants) seemed to consistently perform less than expected in every game they were fielded. That was especially true of the Blood Berets, the signature elite unit of Imperial. It immediately pointed to their average armor value.

As for Shamrocks, we specifically tested that unit due to the Lucky Fate, to see if it had the same issues. They have the general effect of Ilian Templars, which we didn't see as correct for the cost involved. It doesn't help for the fact that regeneration -is- extremely powerful (as you've illustrated), but that's another rule completely. 

-----------

On weapons.

Something i believe you will agree on is the weapon costs, because apart from a few exceptions, their point value are the only factor to balance them. You can see how certain characteristics lead to a generic value...and that's across the whole game (not affected by factions, who can carry them and how many). That's how a "General" armory can be introduced without breaking corporate armies, basically.

But this is also how one end up paying 39 for a charger...no matter if a 11MW, 3AC gets it or a 16MW, 4AC + targeter, etc. If they had considered anything else than stats (army composition, etc), this obvious flaw wouldn't have sneaked through.  It is, imho, the main factor of imbalance in the 1st edition.

There's no reason given for Cybertronic's sidearm to be sold at a rebate. The p1000 clearly belongs to the Retributor/Punisher family in terms of effectiveness, so we just rectified that.

----

Barking spyders were obviously evaluated in a gaming situation, rather than following formulas...and they likely found out that keeping the normal costing formulas for their weapons would screw the unit over. Perhaps they should have done that with all squads, and leave the formulas for individuals.

[Raga]

Well let's skip once for all subject of rules.

I noticed something and I wonder if you agree with me.
- reducing range of LMGs, HMGs and sniper rifles would make 1st edition more balanced
- my proposition is to set range of heavy weapons near range of assault rifles, and sniper riflas at range 12 inches longer

Look at Mishimian Kensai, MG40 and M606 and their costs 16, 24, 24 and ranges.
I think that every LMG range can be raduced by half and their cost by 1/3.

The same should be done to HMGs and Sniper Rifles. The cost of heavy weapons would be lower so the unbalance you mentioned would be less.

[Oakwolf]

That would definitely be worth a test. Since it would affect all heavy weapons.

Either:

a) reduce the range (thereby giving that RM a use) of heavy weapons.

Issues/Exceptions to watch for:
The Nazgaroth
The Kensai LMG has quite a short range already.
The Dragoon Kampfkanone: The dragoons's most valuable assest is their range, more precisely;  they don't get the RM against most basic troopers.

There might be a problem with armies fielding high movement close combat monsters, which typically require heavy weapons to counter. That being said, corporations with high range rather than high damage, such as cybertronic, will see their effectiveness increase (as game tables are usually too small for that advantage to show).

b) apply a cost increase to factor in the MW and AC of the bearer. That's what i'd like to do in the long term.

[Raga]

I'm glad that we came to "cease fire" agreememt :]

a)
The nazgaroth could have range of 40 (the longest range of HMGs - (SSW4200P+5 inches)/2) and 36 cost
Kensai is already a the range of Assault Rifles so it would be left unchanged
Dragoon Kampfkanone is LMG without burst capability so wolud look like: 10 24 -3 13(x2) 12

You are right about close combat but you have already solved that problem with 3 action limit.
Even without your limitation 25 inches is a distance long enough to take close combat creature down.

About SSW4200P - 36 75 -4 15(x3) 45
My proposal is: 18 36 -4 15(x3) 30 or 12 25 -4 15(x3) 25 - to prevent range abuses

b)
Modification above is a drastic one (I would resist until I was forced to implement it).
So another solution is that the weapon cost cannot exceed cost of the trooper.
Example: Hussar switches his standard armament to heavy weapon:
Hussar - 10 cost
MP-105 - 1 cost
MG-80- 42 cost reduced to 10 (cost of a Hussar)

So final cost of hussar with HMG is 21.
You could ask what if he chooses LMG? The cost would be the same (LMG cost reduced to 10), but other rules will balance it:
- both of the weapons are not effective - still have to be braced (1 action less)
- if you use bipod/tripod the equipment itself reduces effectiveness (setting up tearing down takes 1 or 2 actions)
- if you buy very strong for a hussar it increases the trooper cost, so cost of the weapon would be increased too, but hussar must still brace HMG and is strong enough to operate LMG effectively (player choice)
- heroic abilities and special eq increases cost of a Trooper, so it also increases cost limit for weapons (The most Important!)

Overview within Imperial for example:
Regular with very strong armed with Aggressor and Destroyer: (11 + 2) + 1 + 13 = 27 (best option)
Regular armed with Aggresor and Charger: 11 + 1 + 11 = 23 (cheaper but much less effective than trooper above)
Regular armed with Aggresor and Charger with tripod: 11 + 1 + 11 + 2 = 25 (more effective but with almost zero mobility)
Regular Captain with very strong armed with Chainripper and Charger: 30 + 2 + 4 + 30 =  66
ISC Agent with Chainripper and Charger: 40 + 4 + 39 = 83 (with Deathlockdrum is only 1 point more expensive but it is the only one model per force - not big deal)
Shamrock Captain armed with Claymore and Deathlockdrum: 47 + 4 + 47 = 98

c)
The heavy weapons stats could be left alone and implement one additional rule.
Make the possibility to retrieve heavy weapon from a dead member within a squad (1 action to rearm)
Just like medic but the action would "kill" the mortally wounded operator.
This rule would only apply for grunts within a squad and would not affect sergeants and individual models.

Summary:
a) I don't like this solution - to much work, and a lot of possibilities for unwanted exceptions
b) the best for me - other rules would balance unbalanced weapons
c) this only fixes high heavy weapon cost and gives nothing more (can be combined with (a) but still does not fit for me)

[Oakwolf]

We're definitely into the "stinky" part of the 1st edition. I think we agree that Heavy weapons and repetitive action limits is the place to work the knife.

Note: we don't use heroic abilities or special equipment unless noted here, so heavy weapon trooper will never get "very strong" in our games.

2nd Note: aiming is not allowed with a heavy weapon in our games (it is also less potent for all other weapons).

Halving heavy weapon ranges

I ran some tests yesterday by simply halving the range of heavy weapons, to a minimum of 10 inches for SR and  20 inches for LR. I've left costs as per the rulebook for now.

The result is interesting (and actually fun, as range becomes a tactical factor), but it becomes apparent that some corporate heavy weapons will be discarded in favor of the General Armory list.  The case of Cybertronic is also interesting, because right now they pay for their useless range (75inch table?), but by cutting all heavy weapon ranges in half, they definitely see a difference for it. Imperial Chargers also find themselves more in line of what they should be.

Issues that came up:

The Nazgaroth range should be around 36-40, as you suggested, but it still dominates the battlefield for two reasons: bearers are always individuals, and almost invariably very resilient. A similar tactic can be done by "Death Egg" equivalents.

The Dragoon Kampfkanone looses its appeal, as far as troopers are concerned.

Bottom line

In conjunction with the "rule of 3 actions", halving heavy weapon ranges does help to make the gameplay more dynamic, but it does not solve the cost issue. In other words, by doing this, we'd still be encouraged to put the heavy weapons on characters rather than troopers.

Reducing costs of heavy weapons for troopers.

The example you've given is a good start to give squads a bit more shine, but putting a maximum cost based on the model value will encourage to take nimrods or headbutts, since the cost will be the same.  Other than that, while it does promote squads with heavy weapons, the side effect of it is that the games end up with just "more big guns" than before (since characters basically stay the same).

While heavy weapons are not particularily effective on a typical trooper, the damage potential remains. That potential is directly affected by the MW and AC of the handler. To me, it feels like an overhaul on weapon costs would be necessary down the line. All point costs should have been done including weapons, and same goes with the unit's options specifically for each unit, a bit like Barking Spyders were made.

But that would lead to a far more radical change of the game system...to be continued.

[Raga]

I have not introduced last idea (reducing costs) to my friends yet and I think the reactions will vary.

We let the specialists have abilities (ie. very strong) because we didn't find logical rule to cripple individuals with HMGs so we went the other way - we upgraded grunts (There is usually one or two bulky ones to carry a HMG in a squad) to counter them.
Your 3 actions rule is maybe effective but is not logical enough so would not fit for us.

The weird thing is that we always thought that playing with heroic abilities and special eq is better. I will try to explain why.
If you can have very strong on a grunt what will you choose? LMG or HMG (depends on STR you start with) or maybe Nimrod and brace each round? Without additional abilities Nimrod would always be better.

We have been playing 1st edition for a couple of years and as I recall the Nimrod was only once on the battlefield (Mishimian Demonhunter) and we never used any of the Anti Tank weapons (not even AP ammunition). I cannot say why, I think we all assumed it wrong for Warzone climate (without any rule).

If you are afraid of Nimrod or Headbutt abuse, just forbid their use.

When we implement the rule with cheaper HMG grunts this will only give us space for additional models (It would mean second Great Gray for me ) not better weapons.

[Raga]

The Cheaper HMGs for Grunts Rule have failed!

The Nimrod bullets hailed over the battlefield...
Every modification mentioned before didn't work:
- modification of ranges and costs - cannot make an agreement
- cheaper HMGs - testing failed
- retrieving heavy weapons fromm fallen comrades - not practical

We leave heavy weapons as they are and restrict spotting even more so the long ranges would be much shortened:
- abilities and equipment do not stack
- subsequent spotting does not give +4 to spot
- every 12 inches gives -4 to spot
- perfect success does not affect spotting

effect:
- spotting model at range over 24 inches with cover and stealth gives -16 to spot
- it allows and even forces troops to get really close - we even had some close combat

[dmcgee1]

I continue to see a lot of discussion regarding ranges of weapons and thoughts of reducing the ranges to make them "balanced."

I then condsider that most of these posts and queries are coming from European players, and I have to consider the amount of terrain and obstacles that are in play during a game.

To me, this is a skirmish game, and is not meant to be played on wide, open tables with very little impeding terrain.  Rather, it is meant to be played in very dense terrain along with environmental rules, too.  Most of the games that we (Northeastern USA) play involved more terrain and environmental rules than any other game I've ever played.  This forces one to find firing lanes, use cover, and gives CC troops an incredibly fair shot at recovering their points.  It is, also, a lot of fun when the dice rolls indicate that something bad had happened!

I have to ask, how much terrain is being used, and are environmental rules being used in the games that you play?

I should add that, with very few exceptions, we have never had any meaningful "balance" issues (other than "cheesy" min-maxing, etc.).

[Raga]

You have a piont, but there are only few enviromental  rules in 1st edition.
Not every combat takes place at night or in Venusian Jungle or Urban Discticts. (It could but it would be boring)
We usualy play with some forests, lakes and scattered heavy covers.
But what about Martian enviroment - Plain desert with trenches and rocks?
I am aware that 1st edition is for skirmishes, but we would like to make it good for large battles too.

I hope I answered your question.

[Oakwolf]

Terrain does help a huge lot in 1st edition, especially when it comes to troop survivability. That said it won't prevent some units (namely individuals) to completely outperform the rest of the army. Bottom line is that individuals benefit just as much from cover (and are less affected negatively by it, given their high skills); they can often bottleneck numbers.

The most common solution to this (and everything in 1st ed) is to field bigger and better individuals, resulting in a power creep between the players. I fortunately don't really have the issue in my games, as we've gone through serious mods, but it was there in the "public" campaign we played (years ago, of course).

An easy illustration to represent the issue that cannot be alleviated by cover goes with Nepharites of Algeroth tying your line on the first round. They'll wipe any and all normal troops that come close, and if there's alot of cover, there's little chance of having enough firepower in LOS to slow them down. The solution? super characters to block the bugger.  It essentially goes on until you have minimal size squads whose purpose is simply to include the big bads.

[Raga]

Oakwolf:
Please find my solution for the first round:

- All units in Deployment Zone start game hidden, models that cannot hide, lose hidden status when activated for a first time

[Oakwolf]

That should work and prevent those kamikaze roadrunners. Unit cards seems to have provided a similar effect in UWZ and chronopia (although those two rulesets do not have the bulldozers we must contend with).

of course, limiting to 3 identical actions prevent this completely (but not everyone goes with that house rule)