1st edition - Odd things

[Inquisitor]

One thought I have is regarding the nature of the game. I've always considered Warzone1st Ed. to be more a theatrical game than an exercise in battlefield strategy. I keep the idea of some kind of action or war movie as a reference to the game-play. The idea comes to mind that the game is best played keeping in mind the fluff of the story when writing up your forces. I've never understood the justification in having Brotherhood Keepers be equipped with subdermal armor, cyber arms and a Nimrod Autocannon.  In our games we disallowed Heroic Abilities and also equipping squads differently than the standard load-outs( both legal options in the rules).
My opinion?  Keep to the fluff and all should be fine.  :-)

[Raga]

You are 100% right. But keep in mind that not everybody thinks what way.
My Brotherhood army never had a Heavy weapon on Individual Models. The only heavy weapons were Eruptors on Elite Trooper Specialists. I stopped playing Brotherhood when I realised how stong it can be.
(The most devastating squad in Brotherhood army is Walkyries who just tear models to pieces with Art - Pain, have 30 armor and heal themselves every turn.)
I stopped playing Legion because rolling over the enemy is no fun.
For now I have sticked to Capitol and I love to play with lots of Infantry led by Mitch Hunter. (Killing him practically ends the battle).

I will never forget an epic battle when Alakhai had cast Time Death and charged my Friend's last Blitzer squad and rolled 20 on a first attack. Blitzers swarmed Alakhai in melee with panzerknackers and on the next turn (won by The Time Has Come) they clubbed him to death.

I want such situations usually possible and not hiding behind hard cover at range of HMGs.

[Oakwolf]

I think that, since you understood how strong they can be, you should be the one playing the brotherhood. That way you ensure it'll be fun for everyone, including yourself.

That's the reason i kept playing the Dark Legion. Many DL armies i have seen made me cringe...so i prefered to play it instead, making sure it wouldn't go down carnival street.

[Raga]

We usually play with aremies we own.
I have Brotherhood, Dark Legion and Capitol (in order of acquiring them)
Other players have Imperial, Bauhaus and Mishima so there will not be Brotherhood/Legion abuse.

[brynolf]

The reason the Blood berets had average armour in 1st ed was probably because they had average armour in the Doom trooper card game. They had high stats, but only armour 3 (which was considered standard). Probably just for balancing issues. In the old RPG they had armour 8, which should be considered good (there were better armour around, but AV8 stopped most incoming damage). Fluffwise they should have like 26, and balancewise also.

[Oakwolf]

Agreed, all the last games we played in the first edition had blood berets with 26 armor. It helped them to perform as they costed.

[Raga]

Brynolf and Oakwolf:

Everybody is free to make his/her homerules and modify troop stats, but don't say that increasing Blood Berets armor is fluffwise.

Imperial - The Clans of Damnation Page 67
ARMOR
There are three different types of armor currently in use of Imperial forces (Mk.I II and III), plus many soldiers stationed in warmer climes wear a protective trenchcoat as well. Each of these are desribed below. Higher ranking officers like to mix and match between the different types to suit their personal tastes, so it's not too unusual to see, for example, a Highlander captain in only partial suit of Mk.I or a Golden Lion staff sergeant in a MK.II suit with MK.I shoulder pads.

The standard fluffwise armor of Imperial Special forces is 24, and MK.II armor is rarely seen.

[brynolf]

(Not that I really care, since I play with Stargrunt rules, but...)

I don't see how that quote supports your claim in any way. Are you saying that Blood berets are supposed to wear Mk.I armour? That's what regulars and trenchers wear.

Sure, it is not a typo, because most of the other clan's special forces are given an AV of 24 in Compendium 2. But I don't see any logic or fluff in that either.

The Mk.III is "worn exclusively by (...) special forces soldiers" (Imp. P67). Armour 8 in the RPG most often translates to a warzone stat of 26 (E.g. Venusian rangers probably wear Guardsman MkIII, Bauhaus P72).

[Oakwolf]

Also in the Mutant Chronicles rpg book you can actually see an image of all 3 armor types.

The Mk I is trencher and commando armor (basically)

The Mk II looks like what the Golden Lions were modelled with. (flat shoulder plates). This is what the blood berrets should have been given, and the new models reflected this.

The Mk III looks like what the original blood berret miniatures, or special forces, have ( round molded shoulder plate).

So yeah, Raga, It's not like I am imposing it on anyone else, but after over 10 games testing the the 26 armor, i can safely say that it fits the point costs for the Blood berrets and the fluff very well.

[Raga]

Yeah, now I know that my example was like a shot at my foot.

You are right. In Beasts of War (bottom of page 38) there is a sentence that most of Imperial special forces wear MK III armor.

But:
I also compared carefully units with jungle training: Sea Lions, Venusian Rangers and Blood Berets

Fluffwise, the Venusian Rangers should be the best jungle warriors in the Warzone (cause it is their native enviroment).

Just Compare cost of equipped Venusian Ranger and Blood Beret (30 and 31) they have the same armor rolls (12 or less if they attack each other) Blood berets are 1 point more expensive because they have MW 1 point greater.

Increasing armor of Blood Berets makes them superior to Venusian Rangers and it is not fluffwise neither balancewise in my opinion.

Sea Lions on the other hand are cheaper but they have 5% less (weapon / armor ratio) chances to survive ancouter with units above.

[Oakwolf]

Well, weirdly enough, it's while comparing the rangers vs blood berrets that i came to that solution.

In the first edition, profiles/skills are not paid including weapons, so the point cost difference of 1 pt is not due to the MW difference, but rather because of the invader costing 8 vs the panzerknacker's 7.

The weapons have (sadly) been costed in a complete vacuum, regardless of the bearers's MW.

Blood berrets get -1 CC, +1MW, +1LD, -1 ST, -2 A compared to a venusian ranger

Both have jungle training, and the Ranger have "reliability" while Berrets have "to the last warrior". The rangers are more versatile, while berrets pack more punch in a shoot-out.  Both squads suffer a bit from an off-topic sergeant.

As you can see, the stats themselves balance out rather well except he -2A characteristic.  While one could say that there's little point in having +1 CC and +1 ST, i ought to remind you that in a jungle table , lines of sight are invariably bad and CC is bound to come around. The rangers fare better in CC than blood berrets for sure. The little 1 point of difference in ST allows rangers to parry up to ST of 3, increasing survivability vs individuals and cc elites (and encourage you to put bayonets). Jungle tables might be the only place where the shotgun of the ranger sergeant might see use.

Having 26 A doesn't make the blood berret a better jungle fighter, it simply makes the trooper a worthwhile elite soldier.

At least that's my point of view. It doesn't mean it's the end all of the analysis but it made us switch to 26 A for blood beret troopers and so far no one (including me) has any problem when fighting the more resilient version.

[Ulthir]

For me a high armour has nothing to do with an Elite unit, especially if you're fighting in Jungle. Thick Armour would just slow you down like Hell.

Back to game  terms:

You forget that the Berets can take a heavy weapon, the rangers can't (ok if they take a kapitan but Berets have the same option). Thats why they get a little bit less for ther pionts.

Crap, just saw that they had written the piont with the heavy weapon in the strucutres and not in the equipment part, sorry my fault. >_>

[Raga]

I must disagree with you.
Do you remember the example I gave with Barking Spyders (soldier that does not panic cost 4)? There are more examples.
Cost of the first edition troopers WAS affected by their weapons, structure, statistics, abilities etc.
I only suspect that rulebook troopers were not affected by corporate abilities.
Blood Beret specialist can have the best LMG, rocket launcher and chapest HMG in the game (and I believe it was included in cost)
Another example: compare cost of shotguns Capitol/Bauhaus, Imperial and Cybertronic (same template, same damage and different cost)
Stats alone are not the factor that affect the cost of a trooper.

I must confess that I forgot how to play using basic (unmodified) rules with that crappy parry.
(we allow all models to parry any close combat attack and penalty to parry for the weaker model is difference in strength)
But remember that Aimed shot of a Sea Lion has more chances to inflict wound than a charge + a close combat attack with punisher sword (parriable). So only close combat attacks that cannot be paried are more effective (Personalities and Legion).

I personally think that armor difference between troopers and their sergeants is weird (as it only occurs in Imperial and no other Corporation) and I understand your reasons, but I only want to suggest (my reasons above) that you should also improve Rangers somehow (Fluffwise).

I have same type problem with Bauhaus Blitzers.
I cannot understand their stats (expecially cost) and abilities.
15 CC, 12 RC, close combat training, Hellblazer and Panzerknacker - can you give me your opinion?
We really do not know what to do with them and we cannot leave them as they are - very expensive junk.

[Oakwolf]

Raga, in 1st edition, there's no possible way that the initial book troopers/individuals were balanced with their weapon in mind.

Look at the weapons across the book, you'll quickly note that they all share an obviously similar cost formula, no matter who actually wields it. Almost every individual can pick whatever he wants...so it's impossible to know what the player will pick.

Doing that lead to the 1st edition imbalance issue, but it also allowed them to provide "general" equipment that anyone could get (aka general armory). The shotguns, as you mention, are just plain exceptions with +1 -1 points from one faction to the other...there's no particular reason to it other than a design making shotguns more attractive for a faction than the other.

From my observation, the profiles were balanced/costed solely on their stats and special rules.

It's only by the expansions that they realized their mistake and that is why the latter books show troops with their own weapons and special equipment included in their cost. You brought the perfect example with the barking spiders.

Anyway, we've moved to UWZ after all this debate so to me this is moot now.

Blitzers carry the "Beast of War curse" in that their point cost was completely ridiculous with the single exception that they were made to pop a vehicle upon arrival. If your opponent likes to park a vehicle and shoot...he will -not- like the blitzers. It's almost an instant kill if you wait for the vehicle to stop.

[Raga]

I still don't get it.
Why do the ordinary trooper cost 40?
Parashuting - costs around 2 points (capitol infantry cost 12, airborne rangers - 17 and 3 is the difference in stats - 2 LD and 1 STR)
Close combat training - 2 points
Increased coherency - 6 points (calculated from AI Enhancements)
Demo charge cost 15 and is sigle use - I assume that Demo charge based abilities are included in this device cost.

I could understand if Blitzer cost was around 28-30... but 40?

But what about stats themselves?
- High Close combat and crappy MW (their abilities need LD roll and no single CC roll)
- no close combat weapon and close combat training
- maybe removing close combat training and switching CC with MW, they seem okay, but is not fluffwise
- maybe switching smg to chainrippers/punishers...
The possibilities vary and I don't know the direction.