Author Topic: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -  (Read 14522 times)

Offline Archer

  • Board Member
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
  • Karma: +64/-2
  • Warzone General extrodinare based in Reading, PA
Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #30 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. :) )
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: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #31 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).
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 Archer

  • Board Member
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
  • Karma: +64/-2
  • Warzone General extrodinare based in Reading, PA
Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #32 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!
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: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #33 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.
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 Archer

  • Board Member
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 1676
  • Karma: +64/-2
  • Warzone General extrodinare based in Reading, PA
Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2010, 05:33:09 PM »
Ah- in reading the example in the book, I mis-read the example. :p  Thanks!
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 shantaram

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #35 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.  


« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 09:56:02 AM by shantaram »
Imperial - Space Pirates

Offline micmellon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #36 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.
 
It's just a flesh wound - Black Night

Offline shantaram

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #37 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
Imperial - Space Pirates

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: UWZ - ranged weapons in cc -
« Reply #38 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
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!