Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Talaminiatures => General Discussions => Topic started by: warzoneD on November 29, 2007, 09:27:55 PM
-
Just started using more vehicles in our UWZ games - How do you think the UWZ rules stack up agains t 1st or 2nd ed?
D
-
Warzone was never meant to be a vehicle heavy game like 40K, but they are very deadly when used correctlly. ;D
-
Yes - agreed Dragon but...
...JUST TO BE CLEAR FOLKS - and thnx for the warning from a certain Guardian angel on here --
- I am NOT so much talking about bringing in lots of new heavy vehicles, but am more interested in the discussing rules around the vehicles currently listed in the UWZ rulebook.
I'm curious about early edition rules like Drive by attacks, ramming, strafing and storming and even turning - etc. And to hear about everyone's varying experiences and the effect on gameplay (not just, "I like them" or "I hate them").
Thnx!
D
-
pritty much every vehicle has the MHMG..
this in combination with move+shoot / notmove++3bonus is very good.
the points of ~60-120 make it even sweeter (cost ~small grunt squad)
the best vehicles are therefore of course the 2 for 1 slot-versions..
=> vehicles are ok, a little strong perhaps, compared to troops, but then again limited
just a little monoton (just mhmg)
-
I like the vehicles that are in the game. I have used the Skimmer, Orcas, EDD, and a few others. As for the rules, they are to be expanded in a supplement. There will be rules for ramming. There will be clarifications (such as firing arcs, reverse movement, etc.)
Overall, I feel that vehicles are done right.
-
Quelle supplement, mon ami?
And when?
Cheers,
D
-
Quelle supplement, mon ami?
And when?
Cheers,
D
Unfortunately, I am not privvy to the timetable, only to the whispers (yeah, they are in my head). Seriously, I have been in on conversations with Thom concerning supplements. They are planned, anticipated, and will be, in all likelihood, released in PDF format.
-
After re-reading this thread, I wanted to make a few more comments.
Currently, the rules for vehicles feel a little incomplete, to me. Yes, the stats exist, and the weapons are all kinds of cool. Yes, it's cool to move and shoot. However, I feel that some key aspects were left out.
Firing arcs. This is a limiting factor. Vehicles are not, generally, supposed to have the 180º firing arc that non-vehicles, generally, have. Further this forces vehicles to have to manuever to get their shot. This brings me to antoher point.
Turning. I do not feel that this was done well. Currently, turning is not much of hindrance for vehicles. This is so true that on occasion, my opponents and I sometimes forget that vehicles even have to turn, and move them like troops! Many times I've caught my opponent sidestepping with his EDD, only to shrug it off as, "eh, so what." The truth of the matter is that vehicles are only entitled to one turn per AC. Combined with a 90º fire arc, this can severley limit a vehicles ability to get its weapon on target.
One last point. Reverse movement for vehicles. For some, it is almost moot, as their turn radius is such that it barely hinders them, so they wind up turning, moving normally, and turning again with no real face change.
If I were going to re-write vehicle movement, it would resemble the following:
Vehicle Turning
Vehicles are limited to one turn per AC. The turn, itself, may be performed at any point during the MV AC. The vehicle's chassis determines its turn radius, and terrain limitations as follows:
Bike (90°) - 1/2 MV through Rough Terrain, 1/2 MV through water no deeper than 1/4", cannot MV through Limiting Terrain, may Pivot by expending entire AC turning and not moving any distance.
Wheeled Small (90°) - 1/2 MV through Rough Terrain, 1/2 MV through water no deeper than 1/4", cannot MV through Limiting Terrain, may not Pivot.
Wheeled Large (45°) - 1/2 MV through Rough Terrain, 1/2 MV through water no deeper than 1/2", -1 MV through Limiting Terrain, may not Pivot.
Half-tracked (45°) - 3/4 MV (round to nearest 1/2") through Rough Terrain, 1/2 MV through water no deeper than 1/2", -1 MV through Limiting Terrain, may not Pivot.
Tracked (45º) - 3/4 MV (round to nearest 1/2") through Rough Terrain, 1/2 MV through water no deeper than 1, may Pivot by expending one AC turning and not moving any distance.
Skimmer (90º) - No terrain penalty, +1 MV if AC spent only on calm water or other perfectly smooth surface (snow, ice, asphalt, concrete, etc.), cannot MV through Limiting Terrain, may Pivot by expending one AC turning and not moving any distance.
Flyer (45°) - No MV penalties, cannot MV through Limiting Terrain that is at its current altitude, may Pivot by expending one AC turning and not moving any distance.
Walker (90°) - 1/2 MV through water, may step over anything less than 1/2 its SZ in inches (height and/or width), may Pivot by expending one AC turning and not moving any distance.
A vehicle that may Pivot may do so up to 180°. All vehicles may move up to 1/2 their MV in reverse, in addition to any other penalties. No vehcle may move through another vehicle, even if it is from the same squad. Vehicles must have a 1.5" gap in order to move between two friendly models or a friendly model and an obstacle, or to move between enemy models. At this time, there are no rules for ramming and/or overrunning.
-
I have also thought about lessening the turning ability of vehicles. They are supposed to be a bit clumsy after all. I also played with the thought of rotating turrets "turning" independent of the hull (mainly for tanks, of course).
I have a set of house rules made up for vehicles somewhere. The point was to NOT have special "vehicle rules", but to treat them as ordinary troops, and instead apply their special characteristics as Special abilities instead. Felt more stream lined.
*For example, one ability; "Crewed" represents the vehicle being able to make several actions during each action.
*"Manouverability" indicates how large turns the vehicle can make each action.
*"Limited line of sight" is pretty much what it sounds like
*"Ramming" allows the vehicle to Ram.
*"Flying"
*"Damage table" means that you roll on a table each time the vehicle loses a wound. The results vary from temporary loss of control to loss of crew points (that is actions)
*"Transport"
And similar. The good thing is that this system allow you to only give a vehicle the abilities it "should" have. The downside s that it becomes quite a lot of abilities to track down for advanced vehicles. I also haven't come up with abilities representing vehicle types such as Walkers, bikes, tracked and so on.
What do you think of this somwhat odd idea?
-
I think there's some poterntial there. The Vehicle SA idea is an interesting one provided you keep it simple and easy to follow.
E.g. Ramming - Should have a rating. Let's say 1-5 for example.
There should be a basic ramming rule that the ramming rating would add to. For example--
Light vehicles do Dam: 10
Med do Dam 12 (x2)
Heavy do Dam 14 (x3)
Add +1 Dam/move action taken +2 if vehicle did not turn. Ramming vehilce must make a save vs. half this dam as well.
Other abilities might include
Strafing - for Flyers
Combat Driving - Avoid template damage
Super Maneuverable - allows more turns
-
Let me preface my remarks by saying I am not a vehicle enthusiast. I think that they have a place in gaming but a skirmish level TTG is not it. Having said that, allow me to offer the following -
Instead of creating a series of Special Abilities for vehicles that would alter the overall cost and make for numerous versions of the vehicle the problem should be approached along the lines of Cybertronic's Enhancements.
Create a generic line of Vehicle Enhancements and assign each a point value. These can include Ablative Armor, Supercharged Engine, Handling Upgrades, etc ad nauseum. I wouldn't allow Ramming or Strafing on this list. These are tactics and manuvers and not enhancements to the vehicle or crew. However Combat Driving would be an acceptable enhancement and it could modify the strafing or ramming results due to extra training of the vehicle crew. The advantage of doing it this way is that does not effect the basic cost of the vehicle but allows for the upgrades to be added as points and personal preference allow.
As for calculating Ram Damage there is a rule set in my mind that took the comparative size into account of the ram and calculating damage. I don't remember if it was an older edition of Warzone or another Si-Fi system. It was a bit complicated but was realistic. Just a few things to think about. I now leave you to ponder the intricacies of Vehicles while I go give my Pewter Platoons some additional training with AV weapons :o ;D
-
As always Hal - your suggestions are sound, thought provoking, and smirk inducing.
D
-
Smirk Inducing? ???
I don't understand. I speak humbly without fanfare or challenge. I am much too polite to ever say something that could be considered snarky and much to shy to attempt to be humorous. My personal hero is Shoeshine Boy because he is humble and lovable. My battlecry is Bless you sir. (For those too young to remember he is the alter ego of Underdog)
-
Dude you gotta stop... You dont wanna be responsible for my heart attack from laughin so dayum hard!!!!! :o
-
Me thinks I have been called a fibber ;D
-
Topkick's suggestions are cool, but not really along the same lines as mine. I suggested the vehicle rules could be split up into "abilities", where, say, a tank could have Ram, Crew 5, Rotating turret, Manouverability 1, Weapon immunity 15 etc
While a Purple shark would have Fly, Crew 2, Manouverability 3 etc
I think it could simplify the vehicle handling in the system. You only have to look up the rules/SAs that the vehicles you field actually have.
Regarding Ramming, I don't think there has to be a ranking of it, since the damage etc could be worked out using Size, AV, Speed etc.