VULKANS - UNDERCOSTED? ...

[Dr. Nick]

well, basically everything is said... it depends on the terrain-density

if the vulcas can use their LR Mhmg well, then thy will be very much worth their points!

if they need to engage in MR, they will suffer/be in attack range of "mundane" weapons (eg not the MOUTNTEDhmg ).. esp. if the meatshild is not so thick.. in dense terain, an 8 model unit will take some space.. and if they are totally dense.. there are placed templates..

however: a 5+sgt+2hmg assault marienes (240P) will be simmilar to 5 vulcans with some eqip

15 A vs. 24 A, but less armour, wounds and weapons => vulcans are not totally out of ballance but they are an exelent buy!!

[Heretyk]

It was never my intention to compare the VAoD to anything!

I am saying that Vulkans aren't all that bad, and are not in need of fixing.  Perhaps, some gentlemen's rules need to be observed - call it a "Cheese Rule."  If a player wishes to field Vulkans, he should, then, not be allowed to take another squad of Vulkans without, first, having another Elite Unit (or, possibly, two Grunt Units) in his/her army.  Perhaps, make them a support option that may take Elite loadouts.

Then maybe you should compare the VAoD to some other roster? All legal forces cost some PCs, so they should be comparable. If not on a single unit level, then at least on army roster level.

Maybe some insights on polish tournament rules creation process will cast some light on matters. The first UWZ tournament was played according to rulebook (no rule was changed, we used the latest FAQ and obeyed all answers from the old message boards we could find). The outcome was a disaster. People brought (for 1200 PC armies) 4 full squads of Praetorian Stalkers, 4 squads of Shadow (Nagano) Walkers, 4 squads of Ronin Light Battlewalkers, etc. We had to enforce two rules (to make the rosters more diversified):
-You can have up to 2 elite squads of the same kind
-You can have up to 2 support squads of the same kind

Thinking that this would end creation of more tournament rules, we held the second tournament. Only two "cheesy" roster survived those changes. One of them was Bauhaus, with 2 squads of Vulkans (and optionally 2 additional squads of Viktors as support), while the other one was Algeroth roster, with maximal number of spell caster allowed (I think the number was 5, when you're not counting Centurions), making mayhem with the Apocalypse dark symmetry gift. The second problem was rather easy to solve - we changed the gift's template size to small.

As for Vulkans, we made a poll on polish warzone forums, for people (playing Bauhaus and non-Bauhaus factions) to chose the needed limitations. 53 players voted, and the result were (detailed limitations / votes / % of votes):
-change the MHMG to MG-80 HMG / 25 votes / 47%
-add 15 PCs to each Vulkan model / 12 votes / 22%
-limit them to 6 models per roster / 5 votes / 9%
-add 10 PCs to each Vulkan model / 4 votes / 7%
-change weapon to some other weapon (not MG-80) / 4 votes / 7%
-limit them to 3 models per roster / 2 votes / 3%
-remove LR weapons range / 1 vote / 1%
As players decided, we enforced the limitation supported by the highest number of players. (and yes, I know that % of votes doesn't add up to 100% - blame phpBB authors for poor math, as I am just copying those numbers from polish forum)

well, basically everything is said... it depends on the terrain-density

if the vulcas can use their LR Mhmg well, then thy will be very much worth their points!

if they need to engage in MR, they will suffer/be in attack range of "mundane" weapons (eg not the MOUTNTEDhmg ).. esp. if the meatshild is not so thick.. in dense terain, an 8 model unit will take some space.. and if they are totally dense.. there are placed templates..

however: a 5+sgt+2hmg assault marienes (240P) will be simmilar to 5 vulcans with some eqip

15 A vs. 24 A, but less armour, wounds and weapons => vulcans are not totally out of ballance but they are an exelent buy!!

As I know at least some inner workings of the point cost formula, I tend to agree. Vulkans price is correct. And this is scary, because the flaw lies in the formula itself. To this very day I ask myself why no other army has elite squads equipped with MHMGs?

Vulkans are cheap because they don't suffer from "overloaded with special abilities" syndrome. This can be observed well in Pathfinders statistics (p.270). A elite model with 1 WD and 18 AR cost 57 PCs. The same as Viktors (2 WDs at 23 AR). At first glance you may not see where the error is, but a closer inspection (with some cost figured out) reveals that those special abilities cost a lot of PCs. And Pathfinders don't need the third weapon, as two of them (Aggressor Sidearm and Iron Bolas) work almost at the same ranges. In the end you get a Grenade Launcher with wonderful special abilities, paper armor, that costs 57 PCs. So we got a good shooting unit up to MR range, with high AR, two WD and a Grenade Launcher, with excellent abilities, hindered with low AR, and only one WD. I personally don't know any player who would choose Pathfinders over Viktors, on any kind of table (including a dense one, like Dmcgee1 showed). Something isn’t right here, and it appears to be cost of those special abilities. This is not the only model suffering from the "overloaded with special abilities" syndrome, but it’s one of the worst cases of this disease.

And there is one more thing that makes Vulkans so attractive in the realm of unit costs - MHMG cost few points more than HMG, and is a lot cheaper (two digit cost difference) then Mounted Autocannons. This anomaly is not supported by the change in weapon effectiveness. It's the other way around. MHMGs are better than Mounted Autocannons, and are far superior than HMGs (compare them yourself, if you don't believe me). If you combine those two unrelated flaws in the point cost formula, you are mixing ingredients for a super cheesy unit.

Maybe this was done deliberately, maybe this was an accident in unit creation - I really don't know. I'm not willing to judge anybody. I just analyze unit costs, and from time to time I need to stop, go outside, and try not to think why some flaws in this formula were introduced in first place...

[PFC joe]

It's not so much a cost problem as an availabilty problem.  The MHMG should just not be available outside of a Support level and most certainly not in three or four units per squad.  It's not a rubric fault but a force design fault.  (though the MHMG's are disproportionaly cheap for their destructive potential)

As far as I can tell, the MAC's had a slightly different set of features that was changed before publication, but the price stayed the same.  Think along the lines of the Nazgorath.

-PFC joe

[Heretyk]

It's not so much a cost problem as an availabilty problem.  The MHMG should just not be available outside of a Support level and most certainly not in three or four units per squad.  It's not a rubric fault but a force design fault.  (though the MHMG's are disproportionaly cheap for their destructive potential)

I think you are right to some degree. MHMGs should be limited to support units only (being the most powerful weapons in the book). But there is one more fundamental question to ask - why is MHMG cost so biased? Moving those weapons to support would only mask the problem. MHMGs would still be a lot cheaper than MAC's. As those weapons exist mainly in support, support squads are now broken into to groups: group A equipped with MHMGs, and group B not equipped with MHMGs. Some units will still be cheaper, but the difference won't be visible at first glance (as in case of Vulkans). I think this is the part were the whole rubric doesn’t make sense, and is against common sense. I would be happy if this wasn't the truth, but I have some many evidence, that I can't reject all of them.

As far as I can tell, the MAC's had a slightly different set of features that was changed before publication, but the price stayed the same.  Think along the lines of the Nazgorath.

You don't have be so cryptic about it, PFC joe. Anyone with the rulebook can see the old DAM values examining Viktor's weapons (p.221), and probably some other units equipped with MACs (searching through support units in different army rosters should bring other examples), as the rulebook wasn't properly edited before going to the prints.

Nevertheless, MAC's cost with DAM(x2) would made sense. I feel bad knowing, that some unit's PCs weren't corrected after this change happened. It's not good for the general balance between factions.

[PFC joe]

at this point, if I could just swap the costs for the MHMG and the MAC's I'd call the deal square.

-PFC joe

[Topkick]

Heretyk -

I agree that comparing a veteran to a newbie is a waste of time. However Bobcat was not a newbie and he had a decent grasp of tactics. He failed to adjust his tactics to the strength of his force. Between that and losing 1 Vulkan to a lucky hit he lost his nerve and was afraid to engage.

My earlier statement merely pointed out that tactics are primary and all else secondary. Even between two opponents who have equal understanding of the mechanics it will be the one who reads the battlefield and takes control of the game that will win. I have run at Conventions for several years and this is not an uncommon situation. A lot of players fail to adjust their tactics to the ebb and flow of the battle. The moment they become inflexible or indecisive they lose.

[dmcgee1]

Heretyk -

I agree that comparing a veteran to a newbie is a waste of time. However Bobcat was not a newbie and he had a decent grasp of tactics. He failed to adjust his tactics to the strength of his force. Between that and losing 1 Vulkan to a lucky hit he lost his nerve and was afraid to engage.

My earlier statement merely pointed out that tactics are primary and all else secondary. Even between two opponents who have equal understanding of the mechanics it will be the one who reads the battlefield and takes control of the game that will win. I have run at Conventions for several years and this is not an uncommon situation. A lot of players fail to adjust their tactics to the ebb and flow of the battle. The moment they become inflexible or indecisive they lose.

I concur.  I lost to Kassing, in a tournament,  for that particular reason.  I had a superior force (in my opinion), and he outmaneuvered me in dense jungle terrain (he, also, fudged movement, for which he was watched, closely, throughout the rest of the tourney - no excuse on my part - when I caught him, I made him fix it).  The fact remains, he beat me by outmaneuvering, and by using superior tactics for the board, to which I failed to adjust.


That said, I would not be against making them a support unit.  It would force "self-balancing," (though no one, but me, to my knowledge) fields Vulkans to the degree that I do).  Again, I have not had complaints from any other players in my area, and, some who played the VAoD (in the one tournament I did use it) actually trreat it as motivation to devise better tactics.  They are not afraid of it.  It has become a point of honor to have faced it.  To some, it has become a rivalry where they strive to defeat it, knowing that it can be beaten.

[Halfbad]

I agree with alot of what everyone before me said, and I will just state this: The support value of walkers, in any gamesystem has been underused and unvalued. Everyone tries to use them as tanks or as battering rams.

Just use them as a support role, and they won't fail you.

Though I would prefer a Grizzly...=)

Halfbad

[Heretyk]

at this point, if I could just swap the costs for the MHMG and the MAC's I'd call the deal square.

-PFC joe

That would cure the cost sides of this problem. But some factions would still have elite squads with MHMGs and / or MACs (since you made them cheaper, and guess what corporation has MAC equipped elites). Probably you would have make some test to see, if counterbalancing those changes in PCs is needed. It's not so easy as it would appear at first glance.

This was our (mine and Pietia's) original intension (to repair some flaws in the point cost formula), when we started to work on the rubric. After some progress was made, we shared some knowledge with other polish players. And this was an error, that I regret even today. Immediately a dozen of polish players appeared, proposing little tweaks to units which weren't broken (at least from game play point of view). This had to stop, as little changes in army rosters could end up in rewriting whole army lists. With so many players, there would be different visions of how the rosters should look like. Disputes ending in personal insults would rage polish forums for months. I can't imagine how chaotic this time would have been, as not every player understands that every faction in the rulebook should have the same chance of winning.

Heretyk -

I agree that comparing a veteran to a newbie is a waste of time. However Bobcat was not a newbie and he had a decent grasp of tactics. He failed to adjust his tactics to the strength of his force. Between that and losing 1 Vulkan to a lucky hit he lost his nerve and was afraid to engage.

My earlier statement merely pointed out that tactics are primary and all else secondary. Even between two opponents who have equal understanding of the mechanics it will be the one who reads the battlefield and takes control of the game that will win. I have run at Conventions for several years and this is not an uncommon situation. A lot of players fail to adjust their tactics to the ebb and flow of the battle. The moment they become inflexible or indecisive they lose.

Topkick, it wasn’t my intension to call Bobcat a newbie or a veteran. I don't know him, I never meet him, and I never seen him play UWZ. If I offended Bobcat in any possible way, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intension in the first place.

And back to the topic - as I sad before, making tactical inferiority / superiority part of the Vulkan equations test, makes the results harder to interpret by anyone. If you do that, you can never be sure how the tactical awareness contributed to the ending result. You will get an answer, but you won't know which question it is answering (Vulkans under priced / overpriced OR newbie vs. veteran debate). That's why I proposed testing Vulkans using (maybe it's a bad word) similar experienced players. The ideal test should be ran by only one player (playing both sides), as he will know exact the same things as the opposite side (since he will be playing against himself, I am omitting people suffering from schizophrenia). All tactical advantages would be part of opposing side knowledge.

As for the main subject - Vulkans are under priced, when you play them on "overseas" tables. Aldrien said it before - it's a matter of table denisty. If you play them on tables like the one showed by Dmcgee1, Vulkans will have the right price (because they won't have a chance to use their superior guns at LR range). Changing the amount of terrain used (still respecting every rulebook sentence, about no corridor of fire to enemy deployment zone), can change the outcome of this test.

I concur.  I lost to Kassing, in a tournament,  for that particular reason.  I had a superior force (in my opinion), and he outmaneuvered me in dense jungle terrain (he, also, fudged movement, for which he was watched, closely, throughout the rest of the tourney - no excuse on my part - when I caught him, I made him fix it).  The fact remains, he beat me by outmaneuvering, and by using superior tactics for the board, to which I failed to adjust.


That said, I would not be against making them a support unit.  It would force "self-balancing," (though no one, but me, to my knowledge) fields Vulkans to the degree that I do).  Again, I have not had complaints from any other players in my area, and, some who played the VAoD (in the one tournament I did use it) actually trreat it as motivation to devise better tactics.  They are not afraid of it.  It has become a point of honor to have faced it.  To some, it has become a rivalry where they strive to defeat it, knowing that it can be beaten.

I'm not here to make you, or any other UWZ player group, change your tournament rules. If anyone felt, that I'm pressing him or his group to change rules, he is wrong. It wasn't my intension, and probably won't be. I have no interest interfering with your rules. I'm only stating my point of view. And I hope that stating my thoughts (maybe sometimes to openly) about different matters won't be taken as a personal attack against anyone on this board.

[another point of view on your proposals]
Taking away Vulkans from elite squads to support will hurt House Richthausen. I think it would be better to swap their MHMG to MG-80 HMG, and leave them as elite squads, while not changing their's PC. As you tend to play on tables with little MR corridors of fire, I think this tweak wouldn't influence your game play experience.
[/another point of view on your proposals]

I agree with alot of what everyone before me said, and I will just state this: The support value of walkers, in any gamesystem has been underused and unvalued. Everyone tries to use them as tanks or as battering rams.

Just use them as a support role, and they won't fail you.

Though I would prefer a Grizzly...=)

Halfbad

Grizzly, the super tank...Those multiple flamers, multiple guns, very high AR and many WDs would made it rather expensive. Not to mention that this beast should be slower than a single trooper, or maybe even have MV=0. A good limitations would be needed also ("one for 2000 PC", maybe even higher, or just "one per army").

As UWZ is a skirmish system between small infantry squads (and some light vehicles, but not tanks), I would probably vote to not allow taking Grizzly’s to tournaments. Special (and new) rules for damaging it would be needed. Custom scenarios, home battles - yes, tournament games - no. The same goes for any other "super" unit from MC RPG books (anyone remember those flying balloons from Algeroth's sourcebook?).

[dmcgee1]

I concur.  I lost to Kassing, in a tournament,  for that particular reason.  I had a superior force (in my opinion), and he outmaneuvered me in dense jungle terrain (he, also, fudged movement, for which he was watched, closely, throughout the rest of the tourney - no excuse on my part - when I caught him, I made him fix it).  The fact remains, he beat me by outmaneuvering, and by using superior tactics for the board, to which I failed to adjust.

That said, I would not be against making them a support unit.  It would force "self-balancing," (though no one, but me, to my knowledge) fields Vulkans to the degree that I do).  Again, I have not had complaints from any other players in my area, and, some who played the VAoD (in the one tournament I did use it) actually trreat it as motivation to devise better tactics.  They are not afraid of it.  It has become a point of honor to have faced it.  To some, it has become a rivalry where they strive to defeat it, knowing that it can be beaten.

I'm not here to make you, or any other UWZ player group, change your tournament rules. If anyone felt, that I'm pressing him or his group to change rules, he is wrong. It wasn't my intension, and probably won't be. I have no interest interfering with your rules. I'm only stating my point of view. And I hope that stating my thoughts (maybe sometimes to openly) about different matters won't be taken as a personal attack against anyone on this board.

[another point of view on your proposals]
Taking away Vulkans from elite squads to support will hurt House Richthausen. I think it would be better to swap their MHMG to MG-80 HMG, and leave them as elite squads, while not changing their's PC. As you tend to play on tables with little MR corridors of fire, I think this tweak wouldn't influence your game play experience.
[/another point of view on your proposals]

No worries.  I did not read that were attempting to have us change anything.  It is, merely, a difference of interpretation.  For the most part, our group uses a lot of terrain.  You do not.  That is, in all probability, why we have not seen Vulkans tear new orifices in other people's armies.  We interpreted 7.1.4 - Movement and Terrain (pg 45), "Most battles are not fought on an open field," and 16.1 - Hostile Environments (pg 100) to mean that most battles are fought with terrain and some sort of environmental rules.  Depending on the level of terrain, or the location of the battle, terrain is imagined and set up.  It makes the game more interesting and, in my opionion, realistic.  Like you say, this is skirmish warfare.  Skirmishes happen when opposing forces stumble across each other, a specific mission forces conflict, or when probing an enemies lines/flanks for weakness.  They are not full-fledged conflagrations of line soldiers fighting large-scale operations.