Needed changes in UWZ 3rd Edition.

[Pietia]

1.) cahnge Impenetrability...give people a reason to use those RL's with an AV-0 rating.

That would be a big problem that would make some armies much less competitive, since there are some less-loved-by-designers armies without (or almost without) AV weapons (especially ranged AV weapons)

[dmcgee1]

Yeah, the Battlesuit stuff is my only issue wich needs fixing (like making them a support choice).

I'd have to say that the only change I'd make would be to downgrade the Vulkans MHMG to a regular HMG and swap them over to Support or just raise the price a bit. Other than that, I really can't think of any needed changes.

-PFC joe

For the most part, I already use them as support.  I usually build a force from a house other than Richthausen and use the Vulkans in the Support slot.

[dmcgee1]

Erm... what about Pathfinders? 1 wound models for 57 points per model (hey, Viktors cost THAT much)?  Apocalypse? 5 models throwing 3 to 4 large templates each with no LOS to affected models (only to the center of the template) or target priority restrictions... Hurricane Hammer Class? 1 point more expensive than Guardian, slower and equipped with obviously inferior weapon (unless the x2 in dam is not a typo)... There are many problems with UWZ....

Many?  Really?  Wow, without intending to sound sarcastic or insensitive - why do you play?

[Timthetekron]

...here's a whopper for ya, how about, for one game session, absolutely disregarding points and come up with your force based on what would be fun to you and the other player. Don't consider points at all, just throw down what you would like to run and have the other player do the same. I've found the most enjoyable games are the ones when it isn't structured like a chess match with equal sides/ points. The vagueness of which side may have the edge or not makes for a very cool gaming experiance...it isn't about points or absolute logic but, well, try it, you may like it.

[Pietia]

Many?  Really?  Wow, without intending to sound sarcastic or insensitive - why do you play?

Absolutely no idea why. Probably due to the fact that I've a lot of Warzone minis and do not want to spend money on other games...

[Enker]

Hmm, not much proposal for changes.
Don't get me wrong, EE is doing a great job and Warzone is a great game, but I have found some points:

1. I find vehicles too good. You can look at the threat for details.
2. The vehicle rules need some updates. They are keept too simple.
    What's with open and closed vehicles? Passengers / Gunners are mostly useless.
3. Individuals could be a little bit better. They are nothing special now (but I don't want 1st Ed. Heros back).
4. The support system is good, but not perfect. E.g. you can buy 2x Battlewalker but just 1x Great Grey for one support slot.
    That's a big advantage for multi model support squads.
    Maybe there should be an extended rule to this like you must have 3 Grunt Squads if you want to field two Battlewalker (or 3 Orcas e.g.),
    or the Grunt Squads must be bigger.
    Or better, increase the cost of the second support model (e.g. the second Battlewalker).
5. The targeting system is not good. If I have a Rocket Launcher I have to shot at the nearest model, that's unrealistic.
    In real life I think a soldier would shot an AP Rocket into a bulk of soldiers and not on the single one, which is four feet closer to him.
    Or he would shot his Rocket into a advancing tank to take it out. There should be more freedom to choose the target (even without tactical
    sense), esp. for the specialists. If an enemy is getting very close (lets say short distance) ok, then you should have to eliminate this one first.
6. Close Combat. Even if its realistic, its too hard to get into CC. And what is worse, the damage is too low. If you hit someone in CC
    with a sword it should be devastating.
7. Some template weapons like the Grenades, Gr. Launcher, Pers. Flametrower, Shotguns (not automatics) are too week.
    They should do a little more damage.
8. There are some squads that are nearly useless. All squads should be worth to put them in.

[Coil]

Everyone play nice ok now ok?

Keep it cool and no personal attacks.

/Your friendly moderator

[Ruther]

Time to adress the somethings 

@ Enker

1. I think we already got your point about Vehicles beeing to strong in your opinion, no need to make a mantra out of it 
2. Gunners are supposed to shoot out of the vehicle and last time i checked thats what they doing in the multicrewd vehicles with a gun plattform (there arent much but thats a lack of models not rules). The simplified vehicle rules help the game go faster and you avoid wasting lots of points in an open vehiles where the driver can be shot out easy like in 2nd Ed. (no thx i dont want that back).
3. Individuels have  a whole new Role in UWZ and its not the Role of Rambo taking on 3 Squads while smoking a cig ^^. The officers are supposed to "command", direct fire and keep the moral stable. They got very sold RC score wich makes them a solid support option for their squads (and strangly but true that is what fieldofficers usualy do  in rl).
4. The support system could need some work especily in the range of Battlwalkers come in units (why dont Hurricans come in units to ? )
5. The target priority system works not bad, ofc there will be always exceptions but for the guy with your rocked launcher you should get an officer with tac sense and voila you have some flexebility in shooting. Total freedom of target choosing dont sounds like  a good idea to me .
6. I dunno i think CC works well, maybe some of the DAM should be slightly increased but getting into it is just a matter of tactics. The use of Weather effects, smoke and a lot terrain helps. Ofc a charge against some Mounted HMG over open terrain wont work very well but this sounds realistic^^.
7. I see template weapons as very effective the Hiting power is ok for beeing able to hit about 4-5 Soldiers when closly grouped. As flamers, shotguns dont need a to hit roll they are very devastating (at least out of my experience). What i want to be changed is that to much Grenade launchers cant fire indirect wich is their sole purpose in my opinion. For direct templates i take an RL with AP anytime.
8. Wich squads you would define as useless?

@ all

During the Editions Warzone has undergone some important changes. One of them was that it changed from a Heroic Tabletop towards a squad  based one. Some ppl wont like that some will prefer it to the older version, thats just a question of taste. But why not keep it as it is skip the heroic crap  (i guess you get it i dont like heroes wich singlehandly win me games ^^) stay to the current mechanics and advance them further.

So at this point the worked in FAQ + more balanced support units (so any faction is equal in strenght there and you dont have to field one Hwalker/shark against 2 Battlewalkers wich play in the same range ). I vouche as well that they check all point costs again as the book is very big and there are a good bunch of mistakes in it maybe some prices are wrong (i.e. the HWalker problem pieta pointed out). At least in chronopia the recheck of point costs had brought a whole race back into competitve playing .

[Enker]

During the Editions Warzone has undergone some important changes. One of them was that it changed from a Heroic Tabletop towards a squad  based one. Some ppl wont like that some will prefer it to the older version, thats just a question of taste. But why not keep it as it is skip the heroic crap  (i guess you get it i dont like heroes wich singlehandly win me games ^^) stay to the current mechanics and advance them further.

So at this point the worked in FAQ + more balanced support units (so any faction is equal in strenght there and you dont have to field one Hwalker/shark against 2 Battlewalkers wich play in the same range ). I vouche as well that they check all point costs again as the book is very big and there are a good bunch of mistakes in it maybe some prices are wrong (i.e. the HWalker problem pieta pointed out). At least in chronopia the recheck of point costs had brought a whole race back into competitve playing .

I don't want the 1st Edition Heros back. The squad based system of UWZ is much better.
I only think the individuals could be improved slightly. For example four actions instead of three.

It's good to hear that other people think that the support units must be more balanced.

Yes, a recheck of the point costs would be fantastic.

[semai99]

I don't want the 1st Edition Heros back. The squad based system of UWZ is much better.

Hear, Hear, I have to agree with no more superduper heros as I mentioned in another thread about an Imperial Wolfbane hero (4actions) on a necromower (mv8) with a sword that allows an extra action per kill

I only think the individuals could be improved slightly. For example four actions instead of three.

This is my thinking too, but I think this should only be certain named heros and Force commanders ie the creme de la creme.

Another thought would be to give certain heros an inspiration skill so all troops who can see their hero in full battle LOS (not cowering behind a wall )  could get a +1 to morale based actions, whether this would be in fear/admiration/loyalty depends on the hero in question and troop types, this would not make them to powerful but would give them a reason for being the hero/leader for that fraction 

[semai99]

4. The support system could need some work especily in the range of Battlwalkers come in units (why dont Hurricans come in units to ? )

Spoken like a true Imperialist 

5. The target priority system works not bad, ofc there will be always exceptions but for the guy with your rocked launcher you should get an officer with tac sense and voila you have some flexebility in shooting. Total freedom of target choosing dont sounds like  a good idea to me .

I think the rule about shooting the nearest trooper is okay anyone who has been in battle or training will tell you, you don't worry about the squad 50' away when theres another 40' away, you hit them first and worry about the others after them, thats why we have the tactical sense skill to add a little bit more tactical issues for the specialist to assess the tactical treat better (or use of the weapon)

6. I dunno i think CC works well, maybe some of the DAM should be slightly increased but getting into it is just a matter of tactics. The use of Weather effects, smoke and a lot terrain helps. Ofc a charge against some Mounted HMG over open terrain wont work very well but this sounds realistic^^.

Maybe they also need to set up the table with a bit more cover on it rather than it being an open plain, and use it as much as possible, I used to get into combat quite often with my children 

[chribu]

5. The target priority system works not bad, ofc there will be always exceptions but for the guy with your rocked launcher you should get an officer with tac sense and voila you have some flexebility in shooting. Total freedom of target choosing dont sounds like  a good idea to me .

But having officer with tac sense won't give tac-sense ability to RL guy...?

[behemoth]

I think the rule about shooting the nearest trooper is okay anyone who has been in battle or training will tell you, you don't worry about the squad 50' away when theres another 40' away, you hit them first and worry about the others after them...

Well I'm an officer in reserve (2nd lt) and my training certainly differs from that. You simply don't target an AP Rocket Launcher (or whatever squad support weapon you may have) at men if there's a tank around. You don't need an officer to tell you how the weapon is supposed to be used most effectively. Remember that you can't use TS for grunts if there's enemies in Med Range.

My fav. gripes:
1) Targeting priorities need a little of bit of ... well ... refinement. Nothing complicated or extraordinaire - maybe something based on the size of target and on the status of the model (specialist's maybe having more options).
2) Medics definately need a boost or maybe not taking up a specialist slot.
3) Everyone should have a chance to attack in CC and breaking off from CC should be automatic for big models (ie. a size difference of 2 or more) especially if the opposing model can't even theoretically damage you (like a K9 against a Bio-Giant).


I don't see much other problems except minor oddities in some stats. In my opinion vehicles are just fine - they've never dominated any game I've played (read: my 'Tronic egghead took 3 wounds in CC from a Trencher Captain's spade after trying to decapitate him two times - I think I'll never forget that incident with the single-minded Trencher Cpt who btw survived the egghead and probably took photos of him with his spade jammed in the droid's groin).



I listed 3 of my cons ... and now I list 3 of my pros:
1) Deployment rules rock.
2) Game dynamics that are greatly enhanced by the various skills.
3) Enough differences between the factions make for interesting gaming experiences (read: I have 7 full armies all of which I play and all of which are different and must use differing tactics).

[Ruther]

1) Targeting priorities need a little of bit of ... well ... refinement. Nothing complicated or extraordinaire - maybe something based on the size of target and on the status of the model (specialist's maybe having more options).

It could be somthing like adding the Size of a vehicle/big DL monster  modell to the Tac Sense Roll. Wich would fit the game mechnics and would make it easyer to target the bigger vehicles.

[PFC joe]

I kind of like that Size autobreak thing, like a mount.   Though I would make it a factor of ST and not SZ.  Sorta like how a crowd of Children of Ilian don't get the full Swarm bonus on Death Eggs (i was really upset when i found that out) ( the EDD's owner was just as upset when they beat it to death anyway).  I  mean honestly, there comes a point when the only way you're going to slow down one of those fuglies in CC is if it happens to slip when it's pulping you underfoot.

-PFC joe