Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey everyone,

Just to give an update about what we're considering changing in the next update to the Deadzone rules, a formal .pdf update should follow shortly, but for now, here is the list of things we're considering as changes to the rules, so that everyone's playtest games can use the most recent iteration of the playtest rules. Note that army list/equipment changes are still a work-in-progress.


- +1 dice bonus to Shoot actions made by a model on a higher level than the target.

- Frag and Indirect no longer have any effect on models in adjacent cubes.

- Weight of Fire and Frenzy become Weight of Fire(n) and Frenzy(n), where n is the number of misses that can be re-rolled. For playtesting purposes, use (1) as the value for all models and weapons that currently have this rule.

- HMGs, Burst Lasers, Onslaught Cannons and Hailstorm Autocannons gain Suppression.

- The following weapons gain the "Rapid Fire" special rule:
Plague: Rifle
Enforcers: Laser Rifle, Double-Barrelled Laser Rifle, Sentry Gun.
Veer-Myn: Ray Gun, Chem Spitter
Forge Fathers: Hailstorm Rifle, Burst Pistol, Twin Hailstorm Rifles, Hailstorm Pistols,
Asterians: None.
Marauders: Rifle, HMG. Rotary Cannon.
Rebs: Rifle, Onslaught Cannon.

Rapid Fire

When firing weapons with the Rapid Fire special rule, the player initiating the Shoot action must, before rolling the dice, declare whether they are Shooting to Kill or Firing for Effect.
Shoot to Kill: (insert current text for shoot actions)
Firing for Effect: Add a +1 dice bonus to your shooting roll when firing for effect, but otherwise roll to Shoot as normal.
Shoot wins: the target model is pinned.
Draw or Survive wins: no effect.


- Campaign rules, levelling up - Replace Marksman with Weight of Fire(1) and Brawler with Frenzy(1). If the models already have these abilities, add +1 to their value.
- Campaign rules - Deadeye gives a model +1 range to it's ranged weapons.
- Campaign rules, Skill tables that different models have access to:

Plague
Model Skills Available
Stage 1A Melee, Command
Stage 3A “General” Ranged, Melee, Command
Stage 3A “Gunner” Ranged
Stage 3D “Hellhound” Melee
Stage 3A Melee
Stage 3Z None
Stage 2A Melee
Aberration Melee
Plague Swarm Melee
Plague Teraton Melee, Specialist
Plague Strider Melee




Enforcers
Model Skills Available
Enforcer Captain Ranged, Melee, Command
Enforcer Sergeant Ranged, Melee, Command
Enforcer Ranged
Assault Enforcer Melee
Pathfinder Ranged
Peacekeeper Ranged, Melee
Enforcer Medic Ranged, Specialist
Enforcer Engineer Ranged, Specialist
DOG Drone None
Enforcer Jet Bike Ranged
Enforcer Strider Ranged
Veer-Myn
Model Skills Available
Brood Mother Ranged, Melee, Command
Progenitor Melee, Command, Specialist
Night Crawler Melee
Stalker Ranged
Malignus Ranged, Specialist
Nightmare Melee
Night Terror Melee
Heavy Weapons Platform Ranged
Forge Fathers
Model Skills Available
Huscarl Ranged, Melee, Command
Chief Brokkr Ranged, Melee, Command
Steel Warrior Ranged
Militia Ranged
Brokkr Melee
Forge Guard Ranged
Brokkr Engineer Melee, Specialist
Inferno Drill None
Brokkr Bike Ranged, Melee
Iron ancestor Ranged, Melee
Bomb Bot None
Asterians
Model Skills Available
Overseer Ranged, Melee, Command
Cypher Prime Melee, Command, Specialist
Droid Ranged
Kalyashi Melee
Cypher Ranged
Drone with Shield Gen Specialist
Black Talon Ranged, Specialist
Sky Razor Ranged
Marauders
Model Skills Available
Commando Captain Ranged, Command, Specialist
Commando Sergeant Melee, Ranged, Command
Commando Ranged OR Melee(*)
Goblin Sniper Ranged
Mawbeast Melee
Mauler Ripper Suit Melee, Command
Rainmaker Ripper Suit Ranged, Specialist
Hulk Melee, Ranged
Mawbeast Bomber Melee
Goblin Guntrack Ranged
Stunt Bot Ranged
(*)The first time a Marauder Commando learns a skill, they may pick one from either the Ranged skill list or the Melee skill list. Any future skills must be picked from the same skill list.
If a Marauder Commando loses their only skill due to injury, they must still pick any future skills from the same skill list.

The Rebs
Model Skills Available
Rebel Troop Commander Ranged, Melee, Command
Rebel Yndij Infiltrator Melee, Specialist, Command
Rebel Trooper Ranged
Rebel Sorak Specialist
Kraaw Warrior Melee
Rebel Yndij Melee
Rebel Sniper Ranged, Specialist
Zee Scavenger Specialist
Survey Drone None
Rebel Teraton Melee, Command
Judwan Medic Specialist, Command
Rebel Strider Melee

I don't know what any of that means since I never got around to playing 1e, but I trust that you guys know what you're talking about and are more interested and invested in creating a balanced, fun ruleset than anyone else in the production chain.

Kudos to you guys for all your hard work!

Looks good so far though I have little frame of reference for the current meta/whatever.

Bringing back height importance and a form of suppression seems like working in some of the cool stuff from v1 and the race specific progression tables for campaign leveling sound neat.

Any thoughts as to reining in what weapons units will be able to buy on a per unit basis rather than faction wide?

^ Thanks!

With the equipment options, that's something that we're discussing, will probably remove the weapon option thing entirely, and move back to "Brokkr with Magma Cannon" style profiles as in Deadzone v1.

There are a lot of balance issues, and even more modelling issues that kill the idea of an open weapon upgrade system.

There isn't enough time to balance it all, and the Deadzone range is primarily monopose restic which does not support the kitbashing required by an open weapon upgrade system in the same way that (for example) a hard plastic Frostgrave sprue with tons of weapons and gear on it does.

Disappointed that redux still seems to insist on rewarding assault specialists for turning up to a gunfight with a stick. They generate a free fight action for moving into contact with the enemy and then generate a free dice on the free fight action for having charged. Either the charge bonus should be dropped or, better, make fight a short action and take the free one away. If you can't plan your assault move well enough to arrive with actions left to fight with then you deserve the facefull of plasma that should be incoming. At least it would make a meaningful tactical choice of moving in knowing you won't be able to fight but restricting the actions the enemy can now take for being engaged.

 larva_uk wrote:
Disappointed that redux still seems to insist on rewarding assault specialists for turning up to a gunfight with a stick. They generate a free fight action for moving into contact with the enemy and then generate a free dice on the free fight action for having charged. Either the charge bonus should be dropped or, better, make fight a short action and take the free one away. If you can't plan your assault move well enough to arrive with actions left to fight with then you deserve the facefull of plasma that should be incoming. At least it would make a meaningful tactical choice of moving in knowing you won't be able to fight but restricting the actions the enemy can now take for being engaged.

So you want melee in deadzone to be like 40k, horrible, useless, and never used?

Pretty much all skirmish games give you the free attack on a charge into melee. Its a standard to make melee worth doing then just sitting and shooting each other. your going to get shot at anyways as you charge across the table, why punish it more?

Even more so does it already hurt in this new addition. Your only not getting shot if every single bit of your mini cant be seen, otherwise roll those 3 dice. We use the deadzone terrain, and most of it has some kind of hole to see into.

Id be kind of disappointed if weapons got removed tbh... They need a lot more structure, and even some exceptions (beasts and snipers for instance), but removing the option entirely? Not a fan. It was always one of my biggest annoyances with DZ1.

str00dles1 wrote:

 larva_uk wrote:
Disappointed that redux still seems to insist on rewarding assault specialists for turning up to a gunfight with a stick. They generate a free fight action for moving into contact with the enemy and then generate a free dice on the free fight action for having charged. Either the charge bonus should be dropped or, better, make fight a short action and take the free one away. If you can't plan your assault move well enough to arrive with actions left to fight with then you deserve the facefull of plasma that should be incoming. At least it would make a meaningful tactical choice of moving in knowing you won't be able to fight but restricting the actions the enemy can now take for being engaged.

So you want melee in deadzone to be like 40k, horrible, useless, and never used?

Pretty much all skirmish games give you the free attack on a charge into melee. Its a standard to make melee worth doing then just sitting and shooting each other. your going to get shot at anyways as you charge across the table, why punish it more?

Even more so does it already hurt in this new addition. Your only not getting shot if every single bit of your mini cant be seen, otherwise roll those 3 dice. We use the deadzone terrain, and most of it has some kind of hole to see into.

I've never found melee in 40k to be horrible, useless and never used but then 40k is such a mess now that I've stopped playing it entirely. What I would like in deadzone is that assaults require a little more thought and finesse than just running screaming towards the enemy and then getting a stack of free bonuses for having reached them, mainly because the combination of run actions and moves from command dice means you can cover a lot of ground that way (though not as much as 1e where fast units could sprint, then move, then play a move card and cover half the map before getting a free fight with bonus charge dice).

Maybe just dropping the automatic charge bonus dice would work. Charge impetus is fine when you are fighting in a mass unit with medieval weapons but is less so when the target of your charge is trying to shoot you in the head as you approach. Helldorado applied a charge penalty as the target was prepared for you coming so charge bonuses are by no means universal in skirmish rulesets.

As you can probably tell from my signature I have a general objection to bringing a knife to a gunfight. Unless you're a jedi and can parry blaster bolts. Then you're golden

@Tyr13 - Different weapons for different models will remain, it will simply be incorporated into the model's profile rather than "anything can take any weapon" and "points and VPs for the weapon are independent of the model carrying it".

There are all sorts of horrible min-maxed combinations possible with the current ruleset, such as an 18-point assault enforcer with burst laser that is still worth only 1 VP if killed.

The separate VPs are just as much of an issue for min-maxing as the separate points costs are from a "take balancing the game seriously and not have the unbalanced mess that was v1" perspective.

I'm not saying it'd be impossible, but rather that the deadline is too tight. It's currently what the RC wants to do anyway, if Mantic vetoes the proposal and sticks with the current system (I really hope they don't), expect the army lists to be horribly broken, and building competitive lists being a case of extremely difficult and expensive conversions using monopose restic models, because we simply don't have the time to balance such a system, even the entire RC full-times it to the end of the year (something we're already having to do anyway!).

Thatd be a damn shame. Personally, Id just limit some models from taking weapons, and add some additional limitations to the weapons themselves (a primary/secondary/melee system). You swap weapons for whatever else you might have in that category. Some weapons might even trake two slots (say, a chainsaw takes the primary and melee slots).
And, as I said, some models just dont get to swap. Beasts and specialists mainly, so the assault enforcer might fall into those categories (or hed be limited to cc-weapons).

Ive written this stuff up before, posted it both on quirkworthy and the mantic forum. And it certainly seems like a better option than just saying, everyone sticks to the weapon they started with, no matter what.

Im just kind of disappointed that it seems like things are going to get rushed again. Thats what made DZ1 the mess it is, Mantic didnt allow enough time to playtest. Giving us a month is a joke. Especially with so many variables involved.

Though I dont agree that conversions are going to be a problem. Most models are getting a plastic remake anyway, thanks to the DZ and WP kickstarters. And those who arent generally have enough options anyway (Marauders have their metal upgrade set, rebs could use Corp models, its really just Asterians and Brokkr... and even they shouldnt be too difficult)

Well, we are where we are, and having to make the best of it, the only thing that matters at this point is getting the work done.

We are working on a new solution rather than a regression to v1, one where the weapons themselves list the models they can be taken by, tailoring the cost of the weapon to the model in certain cases.

We are considering removing VPs from weapons and simply taking a careful look at balancing the VPs on the models themselves instead.

Ah, okay... that would certainly alleviate some of the issues, yeah. Looking forward to it then.

Get it balanced and if that leaves out a lot of weapon choice then so be it. The profiles thing works pretty for infinity, each option is a preset profile on the list but no free swaps.

@ScarletSquig - I hope Mantic accepts your proposals for limiting weapons choice. If you can and care to comment, do you have any insight into why Mantic still rushes these things? Particularly since rushing things was responsible for the 1st edition of Deadzone not going over as much as they wanted?

From a purely business standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me. If the 2nd edition rules for Deadzone don't attract players with fast play and keep players with good balance, I think the game will be beyond saving. Even if players are willing to give a Deadzone 3.0 revision their support, which I doubt, retailers won't be. Wouldn't a failed relaunch of the game hurt Mantic's pockets more than delaying production and distribution a little more?

How is it against Mantic's own best interest not to have a reasonable amount of time to playtest their product?

If you can and care to comment, do you have any insight into why Mantic still rushes these things?

I don't know. I know the events that resulted in the delay, but not why the RC wasn't drafted in earlier to help with writing army lists and given more freedom. Worked brilliantly for KoW 2 (Which also got delayed as result of the RC insisting on more time, I'm not sure if the Deadzone RC is in a position to do that).

The reason for the delay in this case probably had a lot to do with Jake having to rewrite the game 3-4 times over before Mantic had a version they liked. A lot of his work was rejected as not fitting the game that Mantic wanted, and even the current edition which is based on his latest draft has undergone a lot of revision, some good, some bad, that's what the RC is trying to sort out.

From there, Mantic took it to develop in-house, but this was quite a slow process (one that did result in a very good new style to the gameplay though).

While all this was happening, the RC wasn't quite sure what was going on, when the DZ KS launched, we asked Mantic if there was anything to help with, and were given the task of starting to think about campaign rules, something which we went ahead with despite not having a copy of the new rules to look at.

The current campaign system in the .pdf is one that was designed for v1, then modified to work with v2 once we got to see the new rules (one month before the public release).

The army lists underwent several revisions and this seems to be the main source of the delay, first it was going to be "units of 5, to match the Warpath retail boxes", then it was leader-specific, and then finally the last release which is the current version of the army lists that we (the RC) saw at the same time as the general public. I think this over-focus on an area of the rules that wasn't really a major problem in v1 kept things held back for longer than it should have.

And, this third shot at the lists, is also not without its problems, which is why I really hope they simply make balancing the army lists an RC project at this point, I believe that decision will be the one that makes or breaks the game.

The core rules are in a good position and we've made the suggestions above which are being quite well received, but the final decision does rest with Mantic, who have been great and very helpful and pleased with the progress we're making.

It is a bit of a rush, but we can do it if given the freedom to knuckle down and get to work safe in the knowledge that, if we're going to be spending over a hundred hours of our free time over the holiday season on it, it will actually get used.

 scarletsquig wrote:
We are working on a new solution rather than a regression to v1, one where the weapons themselves list the models they can be taken by, tailoring the cost of the weapon to the model in certain cases.

That....sounds like the worst of both worlds in terms of development and book-keeping (ie adding more models and more weapons in the future and maintaining, getting the correct points values) .

It is more book-keeping, and a lot more work.

But it does fit the brief that Mantic wants (customization, buying weapons for models mid-campaign has to be in, not negotiable), regression to v1 does not.

And we can't just leave the system as it is, it can be powergamed to hell and back, there has to be restrictions and weapon upgrades have to have points costs appropriate to the model selecting them, otherwise min-maxing becomes a thing.

Players could swap model X with weapon load out Y for model X with weapon load out Z at the difference in base cost (retaining other equipment and XP) and it would be exactly the same without needing X-reference tables that become obsolete the moment the first new model or weapon is added.

Won't be using X-reference tables, nowhere near as complex as that. It's going to be a very restrictive list that sticks to the current deadzone model range with a reasonable amount of room left for conversion where appropriate (any unit with hard plastics).

I'll ask the mod in the DZ RC slack chat to add you so you can view or join in with the discussion.

Hey RC, love the new streamlined rules. There is just one thing that concerns me, especially if the +1 shoot for elevated position is back. It seems like changing levels is way too easy, terrain does basically nothing to block movement. Mantic offers such great terrain and the current rules for moving up and down cubes totally ignores the need or benefit for ladders or stairs, not to mention we find it unrealistic that a character could scramble a sheer-faced 12’ (3.5m) wall as a short action. Also, a model can move up a level for free but is blocked by a wall in his way? If its easy to get up, why can't he just jump over the wall? We've been playtesting with the following that seems to be pretty balanced and uncomplicated.

-During ‘Move’ action, may move up or down one level if using a cube with stairs or a ramp.

-Climb (Short Action): move up one level in a cube containing a ladder, piled debris, or any manner of ‘leg up’ against a wall; model must be placed at the top of said ladder or where the wall was scrambled up.

-Climb (Long Action): move up one level in a cube adjacent to a sheer wall OR up two levels in a cube containing a two level ladder; model must be placed at the top of said ladder or where the wall was scrambled up.

We like the way ‘Agile’ works with this rule (allowing a free move up or down during a Move or Sprint action) as it totally makes sense for the Yndji and such. It also would make sense to give ‘Agile’ as it stands to models with Jump Packs. As this seems to give the Enforcers a huge boost, we also think Jump Packs should be available equipment to the other races, as they used to be.

I know this adds extra actions back in, but they are easy to remember and having to work for height advantage adds a lot of tactics. The game seems too simplistic if moving around the terrain is too easy; even with big buildings it feels like you are playing on a flat field with low barriers. Anyway, love the game, hope the feedback helps!

It's a good idea, but the design brief from Mantic is to keep it simple, in fact they want more things to be possible with movement and felt v1 was too restrictive. V2 is more movement-focused rather than static gunlines so it fits the new playstyle.

A lot comes down to terrain sets, you can always house-rule that you need a ladder to climb, but for the purposes of a game it is assumed that models are all able to find a stairwell or ladder even if these are not physically modeled on the terrain.

If you want to make it difficult to gain height, there is a lot you can do with the terrain setup to make this happen, especially with ruins, or the X-tiles that let you make things 2 cubes high (and therefore usually inaccessible except for a single access point).

A table with lots of low-lying terrain and very high (2-3 cubes up) watchtowers/ oil rig type structures connected by walkways would make for a very interesting game!

There's a lot that can be done with terrain setups, generally the more elaborate they are, the more fun the game is to play.

 scarletsquig wrote:
It's a good idea, but the design brief from Mantic is to keep it simple, in fact they want more things to be possible with movement and felt v1 was too restrictive. V2 is more movement-focused rather than static gunlines so it fits the new playstyle.

A lot comes down to terrain sets, you can always house-rule that you need a ladder to climb, but for the purposes of a game it is assumed that models are all able to find a stairwell or ladder even if these are not physically modeled on the terrain.

If you want to make it difficult to gain height, there is a lot you can do with the terrain setup to make this happen, especially with ruins, or the X-tiles that let you make things 2 cubes high (and therefore usually inaccessible except for a single access point).

A table with lots of low-lying terrain and very high (2-3 cubes up) watchtowers/ oil rig type structures connected by walkways would make for a very interesting game!

There's a lot that can be done with terrain setups, generally the more elaborate they are, the more fun the game is to play.

Sounds like house-ruling ladders / stairwells, at least for certain units, would be the way to go. At least this is a house rule that would be easy to implement and wouldn't require a whole new subsystem to balance and implement. You could build around the problem as Squig suggests, which is great if you are so inclined and have the scenery to do it. I think a game with natural height choke points is more interesting, personally, provided that there are more than a few so that the game isn't only about the choke points.

I have a question, though. Are ALL units able to climb now? Even those that would be unable to use a ladder, like Plague Hounds and Mawbeasts? If so, that may be good for keeping things simple, but it breaks the hell out of the narrative of the game. Mawbeasts going up ladders or straight up blank walls makes as much sense as Zees with Polaris cannons, and if you eliminate that, you lose the cinemantic feel of getting to higher ground to evade them and have them snapping at your heels from below, or the peril of being blown off your perch and delivered to their waiting jaws.

You have to sacrifice some story for gameplay to be tight, but at a certain point, undermining narrative in the service of rules starts to undermine the character of Mantic's models and their Warpath universe.

The ideal is of course rules that are both narrative, balanced, and fast-playing. It's rare to get all that in one game, but not impossible. Reiner Knizia's "Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation" 2 player game (though admittedly, a boardgame, not a wargame) has never ceased to amaze me with how well it does all three (and with asymmetrical forces, at that.)

Dont underestimate a dogs ability to climb/jump. Getting up those walls, and especially ladders, is absolutely possible. Check quirkworthy DZR comments for a video of a dog climbing a ladder. (cant be bothered to look for it right now)

 Tyr13 wrote:
Dont underestimate a dogs ability to climb/jump. Getting up those walls, and especially ladders, is absolutely possible. Check quirkworthy DZR comments for a video of a dog climbing a ladder. (cant be bothered to look for it right now)

Don't underestimate a dog's ability to climb / jump? Are you kidding me? I grew up with a labrador retriever who was terrified of stairs, let alone ladders.

Seriously, I think it's hilarious that this came up on Quirkworthy and someone bothered to back up their position by finding a video of a dog climbing a ladder as evidence. Perhaps there's a special dog out there with that talent, but the dogs I"ve known were all ladder incapable. And we are talking about ladders that go straight up here, as those are the ones featured in Deadzone, right? Not those with a gradual incline?

As far as jumping that high without a ladder, I don't think any dog can jump a full story high. Now please don't go out and find a video of some amazing pet trick, watch Fido jump a full story high!

I'm just joking around, here, so please don't take any of the above as mockery. No mean-spiritedness is intended. But I think if Enforcers have jump packs to allow them to leap up building levels, giving a dog - yes, including mutant dogs - that innate ability just doesn't make sense. But as I said, not hard to house rule this either. And if Mawbeasts remain undercosted and overpowered, that would be all the more reason to limit their movement like this.

In principle, giving everything the same movement capability seems dull to me, anyway. Why should we want this?

I find it rather odd that the campaign system is becoming more detailed while the combat rules are simultaneously becoming less attractive for campaign play (less detailed, higher model count, more lethal).

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I find it rather odd that the campaign system is becoming more detailed while the combat rules are simultaneously becoming less attractive for campaign play (less detailed, higher model count, more lethal).

agreed 100% i still dont get why the different actions available have been stripped off.
when i read "simple" i dont read "stripped off".

for thise weapons options story, why dont you make what just mantic wants : fixed profiles with fixed weapons for the base game + options for campaign play to get more weapon options (why not as an xp upgrade like abilities instead of buying them ? after all ya need to learn how to handle new weapons before trying to use them) ?