Catyrpelius wrote: I've been thinking towards future events, The Warstore Weekend and Templecon, what are your thoughts on competitave play?
If there are enough players for it, I'd love to see some Brushfire/Endless Tourneys run. While we couldn't do a 'Clash of Kings' level of prize support, we would provide something nice
Catyrpelius wrote: I've been thinking towards future events, The Warstore Weekend and Templecon, what are your thoughts on competitave play?
If there are enough players for it, I'd love to see some Brushfire/Endless Tourneys run. While we couldn't do a 'Clash of Kings' level of prize support, we would provide something nice
Aww no $1,500 grand prize?
Your not going to leave me high and dry like another company I know who's name begins with a W are you?
Catyrpelius wrote: I've been thinking towards future events, The Warstore Weekend and Templecon, what are your thoughts on competitave play?
If there are enough players for it, I'd love to see some Brushfire/Endless Tourneys run. While we couldn't do a 'Clash of Kings' level of prize support, we would provide something nice
Aww no $1,500 grand prize?
Your not going to leave me high and dry like another company I know who's name begins with a W are you?
Nah, I'll hand out prizes while at the show itself.
RiTides wrote: I don't know if the game really lends itself to competitive play, but I would absolutely love another mega battle like we had at TempleCon
Could you elaborate on the game not lending itself to competitive play? I'm just curious as to why you think it wouldn't lend itself to competitive play, because I would love to see tournaments.
RiTides wrote: I don't know if the game really lends itself to competitive play, but I would absolutely love another mega battle like we had at TempleCon
Could you elaborate on the game not lending itself to competitive play? I'm just curious as to why you think it wouldn't lend itself to competitive play, because I would love to see tournaments.
This is something we discussed a bit late one night at Templecon. It is my feeling that some of the units aren't exactly balanced for their point cost mainly Warhogs.
So is it just the Warhogs that are causing issues? I mean I personally thing Otter Ashigaru should be a few more points simply because they destroyed my Aquitar with their bows.
Note: I don't have my book on me, and my development with OTL is entirely EFT related, so when it comes to Brushfire, I know pretty much as much as you guys do.
Alfndrate wrote: So is it just the Warhogs that are causing issues? I mean I personally thing Otter Ashigaru should be a few more points simply because they destroyed my Aquitar with their bows.
Note: I don't have my book on me, and my development with OTL is entirely EFT related, so when it comes to Brushfire, I know pretty much as much as you guys do.
It's not the only example, but it's the one that came to mind first. Should a 5 resource Warhog be able to easily defeat a 10 point Hamster Berserker?
During our Megabattle at Templecon on Saturday, because of the way a certain persons units came onto the battlefield, 100 resources of Warhogs were about to hold their own against roughly 170 resources of Vandalands...
I'll admit though I haven't played the game that much so this could have been an anomoly or it may have more to do with playing the game at high point values.
I am not a competitive tournament player, but I would gladly partake in a small casual one for Brushfire, as long as the stakes remain low, so people don't go crazy with winning at al cost. Luckily, I'm planning on attending both Con mentioned by the OP.
Tonio wrote: I am not a competitive tournament player, but I would gladly partake in a small casual one for Brushfire, as long as the stakes remain low, so people don't go crazy with winning at al cost. Luckily, I'm planning on attending both Con mentioned by the OP.
With the amount of attention that Brushfire got at Templecon I think there would be plenty of intrest in a small tournement next year. If it was planned out and advertised well in advance.
I think the Warstore Weekend is going to be more of a Megabattle event.
All of my tournements are beginer freindly. Generally when I run demos in conjunction with a tournement I like to run them as basically one long event. Think demos in the morning and the tournement later in the day. Get them interested with the demo then set the hook with a freindly tournement . Let them know that their free to use their own models which are avalible at the booth over there but their more then welcome to use some of the demo armies I have setup...
I think besides unit balance would be to look at what size of game would be considered average. I'm not a tournament 40k player by far, but my army lists were always centered around the point sizes of local and national tournaments. So that would definitely be one thing to look at as a starting point, but not the only thing that should be looked at.
As to the Warhogs vs. Hamsters, the hamsters should have decimated the hogs on just a stat comparison, the Hamsters have a better might, wits, and vitality. Their weapons Are 2De, 1Ap, and 1 handed. If a Hamster hits with both axes (which it should, considering it's Mt vs the Ws of the War-Hogs), then the first axe will take care of the Armor from Hardened Skin, and the second axe takes away the the last point of armor and deals 2 points of damage. A second hamster can (if the player chooses) devote 1 attack to kill off that hog and move on.
The issue seems to come from the 4 Armor that your stock standard War Hog gets, which seems like they're fantastic tarpit units (cheap costs, and with no reason to upgrade)
On the other hand, with Heart of the Fatherland, it would seem insane if the Hamsters were 5 food creatures.
I am wondering, were the hamsters using their fear?
Edit: Remember, I'm going off of pictures, your guys' reports, and my rulebook. Also should be noted that I didn't have RiTides or Tonio's most recent posts when I wrote this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: I simply meant the rules may need tightening up for a truly "competitive" event, but I'm all for a casual tourney, mega battle, etc etc
Could you give specific examples of rules tightening? That way we (mostly Matt and Em) have something that we should look at.
Not to dismiss the issues you may have seen, but I will say that 'holding their own' seems far better than some other games, being tabled by an equal force half way through a game.
Len was down to about 5 War-Hogs on Turn 3, when I finally got my Legionnaires on the table. RiTides still had: All of his Rat Raiders crewing his catapults, about 5 Hamsters, 3 Valks, his hero, 2 Hussars. Even just ignoring the Raiders, thats about 100 food still on the table compared to 25. He started with 15 Hamsters, 3 Valks, and 4 Hussars, 220 Food of models. He lost half, Len lost three quarters of his army, and was pretty much off the table on Turn 4.
The issue of the Hamster vs War-Hogs is relatively simple to analyze. Both essentially have no upgrades (War-Hogs can upgrade their shield for an extra armor point, but thats not much, and Len had that on about 5 models) The Points put into their stats is based on their cost. Hamsters get way more MT than the War-Hogs and have more VY. The War Hogs have more armor. They do about the same amount of damage, put on equal footing if the War-Hog takes their shield upgrade for a 2 DE attack instead of 1 DE. Using RiTides' resource counting, the War-Hogs actually cost more with their Shield. Especially when you consider RiTides has the Heart of the Fatherlands ability with his army, able to divert LR/GD to FD, the War Hogs are the more expensive unit, and the armies were far closer to equal footing.
Another thought to consider is the sort of 'rock paper scissors' (Though I'd like to imagine its not that simple) of unit types, Both units of Hamsters and War Hogs are heavy hitting frontliners, somethings got to give, and in this game, the Hamsters did, they had less armor, and not enough armor penetration. Badgers getting maul every turn (as likely to hit as the Hamsters, and the Hamsters were hitting every turn) each badger would kill a War-Hog, quickly taking them out of the equation. Sometimes it comes down to deciding where to press your forces. Against Emily's Ashigaru Gunline, being dropped on them via Hamster Ball, the Hamsters might have had a feast!
(Again none of this is dismissing your concerns, as we get ready for the next printing we will be looking at any issues that have been raised and seek to rectify them.)
I think a mega-battle is the wrong context to examine and compare costs of units.
My baneblade frequently gets taken out in Apoc by a single IG Vet with a melta gun coming on the board from behind it. Even if you count the cost of a tactical asset it's still 300+ less than the baneblade. The enormous scale breaks the game.
Thanks for the explination Matt, it puts things into perspective, although from what I've seen a high armor value is more benifical then a high vitality. Either way it something for me to look at in future games.
One of the things that baffels me rules wise is the grace+D10 defense roll. Not the roll itself but how it's done for different types of attacks. For example, I have a unit of 5 Legionaers shooting their rifles at a group of 5 Hamster Berserkers. On my 5 attack dice I get [3,5,5,7,9] the Hamsters roll their 1 defense dice and get a [5]. Modifiers then get added and all attack values that were less then or equal to the defense value are discarded. Now looking at that same group of 5 Hamster Berserkers, this time they get shot at by a HLvl 5 Trapper with a Hand Cannon. The 3" blast template covers all of the Hamsters. I roll 5 attack dice. My opponant now rolls 5 dice defense dice. Why does the number of defense dice change between the two different types of shooting attacks?
Page 17, Edition 1.2 wrote: Templates Attacks and weapons that have a ‘X” template’ in their profile attack all models in a circular area X” in diameter (3” and 5” Templates are sold at your Local Game Store.) To determine which models have been hit by a template attack, each attacking model in a squad that can make a template attack must place the template over the same enemy model. Roll one attack roll for each template. Each defending model rolls WS for each template that affects them. Template attacks may also deviate, refer to the Armory entry on deviations.
2) Template is 1 Attack roll for the Template, 1 Dodge Roll per each target under the template. Its just the inverse of firing with a non-template attack.
Caty, that change is simply for Templates, which can hit multiple squads at once. Additionally, if the defender (you use Wits not Grace) rolls high, the entire template is likely to miss. Another mechanic of templates is, if they miss everything under them, you deviate once, and try again, before the template goes away. You could say this represents the Template attack 'missing' its aim, or someone grabbing a grenade and tossing it away (though that obviously doesnt apply to Cannon fire). So there are two mechanical concepts for the WS roll from every model with Templates.
(EDIT: Apparently I forget my own rules, 'swhat I get for working on two games at once, but the Template deviation concept still applies) EDIT 2: Re-reading what Em Quoted means that I was right, One WS roll for EACH model under the template.
As far as organized play, we wrote up a deep Campaign system, which I would sort of like to see people give a try. Its not the same as a tourney format in anyway, and more like a League, or RPG/Mordheim Campaign. As its not a tourney, it wouldn't work in say a convention format, but would be great for getting folks into the game at stores, and keeping people playing. RiTides may not be a fan (just taking jabs at you out of fun) as it actually encourages non-symmetrical play, simply gathering the amount of forces your country can pay for from their regions to defend territories, and your opponent may bring a larger invasion force. "More like real life", but also provides interesting tactical possiblities: Do I go full Alamo/300 making them pay for every inch? Or do I strike hard at valuable targets and then flee the field of battle, to fight another day?
This is the kind of play I would like to see, Wars that take place over months, Where you get used to your opponent's army and figure out what to build for your next army.
To reiterate / clarify my comments again, I was not referring to unit balance, just the "tightness" of the rules.
An easy example is trebuchet says pick a point X d10 inches away + 5". Matt clarified this means pick a line/direction, then roll.
Gym and I couldn't determine whose heroic action had precedence- hers saying my unit couldn't rush next turn, or mine saying I could immediately rush.
Things like model/unit distinctions, being in/out of combat, and many basics I now understand thanks to Matt, but the rule text itself is too vague to know for sure.
When a stand and shoot happens, what happens if I launch by hamsters off the board, etc. The rules are too brief/vague and require interpretation. This makes it totally fun for "beer and pretzels" but not a RAW tourney environment.
This post is meant for Matt, as I have probably physically played more games than anyone but him and Cyp, and I haven't played many . I love the rules but would eagerly pay for expanded, clearer ones. The quick start page has almost as much base rules info as the entire rulebook!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I know I can get answers to all of the above here. That is not the issue. The issue is, can someone know the answer from just the text, without asking the creator? The answer is no- it is not written down.
My friends all loved the aesthetic of Brushfire, all mentioned it at some point. But each of them also commented that the rules looked like they were not tight/polished. I would looooooove a new rulebook, but it would need more actual RULES, examples, diagrams, etc.
Letting competitive players create a metagame is a good way to figure out all the flaws a game has. After all, 40k players have proven this with their metagames, but then again GW does not playtest(very well) and takes forever to fix rules exploits and balance issues.
If your game has cases like Ogrins and Flash Gitz, then there might be something wrong.
That wasn't my own question (it came up for Catyr I believe) but I think it was "when" the shot happened against a heavy cavalry charge. Also possibly who could take it (those not being contacted) and again when for determining if they were in range.
That's off the cuff, some of it may be clearer than others. After talking to you guys, Lots more is clear for me. But a lot isn't necessarily clear from the text- hence the need for More text (explaing rules more thoroughly), examples, and diagrams if/when the next rulebook happens
Copying this in from the thread I put up about balancing the warbands. I realised I ended up starting into territory that this thread covered better.
Casey's Law wrote: I'd like to see at least one perfectly balanced warband for each faction in the future with equally well balanced boosters to choose from. This would actually lend itself to competitive play which their is already talk of in another thread. Actually, if it was set up like this I'd be inclined to build a tournament scene here and consider holding some kind of campaigns and events.
Balancing on power and money is tricky. Of course there is no reason why an "X Resource Tournament Pack' has to cost the same as another, but it would be relevant.
Of course, I'm not opposed to selling 'Army in a Box' bundles, like what we do around Christmas, if folks wanted to write up 'Balanced' 100~150 Resource armies.
With the tournament pack idea. I guess the real solution is just to balance the warbands. It's just the same concept so their is no point in doing it twice really. If the warbands could, in theory, be well balanced in play and in cost then they serve both necessary purposes. They can be bought as a taste for the game or to be used in small competitive tournaments which fullfils the needs of the two main demographics I believe.
As for boosters to add to the warbands, there is no real need to change what you are doing. Your current system, as you say, allows people to choose their force and add to it as they see fit.
So overall, if the rulebook was reprinted to clarify a few questions and the warbands were balanced then a tournament, event, campaign scene could well be on the cards. I think the main selling point of Brushfire gameplay, for me at least, is it's easy to play. If it was competitive too then I think there is a market out there that hasn't been tapped very well and is ripe for the picking. Or are other companies targeting that market too and I haven't realised?
Casey's Law wrote: Good point. Do you think people would pay more for a 'tournament pack?' Or would there have to be a cost balance too?
I'm going to have to agree with Cy on this one. Tournament packs would be nice, but most people would rather make their own competitive team. I mean, two players can take the same army in the same game, have the same list and end up with 2 different results, and a valid tournament scene would almost immediately invalidate any pre-constructed tournament packs, as the local metagame starts to tear into the rules and models, seeing what's the best bang for their buck.
I did read your post . Your post seems to focus on warbands being the mainstay of competitive play. If an average tournament game takes place somewhere between 100 and 200 resources, that means your average player be using a quarter or an eighth of his resources on the warband, that's not very much when you think about it in the long run. My current Army is Chugoku, and if I were to use the warband (not quite released yet), it would be 1 Celestial Tactician, 2 Red Wu, and 1 Lem Han (at the moment). So looking at my current Red Wu List of 100 Resources, I would be better buying the Red Wu box of 5 models, and 4 boxes of Lem Han (so I could get the 100 Food for my list). I wouldn't even need the warband, because it wouldn't work out too well in the long run for what I need.
Much like every other wargame out there, warbands are great for starting out, and learning the game, but when it comes to competitive play, you want a tight ruleset and the ability to create an army that you can play as competitively as you want.
That makes more sense now. And yeh I see what you mean, I haven't done a lot of gaming and I overlooked those points. I was actually thinking along the lines of getting people into the game which really isn't anything to do with competitive play.
Casey's Law wrote: That makes more sense now. And yeh I see what you mean, I haven't done a lot of gaming and I overlooked those points. I was actually thinking along the lines of getting people into the game which really isn't anything to do with competitive play.
Casey's Law wrote: That makes more sense now. And yeh I see what you mean, I haven't done a lot of gaming and I overlooked those points. I was actually thinking along the lines of getting people into the game which really isn't anything to do with competitive play.
Ah well nevermind.
There are two ways to go about getting people to "average game size"
You either get them playing and naturally let them advance to that game size and then try a tournament. The other is to run a beginner's league where you start them with the warband and either keep them going to the average game size, and then cap it off with a tournament.
Though I'd probably try something like a 1 day achievement league, where you play 3 rounds or so (like a tournament), and try to achieve objectives that aren't based on the outcome of the game. That way new and old players alike don't just skew the results, with the more experienced players stomping the newbies...
Casey's Law wrote: Those are all great ideas. Once I get used to the game and whatnot I'll no doubt consider running something like this.
The last idea comes from my time with Wyrd as a Malifaux Henchman. SoCal Malifaux runs a 1 day "Beginner's Achievement League" and it's fantastically successful.
I have a convention to go to this weekend but after that I'm going to start working on getting a tournement pack and tournement running in my area. It will definatly be procedded by a months worth of demos, not sure if I'm going to bother with a slow growth league or not. Most likely the first tournement will run around 50 resources.
Catyrpelius wrote: I have a convention to go to this weekend but after that I'm going to start working on getting a tournement pack and tournement running in my area. It will definatly be procedded by a months worth of demos, not sure if I'm going to bother with a slow growth league or not. Most likely the first tournement will run around 50 resources.
*Looks at screen* You been peeping at my twitter and emails?
Who would be rubber, and who would be glue? Because we need the ideas to stick to glue... not rubber
I've got 3 pages written, and they're mostly the stock standard rules you would expect to see model rules, player expectations, organizer expectations, time limits on rounds, how many rounds based on players, etc...
Alfndrate wrote: Who would be rubber, and who would be glue? Because we need the ideas to stick to glue... not rubber
I've got 3 pages written, and they're mostly the stock standard rules you would expect to see model rules, player expectations, organizer expectations, time limits on rounds, how many rounds based on players, etc...
What if the rubber is really that old sticky rubber you sometimes find?
Adding a section on resource values would be a good idea. Give the relation between Resources, Hero Levels, Time Limit and Board Side.
Currently time limits are based on resource values, like a round in a 25 resource tournament probably shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes at an average competitive level. Obviously event organizers are a better judge of their local meta than I am.
Alfndrate wrote: Currently time limits are based on resource values, like a round in a 25 resource tournament probably shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes at an average competitive level. Obviously event organizers are a better judge of their local meta than I am.
That brings up the additional question of what level your really going to run a tournement at. A 25 resource game playes very differently then a 100 resource game. I would argue that at the 100 resource level the game stops being skirmish and moves into the realm of squad based battles. Should a 25 resource tournement be run differently then a 100 resource tournement?
Incedentily with OTL's permission I'm thinking about a 25 - 50 resource Brushfire tournement for The Warstore Weekend. Something small enough that if need be I could provide most of the armies but large enough for the participants to get the Brushfire experiance.
Unless you're running pure Heart of the Fatherland Vandalands, 100 resources don't work much differently than a warband game. My Aquitar and chugoku at 100 resources are really just 2 full squads, which still relates very well to the skirmish level, and wouldn't really run any different than other skirmish level game, since you don't have to do every model's activation separately (unless you do decide to do that)...
Edit: Even at 100 resources, HotF still wouldn't be too different, you'd just have a lot more models on the board.
Alfndrate wrote: Unless you're running pure Heart of the Fatherland Vandalands, 100 resources don't work much differently than a warband game. My Aquitar and chugoku at 100 resources are really just 2 full squads, which still relates very well to the skirmish level, and wouldn't really run any different than other skirmish level game, since you don't have to do every model's activation separately (unless you do decide to do that)...
Edit: Even at 100 resources, HotF still wouldn't be too different, you'd just have a lot more models on the board.
I guess my point was that your switching to actual squads instead of primarily individual models. Once you start using actual squads the dynamics of changing squad size come into effect. It's also the point where banners, horns and exemplars come into the picture.
Agreed, but the game is designed with the squad in mind, I mean you had what 100 resources for the megabattle, or 200? Did it seem very different from your 25 resource game? Note the small unit that comes in the warband is meant to be run as a unit, but the rules do allow, and sometimes very effectively, for the squads to be split and rejoined very easily.
Catyrpelius wrote: For me the difference was there and it was different enough for me to think of them as two different animals.
Interesting, the difference isn't there with me. Something I'll take into consideration. I know you said it becomes more squad based at the higher points, could you elaborate what the biggest difference was?
At this level I'm much more invested in the individual model even though I would probably activate the 3 Weasel's as a squad. At 25 resources I basically have a stripped down version of Brushfire where the death of each individual model severally hurts my efforts to win. At 100 resources I have much more of a buffer, the death of a single model is no longer that horrible.
If I was going to run a tournement for new players I'd probably play at 25 or 50 resources but if I was going to run it for mostly experianced players I'd run it at 100 points and up. That way the experianced players would have full acess to all the special wargear and exemplars while the newer players have a much simplified game.
Alfndrate wrote: Would you suggest 2 documents, 1 that details general Brushfire tournaments, and 1 that details the new player specific Warband Tournament?
Yes and No...
What I meen is that the new player specific tournement probably won't be run enough to make it worth your time. After all most of the people who would run a new player specific tournement are probably already active on these forums. Bascially I'd like it but I can't be used as an example of the average gamer.
Now that I think about it I probably wouldn't write a tournement packet to take into account less the 100 resources and 5 hero levels.
That makes sense... I'll probably keep lower resource games in the document because it's useful information to have, and it feels more complete. Something I haven't added in yet is hero levels
Catyrpelius wrote: Have you come up with a way to score yet? Are you going to use scnerios or just straight kill points?
I'm thinking of Win/Loss and victory points. The victory points could go in 1 of 2 ways.
1) Points based purely on points earned in the scenario, OR
2) Points earned on the type of victory that is described in the Brushfire rulebook.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hrm... Running into an interesting scenario with regards to placing in the tournament.
Ideally, I'd like to keep victory severity the same as it is on page 37 in the Rulebook. The way I have it drafted up is that table standings are decided by taking the person with the most wins, and the highest victory points, and place him against the next person with the most wins and victory points that he has yet to face.
This removes the idea of surviving and getting the win by the barest margin you can. The victory levels have pyrrhic victories which would be such a win. It awards 0 points. So you would end up with the win, but you would not gain any victory points. So if at the end of a 3 round tournament, you manage to get 3 pyrrhic victories, then you would have the best win/loss record, but you wouldn't have the most victory points.
I think this can and does work, but I want your opinions.
Alfndrate wrote: Okay, so what are people's thoughts on scenarios? I know this is a vague question, but I'm not sure how to handle them.
Tournment scoring should be based around scoring in the rulebook. If the rulebook calls for scenarios in a basic game then you should use them in a tournement. If scoring in a game is just based upon anihilating your opponants force then thats how your tournement should score.
Alfndrate wrote: Okay, so what are people's thoughts on scenarios? I know this is a vague question, but I'm not sure how to handle them.
Tournment scoring should be based around scoring in the rulebook. If the rulebook calls for scenarios in a basic game then you should use them in a tournement. If scoring in a game is just based upon anihilating your opponants force then thats how your tournement should score.
Good point, I didn't make myself clear lol, good catching me on that . I don't ever think that pure destruction should be the only way to win... I think it can easily be a possible scenario, or a tie breaker, but every round shouldn't be "kill your enemy faster than he can kill you". I think objectives are a great equalizer in many cases. We had two malifaux players last week going at it. One kid was playing the Dreamer and Lord Chompy Bits, and the other was playing Lady Justice and it was his first game. The new player ended up causing a draw because the LCB player wanted to kill everything, and he held him off long enough to prevent him from grabbing the objective.
Ya, caster kill in Warmahordes is a big turn off. At SR sundays around here 90% of games end in caster kill. Extremely not fun. I like missions that involve an actually objective, not just "durr hurr assassination run go."
I do like the Steamroller style missions. Controlling zones is a neat way to play, and after so much 40k "control objective" gets a bit tiring. So given that, the Brushfire book missions are probably fine. =P
Zygrot24 wrote: Ya, caster kill in Warmahordes is a big turn off. At SR sundays around here 90% of games end in caster kill. Extremely not fun. I like missions that involve an actually objective, not just "durr hurr assassination run go."
I do like the Steamroller style missions. Controlling zones is a neat way to play, and after so much 40k "control objective" gets a bit tiring. So given that, the Brushfire book missions are probably fine. =P
I will say this though, I enjoy caster kill because my army is designed around that... it generally needs to get caster kill for the win, however I don't like annihilation...
On that note, I think that some form of objective control is a good thing for scenarios because it forces you to consider moving in to places that you might not like but need to do so to win, especially when it's being used as a tie breaker.
What I like the most about the SR scenarios is that you have the choice: you can go for the scenario win, controlling the zones and objectives, but also have the option to go for the kill.
In the same vein, in the others tournament I attended, I liked those with more than one goal, with lets say a primary goal, but also a secondary and tertiary ones, like the Adepticon format, or the way
Malifaux handle it with the Schemes (I'm not sold on the secret part of it though).
Tonio wrote: What I like the most about the SR scenarios is that you have the choice: you can go for the scenario win, controlling the zones and objectives, but also have the option to go for the kill.
In the same vein, in the others tournament I attended, I liked those with more than one goal, with lets say a primary goal, but also a secondary and tertiary ones, like the Adepticon format, or the way
Malifaux handle it with the Schemes (I'm not sold on the secret part of it though).
I like the secret aspect of the schemes, because then it throws your opponent on the defensive and changes the game. Though I feel that works really well, and really only with Malifaux. I would think that most other games work better with a primary and secondary objective.
Alfndrate wrote: Okay, so what are people's thoughts on scenarios? I know this is a vague question, but I'm not sure how to handle them.
Tournment scoring should be based around scoring in the rulebook. If the rulebook calls for scenarios in a basic game then you should use them in a tournement. If scoring in a game is just based upon anihilating your opponants force then thats how your tournement should score.
Good point, I didn't make myself clear lol, good catching me on that . I don't ever think that pure destruction should be the only way to win... I think it can easily be a possible scenario, or a tie breaker, but every round shouldn't be "kill your enemy faster than he can kill you". I think objectives are a great equalizer in many cases. We had two malifaux players last week going at it. One kid was playing the Dreamer and Lord Chompy Bits, and the other was playing Lady Justice and it was his first game. The new player ended up causing a draw because the LCB player wanted to kill everything, and he held him off long enough to prevent him from grabbing the objective.
First off Brushfire isn't Malifaux. In Malifaux Scenarios and Schemes are how you score points to win a game, it was then carried over into tournement play.
If something isn't used in the base rules I don't think it should be added into a tournement.
That being said as I've never completly read the Bruishfire rulebook I'm not sure how they determine victory. When i play I usually just play to anihilation.
I know it's not Malifaux In Brushfire, there are different scenarios, each scenario has victory conditions and victory severity. You may have won, but at what price? This victory severity determines how many victory points you earn, the person with more victory points wins (That is used mostly for campaign play, but it's written into the base scenarios).
I'll look at it tonight and get back to you tommorrow with some more informed comment.
@Cyp - How would you like NJ Gamer to run a 50 resource beginners tournement at the Warstore Weekend? NJ Gamer would provide the terrain, player packets, tournement materials, several loaner armies and man power. On the Lamb provides their rules knowledge if needed and prize support.
Catyrpelius wrote: I'll look at it tonight and get back to you tommorrow with some more informed comment.
@Cyp - How would you like NJ Gamer to run a 50 resource beginners tournement at the Warstore Weekend? NJ Gamer would provide the terrain, player packets, tournement materials, several loaner armies and man power. On the Lamb provides their rules knowledge if needed and prize support.
Catyrpelius wrote: I'll look at it tonight and get back to you tommorrow with some more informed comment.
@Cyp - How would you like NJ Gamer to run a 50 resource beginners tournement at the Warstore Weekend? NJ Gamer would provide the terrain, player packets, tournement materials, several loaner armies and man power. On the Lamb provides their rules knowledge if needed and prize support.
Catyrpelius wrote: I'll look at it tonight and get back to you tommorrow with some more informed comment.
@Cyp - How would you like NJ Gamer to run a 50 resource beginners tournement at the Warstore Weekend? NJ Gamer would provide the terrain, player packets, tournement materials, several loaner armies and man power. On the Lamb provides their rules knowledge if needed and prize support.
Approved.
We can talk about specifics as the event gets alittle closer, I will however start the leg work from my end...
Tonio wrote: What I like the most about the SR scenarios is that you have the choice: you can go for the scenario win, controlling the zones and objectives, but also have the option to go for the kill.
In the same vein, in the others tournament I attended, I liked those with more than one goal, with lets say a primary goal, but also a secondary and tertiary ones, like the Adepticon format, or the way
Malifaux handle it with the Schemes (I'm not sold on the secret part of it though).
Agreed! I just attended a warmahordes tourney this past weekend, and most of the games were won by objective. Only 1 of my 4 games was decided by caster kill, and it was similar for many folks. The new SR2013 really emphasizes objective play, I think, and if Brushfire's could be anything like that I think it would be sweet.
Tonio wrote: What I like the most about the SR scenarios is that you have the choice: you can go for the scenario win, controlling the zones and objectives, but also have the option to go for the kill.
In the same vein, in the others tournament I attended, I liked those with more than one goal, with lets say a primary goal, but also a secondary and tertiary ones, like the Adepticon format, or the way
Malifaux handle it with the Schemes (I'm not sold on the secret part of it though).
Agreed! I just attended a warmahordes tourney this past weekend, and most of the games were won by objective. Only 1 of my 4 games was decided by caster kill, and it was similar for many folks. The new SR2013 really emphasizes objective play, I think, and if Brushfire's could be anything like that I think it would be sweet.
Well Brushfire's tournament rules would have to be more objective based, we don't have a caster kill function And I don't think any tournament ruleset from OTL would change the fundamentals of the game to include such a thing.
Tonio wrote: What I like the most about the SR scenarios is that you have the choice: you can go for the scenario win, controlling the zones and objectives, but also have the option to go for the kill.
In the same vein, in the others tournament I attended, I liked those with more than one goal, with lets say a primary goal, but also a secondary and tertiary ones, like the Adepticon format, or the way
Malifaux handle it with the Schemes (I'm not sold on the secret part of it though).
Agreed! I just attended a warmahordes tourney this past weekend, and most of the games were won by objective. Only 1 of my 4 games was decided by caster kill, and it was similar for many folks. The new SR2013 really emphasizes objective play, I think, and if Brushfire's could be anything like that I think it would be sweet.
You should read through the last few pages of the brushfire thread in the DCM forum...
The "Dakka Contributing Member" forum is a subsection for folks that donate to keep Dakka running. You can go to your profile and along the left bar where you avatar is you'll find a donate button.
It's an Elitist Sub-section for Snobby Snobs. (j/k)
We've had a thread going in there for over a hundred pages.
I like this forum better for Brushfire discussion b/c more people can contribute. The DCM thread (it's only one thread) was so long because Brushfire had no subforum!
RiTides wrote: I like this forum better for Brushfire discussion b/c more people can contribute. The DCM thread (it's only one thread) was so long because Brushfire had no subforum!
So don't worry you're not missing out Tonio
I'd like to point out that the regular contributors in this subforum are all DCMs with the exception really of Tonio, Zygrot, and WhiteRoo... not many more people contributing here, than up in DCM land, but you're right you can get more people to contribute here. The problem that say... I'm facing is that I'm looking for feedback on an unfinished product, and the DCM boards gives me a solid staging ground for feedback before I get something to the point and say, "I think I can release this for open testing."
While I'm getting good feedback from the DCM boards, I'm not getting much more thoughts down in this thread. Now if this were the other way, and I were getting plenty of feedback, then I would be farther along, and would be willing to release what I've done for an "open beta" while things get polished.
Tonio, Zygrot, and WhiteRoo have all contributed a lot in here, so imo it's well worth posting in an area where they can also add their thoughts.
Using the DCM thread for something that's not "public" yet is of course fine, but I think if you posted the same things only in this section you would get the same response from the people posting in the DCM thread.
RiTides wrote: Tonio, Zygrot, and WhiteRoo have all contributed a lot in here, so imo it's well worth posting in an area where they can also add their thoughts.
Using the DCM thread for something that's not "public" yet is of course fine, but I think if you posted the same things only in this section you would get the same response from the people posting in the DCM thread.
I'm not saying that Tonio et al aren't contributing to these subforums, I'm just saying that if it got even a 10th of the traffic that WM/H General Discussion got, I would get more feedback and be able to release things here earlier, and get feedback on it quicker.
In the end it's 6 of one thing, half a dozen of another. The lack of feedback is attributed to the age of this subforum and the number of people that post here to begin with.
*shrugs* If I can get the feedback I'm looking for in the DCM forums, I can have something released here by the weekend... *hint hint*
WhiteRoo wrote: That's still would be 3 more people to contribute than you have there. If you already have 30 people there, it's still 10% more feedback!
Give us something to talk about because this part is pretty silent.
It's more like, "66%" more feedback. The regular contributors to the DCM Brushfire Thread are RiTides, Cy, Misk, Wehrkind, Gym, Casey's Law, and myself >_>
While it's silent here, I'm curious as to what are your thoughts on competitive play.
WhiteRoo, you've been playing a lot of Brushfire recently, what Resource and Hero Level do you play at? How long does it take you to complete a game, what mission do you play?
RiTides wrote: I still like 100 resource, 3 hero levels or 200 resource, 5 hero levels. I guess 150 and 4 although I haven't tried that middle size yet.
It's interesting that you like HLVL 3 for 100 resources, I feel that HVL 2 works well at a 25 (warband) and 50 Resource game, but when you get to 75 Resources you start wanting that third rank to use for talents, as you start to put more bodies on the table. Though with how much you use Heart of the Fatherlands, I'm sure your sense of bodies on the table is skewed .
I played a 30, 50, and 75 Resource game last Friday*, and I never had more than 7 models on the table not including my hero, whereas every point increase allowed 1 to 2 more Weasel Fusiliers, and at least 1 new badger. My Red Wu were crushed because I was really wanting flaming crossbow bolts as well as the ability to flank automatically with my Celestial Tactician and avoid the KE Roll against that damned mole and ambushing, there just wasn't enough bodies on the table to absorb some fire, and the added heroic or tactical actions could have saved me a bit earlier.
* - I also played a 25 warband game with my Civitas, and then 100 and 150 HLVL 5 games this weekend with my Chugoku.
I played 45/45/45 HRLV 3 games mostly. I can only play two matches a week and we are in the learning phase. We are still ironing out the balance problems terrain-wise and forgetting what our units can do. Currently the games are on hold because I started painting the models.
The armies are Ribenguo and Vandalands(I play the vandals).
Because of the low model count Killpoint is the pretty much only scenario we can play. It is wierd that the commanders worth nothing in killpoint victorypoint-wise.
The Ribenguo's ranged coverage was overhelming so far but I learned a few tricks since then.
It's more like, "66%" more feedback. The regular contributors to the DCM Brushfire Thread are RiTides, Cy, Misk, Wehrkind, Gym, Casey's Law, and myself >_>
When you get the chance within the next week can you do me a huge flavor? Can you take a resource level and HLVL and play a few games?
The catch is that I would like you all to change the scenarios in between each game. So if the first game is Kill Point, the second game could be Objective Control, etc... And once you know the scenario and the faction you're facing, make a list that you think would do well against the scenario you're facing. Once you have your list written down, exchange it with your opponent and start playing as normal.
Write up your results here so I can use this feed back for list building in tournaments.
I have shown it off to all of my gaming friends, but remember these are all warmachine players. They are the ones I went to TempleCon with and who all each separately commented on how they loved the aesthetic and idea, but the rules looked really loose.
I haven't been commenting on needing to tighten up the rules based on nothing, it's the feedback of the folks around here. I find the game a ton of fun and had a great time playing with Gymnogyps last time, but in a thread discussing competitive play we have to call a spade a spade. The rules need to be tightened up to make the game usable in a "competitive" environment, and to lure in folks that don't join based on the anthropomorphic nature of it alone (although many folks will join just for that, and for-fun-play, myself included).
I consider myself a huge fan of this game, but I can't talk my friends into it (and wouldn't) without telling them honestly what it is- a game that's more for fun than anything else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but anything else they'd see right through in a second.
Again, there's 3/4 of a page for basically each phase of the game in the rulebook. We need more text! Diagrams, order of operations of actions, etc. I'd chip in for that
It migh not come as a suprise, but I agree on that one. I have seen this, but if someone reads the book the first time, you have to have exeptional memory to get a good understanding.
My first games mostly came down as who was able to memorize more from the book, because it is in the pitfall of you often think you know something but then you forgot that a reach weapon is actually giving you a +2 charge range(this was the most recent thing I got memorized finally).
Actually, now that I double-checked it I realized there is Reach and Extended Reach and they are not the same... you get the idea.
RiTides wrote: I have shown it off to all of my gaming friends, but remember these are all warmachine players. They are the ones I went to TempleCon with and who all each separately commented on how they loved the aesthetic and idea, but the rules looked really loose.
I haven't been commenting on needing to tighten up the rules based on nothing, it's the feedback of the folks around here. I find the game a ton of fun and had a great time playing with Gymnogyps last time, but in a thread discussing competitive play we have to call a spade a spade. The rules need to be tightened up to make the game usable in a "competitive" environment, and to lure in folks that don't join based on the anthropomorphic nature of it alone (although many folks will join just for that, and for-fun-play, myself included).
I consider myself a huge fan of this game, but I can't talk my friends into it (and wouldn't) without telling them honestly what it is- a game that's more for fun than anything else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but anything else they'd see right through in a second.
Again, there's 3/4 of a page for basically each phase of the game in the rulebook. We need more text! Diagrams, order of operations of actions, etc. I'd chip in for that
Those are all fair points, but to assume that we're not tightening the rules up is to assume we're resting on our laurels and don't care.
With that said, this is part of the reason why I'm trying to gain feedback on competitive play, because that's where you tend to find your tightest rulesets (in my opinion) because tournament players want things quick, easy, and streamlined.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "hey guys this game is fun, and very casual, but I think you'd still enjoy it." That's what it takes to get people to play.
Don't use the Brushfire rulebook when demoing the game, you should start out using just the quickstart rules or a "demo script" that highlights the things you should be teaching to get them interested in the game, we want broad strokes and basecoats, not fine blending and detailing. The idea of a demo is to introduce the game and it's mechanics, and not to burden them with all of the rules.
You say you've shown it to your friends, but have you taught them the game?
And WhiteRoo, of course Reach and Extended Reach are two different things, if Extended Reach was the same as Reach, we'd just have Reach Reach: May attack an enemy model that is in base to base with a model you're in base to base with and extends charge range by 2 inches. Extended Reach: May attack through 2 models.
Edit: Can talk more later... small family function.
Alf, I actually had typed more but deleted it as I feel it's not relevant. Honestly, it's my choice whether or not to teach my friends this game. Right now, it's hard to do so as the rules have too many loopholes. I've expressed this a number of different ways, and I'd rather not keep repeating it!
I am a huge fan of the world, the game, the models, and even the basic rules. My feedback is that the rules need to be tightened up before competitive play is attempted, which is what this thread is about.
RiTides wrote: Alf, I actually had typed more but deleted it as I feel it's not relevant. Honestly, it's my choice whether or not to teach my friends this game. Right now, it's hard to do so as the rules have too many loopholes. I've expressed this a number of different ways, and I'd rather not keep repeating it!
I am a huge fan of the world, the game, the models, and even the basic rules. My feedback is that the rules need to be tightened up before competitive play is attempted, which is what this thread is about.
I fully understand that it's your choice to teach this game, but you say a fan of the game, and you love everything about the game, yet you refuse to teach the game to your friends because, "The rules have too many loopholes." Excuse me for saying this, but those don't add up. You've said it yourself, you've probably played more Brushfire than anyone with the exception of Cy, and Misk (and maybe the original playtesters), to say that you won't teach the game until the rules are "tightened" is a little ridiculous in my book. You teach the games you love because you want people to see why you love them, and in hopes that you can get them to love these games too, even if it's just a fraction of the amount of care and love you have for a game. You've worked with kids, I have PMs that said you did, teaching a game to friends and strangers is like teaching to children. You only do it if you are passionate about what you're teaching. To say that you love the game, yet not pass on this love I know that you love the game, you've played with the designers, you've gone to conventions just to play Brushfire, but you sit here telling me that the rules need to be tightened, and yet offer no help.
The last time I played Brushfire was at GenCon giving demos in the Event Hall 15 minutes after I received my first game in over a month. I hadn't touched the game from that point up until last Friday where I played 6 games throughout the weekend. I had minor rules issues, granted I texted Cy, but they were simple questions like, "Who wins a tie in combat", "Is Celestial Tactician's Lay of the Land Flank automatic or do I roll Flank as normal". Other than that, I had no trouble interpreting the rules to teach 2 different players how to play, both of whom had never played wargames in their lives.
I guess I just don't see how you can say you love the game, and yet offer no help.
This is now going off topic, and I suggest that if you have thoughts about competitive play, other than, "the rules need to be tightened," then post them here. If not, you are free to post your opinions elsewhere. Your feedback is generally regarded in high favor.
You misunderstand me- my friends aren't wanting to pick up the game because the rules aren't clear. I don't know how many ways I can say that. It's their feedback, not just my own.
I would Love to see the rules be made better. I've put up a Q&A thread when I started playing to resolve rules issues, and posted about them a lot. If that's not helping, what is?
If you had no issues with the rules after a short demo, you're simply not acknowledging the problem / not looking deep enough. The first step to making better rules is acknowledging the gaps!
I'm personally not a big fan of "demo plays", because as usually it is pretty close to the real thing, it is in the uncanny valley of rules.
For example I have played the Island of Blood which is the Warhammer Fantasy demo. When the demo rules explain you that Skavens have a Warpfire Thrower and a Poison Wind Globaldier but you will not get to use them despite you even have the models because as the purposes of the demo they operate as a flame thrower and a stone thrower... this was the point when I lost a lot of enthusiasm about the game.
And from there it get's worse. Turns out the two armies are not matching in point, one runs a model that it shouldn't the other cannot run it's warband rules that it should and you don't even play the real thing. I felt cheated. That thing is not cheap and turns out now that I have it I still can't play warhammer.
My friend tries to get me into Hordes/Warmachine, but I think the two player battle box tries to pull the same trick. I have read their demo rules and yeah, it kinda tries.
I can see the reasoning behind this phenomenon but having the demo teach some "basics" to you then contradict it with "well it's actually works like this..." creates a gap between players who start out with the demo and players who play the real thing.
In short, I don't want to play that kind of demo, and it is great that Brushfire doesn't tried to pull this on me. Maybe I skipped the "demo" part altogether, but I also wouldn't start to teach anyone to Brushfire with the demo script. I would use the full rulebook and never teach something just so I can contradict it later.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Powder Keg mission sound's really cool and we will try it.
I cannot feedback a lot on competitive-like play, but I can feedback as a starting out player. And my biggest problem is that most of the scenarios simply aren't playable when the total model count of the two armies together is 14. I can imagine it's even worse when you didn't invested in other miniature games to round out the model count to try out things. I think it's a common problem with the genre, but still.
Well, that document is looking really good! Fantastic job, Alfndrate and Cyp
I have a question since it is mentioned specifically in the first scenario- Cyp, could you clarify for me when a model flees off the table? The reason I ask, is for example in Gymnogyps' and I's last game, I caused one of her units to flee twice, from 2 separate hamster balls (landing consecutively).
First, her unit fled to the table edge. Then, they fled sideways along it to avoid going off of it.
I feel like perhaps a way to resolve the issue of having sooooooo much of your army instantly disappear if they flee off (and since in that scenario they're set aside separately from what has been killed) is to treat them like you guys treated my hamster ball at TempleCon which went off the table- namely, they could walk back on the next turn, but couldn't take an action.
What do you think? The way I've currently been playing it, it's either devastating (most of Gym's army would've been off the board in the first turn) or somewhat meaningless (they just shuffle along the board edge, having lost their action but getting ready to unload on my hamsters in the coming turn).
The document reminded me of this since in the first scenario it calls out units that flee off the table separately from those which are destroyed. Otherwise, in that scenario, someone could have most of their army flee off the table, and still win if what remained killed more than their total in points / contested enough objectives, without the fleeing units really mattering for either side.
RiTides wrote: If you had no issues with the rules after a short demo, you're simply not acknowledging the problem / not looking deep enough. The first step to making better rules is acknowledging the gaps!
You missed the part where I said I played 6 games after 6 months of not touching Brushfire, 2 warband games, 2 games under 100 points and 2 games of at least 100 points. Far from short demos if you ask me, and I'm aware there are places where clarifications can and should be made, but with the current ruleset you can play the game without any issue that can't be resolved with a little effort and thought.
WhiteRoo wrote:I'm personally not a big fan of "demo plays", because as usually it is pretty close to the real thing, it is in the uncanny valley of rules.
Spoilered for Wall of Text:
Spoiler:
For example I have played the Island of Blood which is the Warhammer Fantasy demo. When the demo rules explain you that Skavens have a Warpfire Thrower and a Poison Wind Globaldier but you will not get to use them despite you even have the models because as the purposes of the demo they operate as a flame thrower and a stone thrower... this was the point when I lost a lot of enthusiasm about the game.
And from there it get's worse. Turns out the two armies are not matching in point, one runs a model that it shouldn't the other cannot run it's warband rules that it should and you don't even play the real thing. I felt cheated. That thing is not cheap and turns out now that I have it I still can't play warhammer.
My friend tries to get me into Hordes/Warmachine, but I think the two player battle box tries to pull the same trick. I have read their demo rules and yeah, it kinda tries.
I can see the reasoning behind this phenomenon but having the demo teach some "basics" to you then contradict it with "well it's actually works like this..." creates a gap between players who start out with the demo and players who play the real thing.
In short, I don't want to play that kind of demo, and it is great that Brushfire doesn't tried to pull this on me. Maybe I skipped the "demo" part altogether, but I also wouldn't start to teach anyone to Brushfire with the demo script. I would use the full rulebook and never teach something just so I can contradict it later.
There is a difference between a demo script and an introductory guide. A Demo Script is something that a Pressganger, Henchman, or some other volunteer of a company can use as the skeleton of a demo game (I'll be including the text to a demo script from Wyrd at the end of my post). An introductory guide is generally something that companies include that are different than a demo script, that are usually supposed to take the place of having someone demo the game for you. The problem is that they are supposed to take 1 of 2 levels of understanding on how to do it. The first level is someone with no wargaming experience, these are often too barebones and assume the player is an idiot (you tend to see these with GW box sets), while over-simplification is not always a bad thing, when you combine it with an obvious advantage for 1 army over the other (like Dark Angels in DV), then it tends to sour one person's view of the game, while inflating the other person's view. The second level tends to throw the intro guide out the window (for the most part) and give you quickstart rules, which are the basics. They might gloss over things like reach, power attacks, extended reach, and rifling (to pull from WM/H and Brushfire), but by the end of at least the first game you should know the broad things like unit activation, turn order, and phases. After the second or third, you should start to remember the things and relying on the books less and less.
The Warhammer Fantasy and 40k starter boxes are far from balanced, it's an issue they've had for a long time, and seem to ignore and refuse to correct. the Warmachine and Hordes 2 player starter boxes should probably have any demo script they have ignored, and players download the quickstart rules that normally come with the battle boxes. From what I've seen (having given a kid a demo using his Khador side of the box) they're balanced, and are good starting points for those armies. I haven't tried the Hordes box, but what I know of the Legion side of things, it's balanced pretty well against the Circle side.
Remember, a demo game is usually given to you by another person that knows the game. GW Red Shirts do this, but they're forced to use the intro guides because well... it's GW...
The Powder Keg mission sound's really cool and we will try it.
I cannot feedback a lot on competitive-like play, but I can feedback as a starting out player. And my biggest problem is that most of the scenarios simply aren't playable when the total model count of the two armies together is 14. I can imagine it's even worse when you didn't invested in other miniature games to round out the model count to try out things. I think it's a common problem with the genre, but still.
Awesome! I had some fun writing it. And the model count shouldn't be too much of an issue at smaller point levels, as you'll be playing on a smaller board (something I'm still working out for things that need to get placed x inches away). If you want to proxy models for Brushfire, head over to Wargames Vault and pick up Paperfire, a free (I believe) pdf you can download with has pictures of the models so you can use them without having the models. fix these to some bases (which you will probably have to buy), and you can try out larger point sizes
Demo Script:
Spoiler:
The Demo
• Prep the table. Have the Strategies and Schemes the players will be using already set aside for easy reference. Have models already deployed so they can jump right into the action. Have decks in easy reach.
• Gather the players together. Get to know the players’ names, and introduce opponents to one another if they don’t already know their opponent. (2 min)
• What do they know? Start off by asking if the players are familiar with Malifaux or with minis games in general? Make it a casual question, not an interrogation. It gives you a sense of what they may already know, and if you play some of the games mentioned it might give you a reference point for explaining rules. Good time to feel out what they want to see from the demo as well. (1 min)
• What is Malifaux? Tell them about the card-based system, how Crews are small in size, etc. in generalities for a quick summary. Don’t spend too much time on setting for now; get them into the game quickly. (2 min)
• Show the card mechanic. It’s the ‘cool stuff’ outside of the swanky setting and figs, give it a spotlight.
o Find an unopposed Duel (spell or Terrifying) on one of the models in your demo sets and show how it functions first. (1 min)
o Then show how an opposed Duel would work (quickly show an attack, either ranged or melee) and how the damage flip works. (2 min)
• Show the AP system last. Show how models get 2 AP and how they might spend them in a given activation. This is not a new innovation, so most minis gamers will be familiar with it. (1 min)
• Vocally walk the players through the first turn. Announce what each phase is and what they should be doing. Activations may take an odd amount of time, but the first turn should be fairly straightforward for what the players choose to do – ‘gently’ guiding the players on what to do first time out is a good idea if they seem to be taking too much time. (10 mins~15 mins)
• Turn them loose! Starting with turn two, the players are on their own. Hover for questions and/or offer suggestions/tips. Some groups will move faster than others, don’t make either feel pressured. They’ve paid to play a full game, let them. (30 mins)
• Any questions? (leave Encounters/Crew building for here) (6mins)
• Tell them where to buy their starters and rules!
Also they have specific ones that are set up and play out in a specific manner... but that's the gist.
RiTides, I agree with you. Currently the rules seem very loose to me. If I had to teach myself the game from the rulebook I would have struggled with it, just like we did Friday night at Templecon. I have every reason to belive though that, thats something their currently working to correct. Alot of people have made some great points and I'm sure Matt, Emily and Tom are going to take that into account when they release V2.0 of the rulebook.
If I was going to introduce someone new to the game I wouldn't start by handing them the rulebook. I'd start them off with a 25 resource demo game using the modified Stat Cards I'm currently working on. If they seem enthousiastic about the game I'd then move on to another demo game with regular stat cards and a cheat sheet. My point is that for any game system I'd walk a new player through a few games before I unleashed them on a rulebook.
@White - I'm going to go into a little Teaching a Game 101 and talk about stuff I've learned through the years selling other peoples products for very little reward.
First off there are two completly different types of demo games.
The first type is the type I belive your talking about. It's the 15 minute Demo you get at a large convention. During one of these demos I usually only have 15 or 20 minutes to get across the core consepts of a game before the player looses intreset and walks off. Because of that I give a very very bare bones demos. I will go over some background to grab their attention, I will go over the mechanics that make the game unique to get them interested, I will then play a few rounds of the game with them so they can see the flow of the game, I will let them win. If I've done my job correctly they will wander over to the booth and spend some money. At a large convention I'm not there to teach you all the rules to a game, I'm there to get you interested.
The second type of demo game is the type that you'd get at a FLGS. This type of demo is ment to explain the rules to a new player and get them to buy a force. It's longer and more indepth. Generally I like my FLGS demo games to build on themselves adding more levels of rules as we go along.
Talking specifically about Island of Blood and Dark Vengenence... I think your under a false impression here. Both of those sets are actually self conatined games within themselves that can later be used to break into the larger games of 40k or WHFB. Their both ment to tell a story in a box and introduce a new player to the world.
As I said I see the point of the Island of Blood, but I don't like it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually won a Killpoint mission once by making my opponent flee from the table. I... scored Victory... I guess but only my Warlord was alive.
Cyporiean wrote: RiTides, under the current rules, running your opponent's off the table via fear tests is a viable strategy.
What do you think about my suggestion of letting them walk back on next turn, but not activate, though? I might try that out with Gym as a test. Otherwise our last game would've been over before it began for her. Seems like a decent middle ground
Further demo discussion deserves it's own thread, I think. I'm not sure how we got there but that's not the topic of this thread so maybe start another if you guys want to discuss it more.
Cyporiean wrote: RiTides, under the current rules, running your opponent's off the table via fear tests is a viable strategy.
What do you think about my suggestion of letting them walk back on next turn, but not activate, though? I might try that out with Gym as a test. Otherwise our last game would've been over before it began for her. Seems like a decent middle ground
Further demo discussion deserves it's own thread, I think. I'm not sure how we got there but that's not the topic of this thread so maybe start another if you guys want to discuss it more.
Could she have avoided having that much of her force run off the table by doing something differently?
I think competitive play and demos go fairly hand in hand personally.
We was just finished two 2v2 matches. First, Ribenguo and Axony Vs Vandalands and Syzantine then Ribenguo and Syzantine Vs Vandalands and Axony
Things that I learned today:
- Hassan Kusuuf and his squad should not ambush. The first match was lost because he simply cannot enter the field until turn 4.
-Amamimoto the Ronin can be called in in a 45 point mach effectively and he is really hard to deal with(we wasn't able to).
-I should Fatherland a lot more.
-Defender only have to roll one defense dice agains all attacks he recieves against an attacking model. I only realized this after the two matches.
-Syzantines can't stand units with fear.
-Devon Brigardiers are damn awesome but die easily.
-Pulling off the "I'm charging the unit next to the Otter Asigarus with guns and redirecting most of the attacks to the Asigarus" trick really annoys the Ribenguo player.
-I should pay a lot more attention to setting up the table.
-Hordes Warpborn Skinwalkers are making awesome looking Hamster Berserkers.
-Horns are important and Ribenguo always have all of them.
-Vandalands can't shoot at all.
So the first match was lost really badly for Vandalands- Syzantine because most of the Syzantine army wasn't able to enter the battelfield. The secound was a hard-won victory for Ribenguo-Syzantine, they destroyed 55 points more worth of models. (we played 45/45/45 HRLV 2, 2v2, Killpoint matches). Even so both commanders were alive from Vandalands-Axony and both died from Ribenguo-Syzantine. Killpoint should somehow award points for destroyed commanders.
I won't be able to play soon, and even then, only at the 25 Resources level. However, I can still read.
I've passed thought the .05 Beta Tournament Pack, and I must first say that you did a really good job Alfndrate. It's clear and short. I just want to bring up some points that caught my eyes.
Page 2 - Army Lists I'm not a fan of writing list on the fly. That's a personal preference thing, though. That's one of the reason why I don't want to into competitive Malifaux. You do block the Resources pool at 1.5 times, the size, but still. You mention that players don't know their opponents before picking, but just based on previous round results, some players might be able to have a pretty good guess, and so customize their army in that sense.
At a higher Resource level, building on the fly might become a bit tedious too. Also, at those sizes, you should already be able to build a pretty versatile list anyway.
Page 2 - Modeling and Painting Why do you restrict the use of unreleased models, but allow proxy for them? I know that PP does restrict it for Steamroller, both they also don't allow for proxy, or use of any unreleased stuff at all.
Page 6 - Victory Severity The victory severity is based on fixed number of points, but the tournament format allow for various game sizes, which mean that at some game sizes, it's impossible to win by Glorious Victory, or even Close Victory. I would suggest using either a percentage, or to provide a table by game size.
There really aren't that many restrictions on models compared to other tournement packs...
1 - If a model is officially released use it.
2 - Conversions are allowed so long as their based off a Brushfire Model (i.e making a Badger in the Iron Claws out of a Badger at Claw.
3 - Unreleased models may be proxied but it has to be clear whats being proxied (i.e don't use Space Marines as Weasel Fusilers.)
Catyrpelius wrote: There really aren't that many restrictions on models compared to other tournement packs...
1 - If a model is officially released use it.
2 - Conversions are allowed so long as their based off a Brushfire Model (i.e making a Badger in the Iron Claws out of a Badger at Claw.
3 - Unreleased models may be proxied but it has to be clear whats being proxied (i.e don't use Space Marines as Weasel Fusilers.)
The missions/scenarios are being worked on....
I do understand that. But why adding a specific ruling to prevent the use of unreleased models, as people can still proxy them? It's not like PP where you can't use a unreleased model at all, even with proxy/custombuilt one.
Tonio wrote: Page 2 - Army Lists I'm not a fan of writing list on the fly. That's a personal preference thing, though. That's one of the reason why I don't want to into competitive Malifaux. You do block the Resources pool at 1.5 times, the size, but still. You mention that players don't know their opponents before picking, but just based on previous round results, some players might be able to have a pretty good guess, and so customize their army in that sense.
At a higher Resource level, building on the fly might become a bit tedious too. Also, at those sizes, you should already be able to build a pretty versatile list anyway.
The army list thing is currently something I'm testing, and hope that people can also help me test. The "lists on the fly" doesn't actually prevent you from coming to the tournament with pre-made lists. I do it in Malifaux all the time, especially once you have a solid foundation of what you like in a crew. The same holds true for Brushfire. Originally I liked the idea of 1 or 2 lists, but Caty and I were bouncing the ideas around of a lists on the fly, it is most certainly something that needs to be tested though.
Page 2 - Modeling and Painting Why do you restrict the use of unreleased models, but allow proxy for them? I know that PP does restrict it for Steamroller, both they also don't allow for proxy, or use of any unreleased stuff at all.
The "unreleased model thing" is modeled after PP and Wyrd. A good example of this is the Gargantuans that were for sale at GenCon (Hyperion and Woldwrath), or the new plastic kits from Wyrd. All of those unreleased models were allowed at GenCon events because someone could get them without issue (unless they were sold out >_< lol). The months following, you couldn't use those models in official tournaments (technically) because the models weren't officially released. So if you were to run a Brushfire tournament before the end of march/AdeptiCon and a Chugoku player wanted to play some Lem Han models he got early (because Cy and a few others have them), he wouldn't be allowed to use it. The rules are released, but the model is (if that makes sense). As soon as that model becomes officially released, then he can use them. Originally I didn't want to allow for conversions/kitbashes for models that had an official OTL release, but it was brought up to me that such a rule might actually get people to avoid tournaments/organized play. If/when we get far larger, then we can change the rule if need be.
Page 6 - Victory Severity The victory severity is based on fixed number of points, but the tournament format allow for various game sizes, which mean that at some game sizes, it's impossible to win by Glorious Victory, or even Close Victory. I would suggest using either a percentage, or to provide a table by game size.
Actually the only mission that is impossible to get a Glorious Victory for is the Kill Point Mission because you can't get a resource difference high enough (remember you add the resource number of each resource, so 25/25/25 = 75). But that is a pulled from the book mission, which we're looking over anyways.
Thanks for the feedback guys
Also thanks for the compliments on the document. I've only just started working with InDesign. I've got a smaller paged document atm that's ready for release, and I don't have any of the compression issues that the tournament doc had
Page 2 - Modeling and Painting Why do you restrict the use of unreleased models, but allow proxy for them? I know that PP does restrict it for Steamroller, both they also don't allow for proxy, or use of any unreleased stuff at all.
The "unreleased model thing" is modeled after PP and Wyrd. A good example of this is the Gargantuans that were for sale at GenCon (Hyperion and Woldwrath), or the new plastic kits from Wyrd. All of those unreleased models were allowed at GenCon events because someone could get them without issue (unless they were sold out >_< lol). The months following, you couldn't use those models in official tournaments (technically) because the models weren't officially released. So if you were to run a Brushfire tournament before the end of march/AdeptiCon and a Chugoku player wanted to play some Lem Han models he got early (because Cy and a few others have them), he wouldn't be allowed to use it. The rules are released, but the model is (if that makes sense). As soon as that model becomes officially released, then he can use them. Originally I didn't want to allow for conversions/kitbashes for models that had an official OTL release, but it was brought up to me that such a rule might actually get people to avoid tournaments/organized play. If/when we get far larger, then we can change the rule if need be.
I was probably unclear. The .05 beta document allows the use of entries with unreleased models, by using proxies. But at the same time, it prohibits from using the unreleased MINIATURES. So you can use a Lem Han, but only if you convert/kitbash one. That's what I find doesn't make sense. If you can use the rules, why limits the model? I understand where the idea is coming from, but all that boils down to is the fact that these games block the entries to be played at all. Which you aren't doing.
Allowing people to use unreleased models for stuff in the book but without mini is fine. A bit like GW does, contrary to PP/Wyrd. In a game with a slow or inegal release schedule like Brushfire, it's the right way to go if you want to have more than a couple factions represented.
I was probably unclear. The .05 beta document allows the use of unreleased models, by using proxies. But at the same time, it prohibits from using unreleased MINIATURES. So you can use a Lem Han, but only if you convert/kitbash one. That's what I find doesn't make sense. If you can use the rules, why limits the model?
Allowing people to use unreleased models for stuff in the book but without mini is fine. A bit like GW does, contrary to PP/Wyrd. In a game with a slow or inegal release schedule like Brushfire, it's the right way to go if you want to have more than a couple factions represented.
Hrm... perhaps I'm getting my signals crossed... the way it's supposed to read is like this:
1) Miniatures (physical things) that have not been released to the general public cannot be used except at an event where they're available
2) Released unit types with rules, but without miniatures (physical things) may be used, but must have a proxy that have to fit the theme of the game, be easily identifiable and on the right base.
I was probably unclear. The .05 beta document allows the use of unreleased models, by using proxies. But at the same time, it prohibits from using unreleased MINIATURES. So you can use a Lem Han, but only if you convert/kitbash one. That's what I find doesn't make sense. If you can use the rules, why limits the model?
Allowing people to use unreleased models for stuff in the book but without mini is fine. A bit like GW does, contrary to PP/Wyrd. In a game with a slow or inegal release schedule like Brushfire, it's the right way to go if you want to have more than a couple factions represented.
Hrm... perhaps I'm getting my signals crossed... the way it's supposed to read is like this:
1) Miniatures (physical things) that have not been released to the general public cannot be used except at an event where they're available
2) Released unit types with rules, but without miniatures (physical things) may be used, but must have a proxy that have to fit the theme of the game, be easily identifiable and on the right base.
Then, we are reading the same thing, but we don't agree on the principle. Why would you limit a miniature from being used, if the player can proxy the unit anyway? It doesn't give him a unfair advantage. That's all the ban in WM/H or Malifaux boils down to: if the model is not released, you cannot play the unit at all, to warrant an even playing field.
It's the spirit of the ruling I don't understand, not the ruling itself. I hope that is a bit clearer.
I was probably unclear. The .05 beta document allows the use of unreleased models, by using proxies. But at the same time, it prohibits from using unreleased MINIATURES. So you can use a Lem Han, but only if you convert/kitbash one. That's what I find doesn't make sense. If you can use the rules, why limits the model?
Allowing people to use unreleased models for stuff in the book but without mini is fine. A bit like GW does, contrary to PP/Wyrd. In a game with a slow or inegal release schedule like Brushfire, it's the right way to go if you want to have more than a couple factions represented.
Hrm... perhaps I'm getting my signals crossed... the way it's supposed to read is like this:
1) Miniatures (physical things) that have not been released to the general public cannot be used except at an event where they're available
2) Released unit types with rules, but without miniatures (physical things) may be used, but must have a proxy that have to fit the theme of the game, be easily identifiable and on the right base.
Then, we are reading the same thing, but we don't agree on the principle. Why would you limit a miniature from being used, if the player can proxy the unit anyway? It doesn't give him a unfair advantage. That's all the ban in WM/H or Malifaux boils down to: if the model is not released, you cannot play the unit at all, to warrant an even playing field.
It's the spirit of the ruling I don't understand, not the ruling itself. I hope that is a bit clearer.
Lol, glad we cleared that up... I'll talk it over with Cy and Misk...
I haven't researched this yet but I'm wondering what the rest of you guys think...
Are Exemplars mandatory for competitive play?
It struck me that they are much more powerful than most other options resource for resource. I could well be wrong and I'd quite like to be but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I think Mercenaries add to the issue by introducing many more Exemplars to choose from or to include at higher point games.
If they do turn out to be a little OP compared to equipment or siege machines that you might buy instead should there be a cap on how many you can take? Or how many resources you can spend on them?
With 2nd in beta this is the perfect time to figure this stuff out.
Not sure that I'd call the 4 Exemplars in the Merc doc 'many more'
Personally, I don't think any exemplars are mandatory*. Some factions benefit more from there exemplars, such as Ribenguo or Axony.. but those two's exemplars are really more of 'Character Units' then stuff like Tamias or Timmus.
In 2nd Edition we've changed most of the equipment costs, including siege weapon costs. These changes should make them a bit more viable for taking.
Haha yeh 'many' is a bit strong. It's a lot for a skirmish scale gaming though. If the equipment and stuff is going to be cheaper then that might solve the issue straight up.
I'm going to have to look through 2nd before I comment further. If they are OP then there are tonnes of easy solutions but I'm probably fabricating this issue. I've just keep imagining higher point games where Axony can field like 9 exemplars. If Siege Artillery was cheaper that could negate them but then maybe the Basillica would be OP.
Its also a matter of what do Kardaxx, Hua Poi Kay/Lao Yi, Leblac, and Jacques do for your army? Other then be priority targets for your opponent's range units?
Its also much more difficult for your opponent to take out/shut down a siege weapon then an Exemplar.
If they do turn out to be a little OP compared to equipment or siege machines that you might buy instead should there be a cap on how many you can take? Or how many resources you can spend on them?
But for the most part, several of the factions only have a small handful of Exemplars, and for the most part their cost tends to prohibit taking more than 1 or 2 of the Unique Exemplars.
I think it's something that will have to be played, but I don't think placing a cap on them is the right thing to do.
I also didn't had the chance to try it out, but actually a siege weapon is more expensive than listed because cannons aren't going to fire themselves. So one can count +15 resource per siege weapon for a crew.
Siege weapons are also very situational. it's not that hard to avoid the ballista or the cannon if there is enough terrain, so mostly they are just wasted resource. Not to mention that if things go wrong they can be taken by the enemy.
While exemplars are really strong at any situation, it takes an another exemplar to take down one, they are mobile, usually have the damage potential of a siege weapon and have amazing utility with their banners and horns.
If there is no structure to destroy -so siege weapons are a necessity- I would take exemplars over siege weapons.
WhiteRoo wrote: I also didn't had the chance to try it out, but actually a siege weapon is more expensive than listed because cannons aren't going to fire themselves. So one can count +15 resource per siege weapon for a crew.
Siege weapons are also very situational. it's not that hard to avoid the ballista or the cannon if there is enough terrain, so mostly they are just wasted resource. Not to mention that if things go wrong they can be taken by the enemy.
While exemplars are really strong at any situation, it takes an another exemplar to take down one, they are mobile, usually have the damage potential of a siege weapon and have amazing utility with their banners and horns.
If there is no structure to destroy -so siege weapons are a necessity- I would take exemplars over siege weapons.
This is a good point. This might just be the 40k player in me coming out, but more 100 points of bodies on the table is better than 100 points of siege weapons (this is obviously a larger number than we deal with here in Brushfire, but the point kind of stands). The best part though is like if I wanted to run a Trebuchet (one of the better siege weapons imo), Under 2nd Edition, I spend 15 food for a small unit of 3 Chugokan Color Guard. Keep them as basic as I can (no paid upgrades, and their free one), and the lumber and gold it'd cost for a trebuchet balances out against what I'm normally taking on a unit of Chugokan Color Guard. Though I suppose they are actually cheaper under 2nd Ed Rules since the upgrade is free and the only thing I'd have to spend is to get a heater lol. . And if you're RiTides, he uses trebuchets to launch his Hamsters across the board... So the special ammo is always a nice reason to take siege weapons.
WhiteRoo wrote: Siege weapons are also very situational. it's not that hard to avoid the ballista or the cannon if there is enough terrain, so mostly they are just wasted resource. Not to mention that if things go wrong they can be taken by the enemy.
From my wargaming experiance, if I can field a model that is going to make you avoid it's area of influance I'm probably going to win the game. By making you react like that to a model of mine on the table it's completly stolen any initiative from you and given it to me. It's important to remember that not every model in an army needs to be there because of it's ability to deal a large amount of damage. It's my opinion that a model that basically dictates how your going to move will be much more important.
WhiteRoo wrote: Siege weapons are also very situational. it's not that hard to avoid the ballista or the cannon if there is enough terrain, so mostly they are just wasted resource. Not to mention that if things go wrong they can be taken by the enemy.
From my wargaming experiance, if I can field a model that is going to make you avoid it's area of influance I'm probably going to win the game. By making you react like that to a model of mine on the table it's completly stolen any initiative from you and given it to me. It's important to remember that not every model in an army needs to be there because of it's ability to deal a large amount of damage. It's my opinion that a model that basically dictates how your going to move will be much more important.
That's a good point.
But still, Exemplars are basically the same here. They will dictate the game because ignoring them is fatal. Also Exemplars mostly aren't cost food and need no operating crew. They damage potential is not dependent on luck as the siege weapon's. There even is a few with Artillery weapons, and besides the hamster ball - which became a bit less effective with the fear change - exemplars are clearly the way over siege weapons.
Except that Exemplars aren't always the way to go. Looking at Chugoku, who has a lot of Exemplars but that's because of the split nature of the faction. If I take Gan Zi, I gain fire on ranged attacks (only good if he's in a squad with them), and if they ambush from forest or water terrain, they don't deviate. If there is no water or forest terrain on the board, or I don't have Crossbows in my Chugokan Color guard, then he's a waste of 25 lr and gd.
Those resources could be spent on a Trebuchet (10lr/'20gd), which gives me a deviating fireball, rocks, boulders, etc... Just by placing down the fireball special ammo, I block off an area of the board, potentially up to 10 inches from wherever it lands. No one is going to want to go near it because it sets things on fire. That means that the rest of my army can prepare and wait for you to come into an area that is more advantagous for me in a fight. Whether it's small enough that you can't get many models in there, or large enough for me to get clear shots without giving up any. Exemplars aren't the be all end all...
They're supplementary to the unit they go with. Would you say that exemplars are the obviously better choice if they also cost food?
What is this fireball thing you are talking about?
Well, I would still not play with that fireball. Trebuches are too unpredictable.
The problem with the trebuchet is that you definitely don't want to shoot too short, giving the deviation a chance to make the shot come back at you. It gets riskier when you have to shoot over your units.
The more dice you roll, the more stable the shot gets(statistically), so it's at best at hitting things at 32-33 inch. It also will probably not hit anything, so it's going to deviate.
Actually Warhammer Fantasy equivalents of this weapon are worse, but I bet yo aren't going to block strategic points on the map with it.
(Apparently rats are fireproof now. It's amazing!)
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's also that you have six chance to shoot with it provided some game You probably will not shoot just maybe four times with it. You will probably completely and miss two of those.
Frack I forgot we got rid of that as their Siege Weapon Special Rule....
In 1st edition, I had a deviating firebomb that I could shoot once as part of my Chugokan Siege Weapon Special Rule D:
Even still, I can get plenty of board control with Traction Catapult by selecting Rocks as my ammo... That's 6 deviating small templates in a single operation. You'd likely not want to be within range of my trebuchets. And while I can't block off the entire board, I can make you think twice about where you move.
WhiteRoo wrote: I bet you don't like to be on the range of your own trebuches either. And that is the problem.
With the exception of 5 Red Wu, I play a very melee oriented Chugoku... I don't care about being in range of my own trebuchets, that's the risk I take.
Deviating templates are a calculated risk in any war game that has them. 40k players deal with it all the time.
The most a template can deviate up to is 9 inches, and that should only happen 1/10th of the time.
If my army is under trebuchet fire, Ignoring it completely is as good as a tactic as actually trying to avoid it. The area where a trebuchet can hit a unit is too big relative to the area it actually gonna hurt someone. meaning I can't dodge the danger zone while you can't grantee any hits. You might hit some units of mine but that's far not guaranteed.
Also, almost any unit can be equipped with a 2 AR shield that if they don't have the health to survive one hit or even two.
Having an exemplar on the other hand is far more beneficial.
Alfndrate wrote: I've given good examples of why siege weapons are worth taking... Why are exemplars better? What exemplars seem auto-includes?
For me atleast, and it should be noted I haven't seen the 2nd edition ruleset, exemplars are worth taking because I often have nothing else to spend my wood and gold on.
Your choice with exemplars is either spending wood and gold on exemplars or spending wood and gold on unit upgrades.
Well, let's see the threbuchet, which is the only weapon capable of shooting anything on the map since it's not blocked by terrain.
Let's shoot a 3 dice rock.
The impact point might be anywhere from 8 inch to 35 inch from the trebuchet, but it's probably going to be at somewhere between 15 and 25 inch. The rock may deviate 9 inch, meaning it can land anywhere in a 18 inch diameter circle from the impact point. So it will land - by having a decent range roll - in an oval-shaped area starting at 4 inch from the trebuchet(if the deviation decides to go full range backward), going to 34 inch(full range forward) so it's 30 inch long and 18 inch wide.
Since the deviation roll is one dice, no result is more probable than other. The range roll being 3 dice, results around 16-17 are more probable than others.
On this area it will affect a circle area in five inch diameter, dealing 4 DE - ignores body armor.
I might be wrong, but good luck aiming with that. You will need it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a comparison one rat raider deals 4 DE 1 AP if it hits both with the shield and the pike. Meaning those rocks are made out of snow maybe.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the template itself might hang out from the probable impact area, further increasing the danger zone with a 2,5 inch wide border
Alfndrate wrote: I've given good examples of why siege weapons are worth taking... Why are exemplars better? What exemplars seem auto-includes?
For me atleast, and it should be noted I haven't seen the 2nd edition ruleset, exemplars are worth taking because I often have nothing else to spend my wood and gold on.
Your choice with exemplars is either spending wood and gold on exemplars or spending wood and gold on unit upgrades.
Same, I currently don't own any Trebuchets, I've been proxying them with a 50mm base. And none of my Chugoku exemplars are out, so I just play with what I have.
Also remember, Exemplars are limited in number. I can't stack my force with copies of Gan Zi, or Iron Claws, or Arctos... I get 1 of them... If I could take multiples of some of the Exemplars, you're right, I probably would. I'd love to have 1 Gan Zi per squad of Red Wu, but I can't...
And much like real warfare, you're not bringing cannons with you to skirmishes... Siege Weapons, fortifications, and accessories are supposed to help you fill out your resources in such a way so when you play a game of say 150 resources, you're able to use 150 food, lumber, and gold. Not all of us have Heart of the Fatherland
Also that. It's surprisingly hard to find siege weapons in the appropriate size. You guys might recommend some. My Skaven stuff is nowhere near to fit in an 50mm base.
So, on a whim I decided to spend like 3 hours coming up with a nice graph of the distributions of where your Treb ammo can land BEFORE deviations based on the number of dice you throw. Turns out it was a huge pain in Excel, and I won't be doing the deviations. I can send you my file if you want it.
As a note, in 2.0 you no longer make additional deviations based on number of distance dice rolled. Now you only make deviations for the Rocks or Unique Ammo that call for it, before rolling to attack.
Additionally, Cannons and Trebuchets both require no LoS to make attacks. Models blocked by any amount of terrain gain cover bonuses.
A ballista's fire will stop at the first terrain piece and deals the damage of a simple bow(altough ignores body armor) in a line. Models have to line up to make it worth more than a bow.
The cannon looks more useful but you try to hit with a 3 inch template only, and it's "Incoming" also deals just one point of damage(ignores body armor) According to this nice table, you hit an one-inch wide model with 30% precisity with the initial blast, if you shoot exactly at 26 inch. Shooting to 20 or 30 inch however will only results at a 12% hit chance.
The trebuchet works best at 17 inch range with two dice, having a nice 50% hit rate aiming at a one inch wide target.
...If I haven't forgot too much about this since college.
If I have to choose between an exemplar and a siege weapon, I take the exemplar any time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Warhammer Fantasy siege weapons - at least the ones I know about - have really bad precisity. It's not uncommon to shoot out of the table. But, if it hits something, that is dead. The simple stone thrower says: "The unit under the middle of the template is dead, others take a ton of damage".
In here, units that It would be sensible to shoot with siege weapons usually survive one hit.
Siege weapons are not really about precision, but messing up blocks of troops (especially those in heavy armor) and destroying fortifications. You are wasting siege weapons on single targets.
I have noticed that the amout of upgrade equipment is dramatically dropped. I will research this, but I have the theory of If I spend X X X amount of resource on my army, I can upgrade every unit to the maximum and still have a large portion of the wood and lumber remain.
I no longer have to choose between taking the exemplar or upgrading my units.
My 25 resource Vandalands warband is costs 25 food and nothing else(3 Rat Raiders, one Hamster berserker). I can't upgrade the rat raiders anymore, and because -let's say it's a beginner match- I want to keep a low model count(so I don't fatherland it), it's 25 lumber and 25 gold to equip the hero. I dont have the choice I had. I just take everything.
And there is no strategy in that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Blocks of troops will not exist when there is an enemy siege weapon around. I'll just keep my troops at maximum - 3 inch - cohesion, and wish you good luck with hitting more than one at a time.
You still have choices on the Rat Raiders, do they get a Poleax, Targe, or Medium Armor? Its the same strategy as before, but now you have a few more resources to throw on siege weapons, fortifications, and exemplars.
Each army gets at least one troop that gets the 'Pick Equipment/Get Ability' rule, and they are generally going to be a Warband troop as a means to make things easier for new players... since Warbands are the starter sets.
There is perhaps less strategy in low level games, but more flexibility. This also frees up more resources for extraneous upgrades like siege\fortifications. Debate is still open for adding LR\GD to the multiple choice units.
Forcing your troops into particular formations alone seems worth taking a siege weapon, nevermind trebuchets having 5 inch templates.
Additionally, It is harder to hide behind terrain at full cohesion distance. With low walls, shooting armies need to get their models into B2B with it to not provide a cover bonus to what they are shooting at. Much harder get more than 2 models behind it and stay 3" apart. Trenches and Mantlets have the same issue. Siege is a great way to deal with these sorts of setups.
Yeah but that's just one choice. Going upward to my 45 resource wandalands army is the warband plus a Valkyr and a Shrew hussar. The Valkyr cannot be upgraded and the hussar only has a 10 gold upgrade.
I still left with 35 lumber and 25 gold for equipment. According to your competitive rules, only models that are relased can be enlisted in an army. Currently the excess resource will pile high since Exemplars are not relased and even if there is one it's unique. Okay Vandaland can fatherland it, but wha about the others? Well, I think enlisting only lv1 heroes will make some room to buy more equipment, so the bigger the hero limit the more hero will be put in since the horns and banners are really strong.
This might be not that big of a problem that I think it is.
Perhaps you wouldn't take them over exemps, but you're also bringing up the issue of having resources left over. I believe these issues solve each other.
Feeling like I shouldn't have raised the question...
Since I did bring it up, I'll touch on my own thoughts.
I think the whole siege element is out of place for a skirmish scale game. Traditionally it is an element for huge battles and there is a good reason for that. I think the game would benefit from it's complete removal. (Controversial! )
If it's going to stay then I think it needs to be made so expensive it can only be bought in huge battles. And even then only on a small scale.
I think Exemplars need to be toned down and/or capped off. An ideal solution would be to balance all Exemplars by making them Heroes. If they all operated as fixed point heroes they will be naturally capped off and balanced.
I'd also like to see troops capped on how many weapons they can carry. Two weapons max and only one 2H is a slick solution. Obviously some troops, like Highlanders could still override that.
It would also be nice to see more specialised stat lines for units but a wider variety of equipment choices for each one.
Overall I think the game needs to focus on what scale it's being played at. I'd call it Skirmish+ and I think it needs to be played at about 300pts. That should be around 20 troops which is maybe 4 small squads and 1 to 3 heroes. I think the game also needs to work at around 50 to 150 pts for new players. That'd be a few completely individual models who can each make a serious enough impact on the game.
I think there is nothing wrong with most armies including Exemplars. Exemplars account for maybe 20% of each army list and therefore seem to be intended as a major part of the game. I personally am not a fan of named characters being ubiquitous in competitive/tourneyment lists, but many games, such as Warmachine or Malifaux, are built this way. I prefer the approach used in Brushfire 2nd Ed. of including some Non-Unique Exemplars that act more like a sergeant or powerful specialist for a squad.
Balancing Exemplars out with Seige equipment is difficult. It doesn't help that badass characters with backstory get people more excited than just a ballista with a couple grunts manning it.
Siege Weapons are an important aspect of the Napoleonics era, which Brushfire is heavily influenced by.. we just offer the option of playing at smaller levels then a proper Napoleonic battle. They aren't going to go away, but they can easily be ignored if you don't want to use them in your army. Making them more expensive won't really solve any of the 'issues' brought up.
You haven't really presented any reasons for why the Exemplars should be more limited. Most factions only have 2~3, and they are there to enhance a specific troop. The Wanderers and The Experts are an obvious exception for this, they're also slightly cheaper to take and don't have that fantastic of equipment... and are designed to be run together.
Most troops only ever get two weapons, and can only use 2HD worth of them either way. The only way you bypass this restriction is with the few units that have 'natural' attacks (Tusks/Horns/Tail Attacks). The Highlanders still only get to use 2HD worth of weapons, the player just gets to pick what they're using during the Melee Phase.
Not sure what you mean by specialised stat lines with a wider variety of equipment? We're not going to be adding more weapons to things, most of the boxes are bit heavy as is.
300 Resources would be 60 to 30 Troop Models, so alittle larger then just 4 small squads. More akin to a game of Warhammer 40k (Army Level) then say Warmachine (Skirmish+)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galen wrote: It doesn't help that badass characters with backstory get people more excited than just a ballista with a couple grunts manning it.
In an way the Exemplar debate comes down to the purpose/intent of the 3 resource system. Food is the primary resource for purchasing troops. Food tends to be the limiting factor in the quantity of models one can field. Lumber and Gold on the other hand seem to be intended to focus your force in one direction or another, modifying various units power, versatility, or specialization.
The complaint almost seems to be that including Exemplars doesn't take away from quantity/quality of standard units.
Siege Weapons are an important aspect of the Napoleonics era, which Brushfire is heavily influenced by.. we just offer the option of playing at smaller levels then a proper Napoleonic battle. They aren't going to go away, but they can easily be ignored if you don't want to use them in your army. Making them more expensive won't really solve any of the 'issues' brought up.
I see the flavour benefit of siege weapons I just can't justify a weapon of that purpose and accuracy being brought out against, by your own definition, 20 enemies at the 'high end'. In this case, the gameplay is far more important than the flavour. As for raising the cost, I feel that raising the cost designates the siege stuff to huge games where they are actually fit for purpose. They'd also have to be more accurate in that solution. I'm talking about something like a 200r cannon that I can offer a pretty decent chance of pulverising the 5 enemies I've sat my template on.
You haven't really presented any reasons for why the Exemplars should be more limited. Most factions only have 2~3, and they are there to enhance a specific troop. The Wanderers and The Experts are an obvious exception for this, they're also slightly cheaper to take and don't have that fantastic of equipment... and are designed to be run together.
Well for starters I, and others, hate using named characters, I hate feeling forced into it even more. My primary reason for wanting Exemplars limited though is because I think they are a powerful but incomparable type. There has to be another equally powerful option, at the very least there has to be a make your own Exemplar feature so I'm not forced into taking The Experts for example. Right now The Experts, for example, compared to the equivalent cost in anything else is ridiculous, they are vastly more powerful. If they are intended as squad leaders then it makes more sense to attach them to the appropriate unit profile.
Overall, I don't see why they aren't classed as heroes. They serve the same purposes, to bolster and/or buff your troops. If they were heroes then there would be no need for people to spend their resources on Exemplars just to match up to the opposition.
Most troops only ever get two weapons, and can only use 2HD worth of them either way. The only way you bypass this restriction is with the few units that have 'natural' attacks (Tusks/Horns/Tail Attacks). The Highlanders still only get to use 2HD worth of weapons, the player just gets to pick what they're using during the Melee Phase.
I thought you and Matt said that equipment doesn't replace the standard equipment it just adds on. The example used was Chameleons and that they could swap between crossbow, daggers, pistols, whatever, every turn depending on what they were up against. Unless that's a special unit rule like Highlanders it just seems like overkill.
Not sure what you mean by specialised stat lines with a wider variety of equipment? We're not going to be adding more weapons to things, most of the boxes are bit heavy as is.
Basically I mean units can take a wide variety of equipment but their stats are the guide to how you use them. So have armouries for each faction or one huge armory or both and give the players the ability to kit out their troops themselves. That should add a wide variety of tactics and army combos as well as encouraging competitive play. I certainly wouldn't add any more to your kits, they are very generous as is. I think selling armory kits for conversion would be a solid solution and you could even lower the cost of your current kits by reducing them to standard weaponry only.
300 Resources would be 60 to 30 Troop Models, so alittle larger then just 4 small squads. More akin to a game of Warhammer 40k (Army Level) then say Warmachine (Skirmish+)
Yeh I made some maths errors there. I should have designated 100 to 200r and 50 to 100r instead of 50 to 150r. The point still stands though.
The current siege weapons can easily take out 5 models already.. 4 DE, Ignores Body Armor against each model under the template will wipe out pretty much any 5 FD model, and will seriously damage most 10 FD models/Heroes/Exemplars.
I think you are seriously over estimating the value of the Experts, everyone of them can be taken out by 2 Conscripts/Ashigaru/Fusiliers in a single activation. They've got some great special rules, sure, but they are still mortal (no Roland jokes). They are not meant to be Squad Leaders, Robyn Milne and The Agent are more along those roles for Axony. The Experts are more along the line of a Unique Elite Unit.. and like a unit, they're fairly cheap and easily wiped out.
Yes, you don't lose Equipment.. And yes the Chameleons can have 4 weapons, but they are still only going to be able to use 2 of them in a single phase.. and you still have to choose which 2 you feel is the best option for what you're doing. Neither the Chameleons nor the Highlanders have a special rule that dictates how their equipment works.
miskatonicalum wrote: As a note, in 2.0 you no longer make additional deviations based on number of distance dice rolled. Now you only make deviations for the Rocks or Unique Ammo that call for it, before rolling to attack.
I am not sure that is the right direction to take. As seen with Wehrkind graph, strangely, some range are harder to it because of the dice probability. Since deviation is already huge on the trebuchets, my proposition would be to simply choose a target, and do the multiple deviations from there (something like a deviation dice per 10 to 20"). Deviating up to 9 inch per roll is already imprecise enough, but this would get rid of the "optimal ranges" brought by the actual method.
Looking at their historical use, after some shots, trebuchets were adjusted and hitting pretty precisely. You could add a rule that further shots after the first, if targeting the exact same spot (most probably a fortification, and that rule could only work for those), you can remove a deviation dice.
On the cannon side, I simply find the range too short. Most of the hand held weapons can outshoot it. That doesn't seem right to me. Maybe doing something like I proposed with the Trebuchet would work: nominate a point within range, and for each full X", roll a die to add and determine the impact point.
Cyporiean wrote: Are you suggesting fixed ranges for the Siege Weapons, or something else?
Something else. My suggestion was to simply choose a target WITHIN range, not a fixed range. You check for range after choosing your target, and if it is out of range, the shot could either be lost, or made at min/max range. Both could work.
Here is a tentative wording:
Trebuchet
Range: 10-60"
Choose a point anywhere on the table. If the point is out of range, the shot is lost.
For each 15", or part of it, make a deviation roll from the target point.
Once the final position is determined, center the large template on it and proceed with your attack roll.
So for example, I could choose a target that ends up being at 35" from my trebuchet. That's two full 15", and 5" more. So you would make 3 deviation roll from the target.
Cyporiean wrote: Well, the issue with that is that Brushfire allows measuring anything you want during your activation.. so Guess Range doesn't really work.
I was not suggesting a guess range, except for the part about knowing min/max range. Just remove that part of my explanation then, my bad.
I would pick a target within range (that you can check), and deviate from that, based on distance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: One of the main points in changing the Siege Engine Deviation was to remove the extra deviations...
I understand that. But doing so, you now have a trebuchet that shoot better in "steps". Why would being 34" away being safer than 29 or 39? (Made up distances, look back at Wehrkind graph if you want precise numbers.)
Also, with my suggested method, you don't have a random distance, then deviations. So you only have one random part, which amount to about the same in the hand, but with a better "spread zone".
I've been giving this plenty of thought over the course of the day. The Siege Weapon effectiveness vs. Exemplar effectiveness needs to be tested on the tabletop. Our opinions on the matter will only carry us so far before we MUST test it on the table. No one likes Mathhammer, well Alf's not a huge fan of Theoryfire =Analytica Rodentia=. In my experiences, my Badger in the Iron Claws has been just as effective as my Chugokan Trebuchet, both of them are roughly the same cost. I'll have to see how this changes in 2nd ed, but if I keep going, I'll simply be theoryfiring, which is worse than dry firing...
My other thought is, why does it matter if the Exemplar has a name or not? They're a sergeant of a squad. They attach themselves and give a buff and bypass the 10 man activation limit. Is it because they're unique? Okay, So the "Badger in the Iron Claws" or Arctos Nevsky becomes, "Veteran-At-Claw" and "Berserker Warlord". They could still be unique pieces of the army. I guess I don't understand that. I can see the want to customize your exemplars, but if we did that, then they'd be no different than Heroes, except that you pay for them...
These are supposed to the "exemplary" soldiers. They're the names on the battlefield that people know and fear. Now "Rat Raider 12"...
I know that you said that you thought Non-Unique Exemplars are a step in the right direction on Exemplars, except that they existed in 1st edition as well, and they don't have upgrades, none of them do by design...
I realize I'm getting a little ranty here, but I feel like there are mountains being made out of Vespuccian molehills here... You build your forces the way you wish to, we simply give you the tools....
Alfndrate wrote: One of the main points in changing the Siege Engine Deviation was to remove the extra deviations...
I understand that. But doing so, you now have a trebuchet that shoot better in "steps". Why would being 34" away being safer than 29 or 39? (Made up distances, look back at Wehrkind graph if you want precise numbers.)
Also, with my suggested method, you don't have a random distance, then deviations. So you only have one random part, which amount to about the same in the hand, but with a better "spread zone".
I get that, but you're suggesting deviations based on x number of inches, which is basically where we were (except it's a solid number instead of based on the number of dice). and while I don't think it was a completely serious suggestion (but still one nonetheless) you're suggesting a deviation for things out of line of sight... That's adding in too much randomness imo...
If you want simplified siege engines, you pick x point within the range of the weapon, and it deviates from there, following all normal deviation rules.. so a 10 on the die would land where the marker is...
I get that, but you're suggesting deviations based on x number of inches, which is basically where we were (except it's a solid number instead of based on the number of dice). and while I don't think it was a completely serious suggestion (but still one nonetheless) you're suggesting a deviation for things out of line of sight... That's adding in too much randomness imo...
If you want simplified siege engines, you pick x point within the range of the weapon, and it deviates from there, following all normal deviation rules.. so a 10 on the die would land where the marker is...
That's exactly what I am suggesting, but with more than a single deviation. My problem isn't that much the random part of it, then the steps in the random distance. With the actual method, there is as much randomness, if not more, but it's in a straight line, followed by another random element, a single deviation roll.
My suggestion of x dice per y inches could be put into a table. I wrote 15 in my example, but anything could work, even the old table translated into fixed range (up to 10 = 1 die, 11 to 30 = 2 dice, 31 to 50 = 3 dice).
In the end, the trebuchet is really random, and on top of that still have to hit its target. Looking at the shots made during the game at Templecon, except the one to send the hamsters up the field, it wasn't worth it at all. It could benefit from a little bit more precision.
I get that, but you're suggesting deviations based on x number of inches, which is basically where we were (except it's a solid number instead of based on the number of dice). and while I don't think it was a completely serious suggestion (but still one nonetheless) you're suggesting a deviation for things out of line of sight... That's adding in too much randomness imo...
If you want simplified siege engines, you pick x point within the range of the weapon, and it deviates from there, following all normal deviation rules.. so a 10 on the die would land where the marker is...
That's exactly what I am suggesting, but with more than a single deviation. My problem isn't that much the random part of it, then the steps in the random distance. With the actual method, there is as much randomness, if not more, but it's in a straight line, followed by another random element, a single deviation roll.
My suggestion of x dice per y inches could be put into a table. I wrote 15 in my example, but anything could work, even the old table translated into fixed range (up to 10 = 1 die, 11 to 30 = 2 dice, 31 to 50 = 3 dice).
In the end, the trebuchet is really random, and on top of that still have to hit its target. Looking at the shots made during the game at Templecon, except the one to send the hamsters up the field, it wasn't worth it at all. It could benefit from a little bit more precision.
It must be the hour of the night, but I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting... So... you want me to say... roll 1 die of deviation per 15 inches away I wish to place the marker? (the 15 could be substituted for anything)
So I wish to drop my template 45 inches away, I would have to roll 3 deviation dice?
It must be the hour of the night, but I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting...
So... you want me to say... roll 1 die of deviation per 15 inches away I wish to place the marker? (the 15 could be substituted for anything)
So I wish to drop my template 45 inches away, I would have to roll 3 deviation dice?
That's exactly what I have in mind. Choose a point, deviate from there, a number of time based on distance. Nothing more.
You don't roll for the distance, you simply chose a point. More deviation, true, but no random distance. That's the idea anyway.
Alfndrate wrote: For the most part, 2nd edition Brushfire isn't different from 1st Edition Brushfire...
Way to make a sale!
You've already got a free copy
But yeah, we don't feel the game needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt.. just cleaned up. The primary rules are the same, the biggest changes are in the units themselves.
So you don't want the Beta testers to buy a copy when it's done:
Well I'm refraining judgement until it's further along. I definitely don't want the whole game to change I'd just like to see some balance by the end. Anything that helps me convince my friends to start ttwargaming with this over other systems.
I like the alternative "distance = deviation" concept. I'll see about writing up a variant for the cannon and trebuchet.
I'd also like folks to try the current 2.0 rules about as well, the y are slightly different I from the originals.
As a side note about templecon, watching ritides' trebuchet rolls: the "guess ranges" were all spot on target BEFORE deviations. Those are what ruined their usefulness.
I would like to say some more about siege engines exemplars, lack of unit upgrades and army building. I have only look after this on a few armies, but...
Seems like taking six or seven 5 food basic troops(the 3 free upgrade kind) just automatically unlocks a place for an exemplar. These units cost only food while exemplars mostly cost non-food. At this point there is nothing else the player can do but take an exemplar.
In the first edition here the player was able to choose to upgrade it's troops or take the exemplar. The choice was valid because these simple canon fodders became really powerful when they got upgraded. This came especially handy if you didn't had the exemplar model. You had an other valid choice.
The bigger troops (cavarly, elites) seems to have balanced costs when they are fully upgraded between the resurces, but one will mostly have basic troops in it's enlistment, creating a place for an exemplar after every 6 of them. I'm not sure if an exemplar woth it over a flag and a horn, but it propably is. Vandaland exemplars are.
Once you run out of exemplars, you left with fortifications or siege machines. It's better to take them than nothing after all. I don't yet know if this is a real threat, but it might be.
Meaning, in a 25 point match you have a choice to take one exemplar or flag and horn and maybe a granate or something.
On an 50-60 point match you are forced to have an exemplar because what else do you enlist? It's still small scale for a siege weapon. After that you can have equipment or an another exemplar. You can take the stronger troops but only a few of them. So more basic troops with their free equipment are probably a better choice.
It's a bigger problem when you don't have the models either, which is kinda how the game is now. There is only a few released exemplars (I only remember one). but you are forced to have them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For example, in axony, you take Bull Regulars, Devons and Highlanders. All of them costs more food than anything else even fully upgraded. Even the Kernish Terrier only cost 10 food and 10 lumber fully upgraded.
What else you going to do with the rest of the resources than enlisting the experts?
WhiteRoo what edition of the rulebook are you looking at?
Note: In first edition, unless you plan out your upgrades very specifically, you're always going to have more costs in food than you will in the other two resources, that's why horns, banners, siege weapons, and exemplars exist.
WhiteRoo, Kernish Terriers are 5fd with no upgrades available in either edition. Bearded Highlanders are 10fd with a Targe available to them with a 10lr upgrade. In 1st edition they were able to use the Claymore with the Targe, this no longer seems to be the case.
I might switched the two up, but I want to say is now exemplars aren't just a necessity, there is no way avoiding them.
A siege machine is not that useful as an exemplar so that's not a choice. Banners and horns can be bought of whatever gold and lumber you can't spend on exemplars. There is no way one will not enlist an exemplar.
Well, I guess it's not against the rules to not spend all the resurces after all...
There are a few things that do that, or cause a similar effect; like Sean of the Experts, the various Weapon Team units, or Aquitar's Hand Mortar units.
Attaching a Higher RS model to the siege weapon will also increase its effectiveness as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One possible thought though
What if Deviation is reduced by the operator's RS?
Ex. Otter Ashigaru are manning a Trebuchet, they have a RS of 4. You roll a 7 to Deviate, and reduce it by 4 to because a Deviation of only 3".
That would cause a lot more "bullseye" hit. You see, face values of 1 to 4 as well as the 10 would cause the templat to not deviate. Also having a horn - what the asigaru surely have - will make that RS a 7, so it's mostly would not deviate and on a really bad roll, 3 inches.
This would not help the Xd10 roll to be any more accurate tought.
WhiteRoo wrote:That would cause a lot more "bullseye" hit. You see, face values of 1 to 4 as well as the 10 would cause the templat to not deviate. Also having a horn - what the asigaru surely have - will make that RS a 7, so it's mostly would not deviate and on a really bad roll, 3 inches.
This would not help the Xd10 roll to be any more accurate tought.
I think we're going to go with Tonio's idea of giving a 10-60" range, with a number of deviations based on how far you shoot. This idea would build off that then.
Alfndrate wrote: Cyp, I know thats how 40k does it, and its one if the things I like... I would suggest the most common RS be used or highest if there is a tie.
The highest most common is the way its done in Brushfire as well.
Tonio wrote: I like that suggestion. Even if the template is slightly more precise, there still is the RS roll to do anyway. It won't end up sniping models.
Looking at it again, I still like the concept, BUT I'm not sure it fits with Brushfire, because of the stats variability (is that a word?) and the way deviation works.
In 40k, most troopers have between 2 and 4 BS (shooting stat) with some crackshot having 5 or 6, and deviation is 2d6"-BS. In general, even good shots will still deviate on average.
In Brushfire, most factions have access to trooper with RS of 3 or 4. Also, the new ruling use the highest RS of the activating squad, instead of the highest average (probably to simplify the part about exemplars/heroes from 1st), so two cheap troop and a cheap exemplar/hero with a high RS is easy to add. On top of that, you have some Horn and Heroic Actions that might help your BS also. So it's not hard to get to RS 6 or higher. As the max deviation per roll is 9 (10 being a hit), it makes the trebuchet a really precise item. Combining that with the fact that you use the same high RS to do your to hit RS rolls, trebuchet sniping which I was joking about earlier, could become a thing.
I do like the "RS reducing deviation" idea, but it needs works right now, if you do go with placing the target and multiple deviations roll by distance. Maybe reducing deviation by half of the RS could work? Or using the worst RS for deviation, but highest for RS rolls? (That still could easily by a 6 or 7, with good basic crew and the horn). Any other idea?
Yeah, and 40k is not a skirmish game is it? Brushfire is supposed to be a skirmish game and not a game that can simulate a really big battle. Altough it may can provided the participants have enugh models and time, but even a 300 unit game is only 60 models per side top, so simulating Warhammer Fantasy scale battles is not the goal here right?
. I love the rules but would eagerly pay for expanded, clearer ones. The quick start page has almost as much base rules info as the entire rulebook!
Approved.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
