Tonio wrote:
VU I guessed. It's also straigth on the map. But AL and VO, I don't see. O might be for Ordenstaat or Ordes, but I'm not sure what the V might be then.

Oh, it's most likely Ordenstaat... I couldn't tell you for sure as I don't have the list .

 Lockark wrote:
So something funny I noticed recently. The Viklanders Troll slayer rule gives them a bonus agiest stuff like the vanderland Skyship and Civitan Landship.

I don't think their is anything balance wise that's bad about this, It just seems kinda funny from a fluff perspective. Just a bunch of hamsters getting hype about taking on a land ship head on is a funny image in my head. lol

Glad to enjoyed that.

Also really enjoying the speculation on what each of those letters stands for.. Keep it up!

The third book is "AL/CE/FS/VU/VO"

AL=????
CE=Cult of Exomorphism
FS=Federated States of Vespuccia
VU=The Volk-Urssia Republic
VO=Vandalands Ordenstaat

Easy to figure out just by looking at this page:
http://www.on-the-lamb.com/content/brushfire/brushfire-factions/

Been looking at the world map trying to figure out AL but can't figure it out.

Oh now you're just cheating


I will say that AL is on the map.

I will also say that AL is not the American League of the MLB. Also it may not be 1 country on the Map.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I will also say that AL is not the American League of the MLB. Also it may not be 1 country on the Map.

"Axony colonies coaLition" then: platypus AND beavers! You made my day Alf.

Well, it is a Coalition...

Also, I've been writing up some more Mercs Only units inbetween casting EFT figures. Any requests?

Beaver lumberjacks perhaps a an offshoot of the gopher engineer that allow you to place low walls instead of burrow markers.

Okay this chat has dragged me into wondering what AL is. At first I figured it was Avian something but this coalition talk is making me think it's something like an EU or UN.

Also, have you guys always casted some of the figs or is that new?

 Casey's Law wrote:
Also, have you guys always casted some of the figs or is that new?

As of the beginning of the month, all of the resin casting is done at OTLG.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Beaver lumberjacks perhaps a an offshoot of the gopher engineer that allow you to place low walls instead of burrow markers.

That would be cool.

Made me think of other local animals as game models: Wolverine rampagers, Deer highwaymen, Moose cheftains, Bobcat line infantry, Skunk alchemists, etc. So many cool fig concepts ! Are Cervidaes and other horse-like animals intelligent in Brushfire, or are they mainly mounts? There is no mentions of reindeers, camels, elks, antilope or stuff like that yet, I think.

Mainly we don't want to 'deal with' hooved mammals, thats why you generally have flightless bird mounts.

CE is the Cult of Exomorphism

FS is the Federated States of Vespuccia

VO is the Vandalands Ordenstaat

VU is the Volk-Urssia Republic

No clue what AL is.

I know what AL is and as soon as you all do, you'll be like, "Oh! That makes sense "

Locark beat me with the list.

My submission to the merc only units is a wallaby with a boomerang. or a kangaroo...

Can't we have a topic for fan-creations?

If you'd like to make a 'Requests' thread you can.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Locark beat me with the list.

My submission to the merc only units is a wallaby with a boomerang. or a kangaroo...

Can't we have a topic for fan-creations?

During the kickstarter we had a level for people to buy the creation of a model. Lockark paid for Tajir.

 Alfndrate wrote:

During the kickstarter we had a level for people to buy the creation of a model. Lockark paid for Tajir.

Not sure what we were thinking with the pricing for that level, the thee of them got it at a steal. The version from the Endless Kickstarter (Rhapsodist Level) was more in tune with the costs involved.

What are the other two models fan created?

My best guess for AL is the Republic of Armarillo. It has an A, and it's the only country with A that is not yet used.

 Tonio wrote:
What are the other two models fan created?

Kardaxx in Scyzantium, and Hua Poi Kay & Lao Yi in Chugoku.

That's cool. I don't suppose you'll post up information about the equipment and process? I'd be really interested in reading about that.

Render complete, File upload in progress...

Check Your Inboxes.

We know a number of players prefer the ‘One Book to Rule them All’ format, Late next year we will release a POD Hardcover Tome edition of Brushfire

Brushfire - Complete Second Edition Hardcover POD Book Tome - $99.99*

Assuming I continue playing and the 2nd edition works for me this'll be on my shopping list!

You were one of the folks I was specifically thinking about for that edition, Casey.

Thank you very much! I foresee absolutely no reason why I wouldn't buy it. I might even skip the paperbacks and work from PDF until it comes out.

A few questions:
What does POD stand for?
Will this be limited edition?
Will this be full colour?
Will it include the Mercs section?
And will there be any other surprises inside? Or maybe a limited edition miniature?

What does POD stand for? Print on Demand, it'll be avaliable through WargameVault's POD service just like the faction decks/replacement cards will be.
Will this be limited edition? No more so then any other version of the book
Will this be full colour? Likely yes.
Will it include the Mercs section? If you ask nice enough I might see about including it since its the 'complete edition'
And will there be any other surprises inside? Probably not, we wouldn't want to 'punish' people for not picking up the stupidly big edition of the book.
Or maybe a limited edition miniature? Not possible due to the way the book will be handled.

Wont lie. Would totally throw down for a hardback complete edition.


Also on the topic of new merc units.

Well the pi-rats didn't realy last as a idea as a stand alone faction, If think they would be a good idea as a merc unit. Something like Rats with Sword and pistols, and plus one to their RS and/or ES. I justify the stat increase because the hard life of a pirate has weeded out the slow ones. lol

Whose to say the Pirates didn't end up somewhere else?

They gotta make port somewhere afterall

 Cyporiean wrote:
Whose to say the Pirates didn't end up somewhere else?

They gotta make port somewhere afterall

As snap. They got hired by AL! Curse you AL!
=O

 Lockark wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Whose to say the Pirates didn't end up somewhere else?

They gotta make port somewhere afterall

As snap. They got hired by AL! Curse you AL!
=O

Nah, Not AL...

Just a few other random ideas for mec units my brain was able to stew up. Just throwing them out their to see what sticks.

-The "dovahkiin" or "Beowulf" hamster. The battle weary viklander hamster who wonders the world in search of the "dragon" that destroyed his home village. At some point he has come into conflict with the "trolls", "Frost Giants", and "jotnar" that his honoured ancestors once fought. Narratively I think it works best if this happens well he is looking for the dragon. Way to much potential for how this guy could be designed.

(The idea was touched upon before, so just throwing it out their agien.)

-A solo Exemplar voodoo witch doctor in a top hat. For species I'm thinking Hyena of course. Never could think of much beyond that. Realy I think it's just because I feel Brushfire could use more top hats. He also needs to be a heavy smoker and a heavy drinker. (Bassicly a reference to Baron Samedi)

-Cossack Wolves rideing... um... Ostriches? Emus? Bigger Wolves?

-Jaguar Mercs? Hunter and the Theif describes roaming bands of them comeing into conflict with the Civitans.

-Maby a Witch/healer women who is a practicer of the "old faith". Sort of like a marmot medic anyone can take. Bassicly a way to get some Non-unique Merc exemplars into the list.

I was flipping trough the new book.

I haven't came across the single target rule. It is possible that I just haven't found it. What is the situation with that?

What part of the book shoud I concentrate on?

Single target rule?

The one about you are supposed to target only one squad during an activation, and you can't shoot at a squad and charge a different one.

Page 16, Chaining Attacks.

Fount it! Thanks!

I think this should be at the begining of the activation phases chapter at page 12. It should be marked with an orange title as the phases, because it's kinda important and affects the whole activation. At least I think.

Also, then what happens if you eliminate a squad before your melee phase? Can you charge a different one in that case?

I agree, We'll move it to a more prominent location.


On the second point, We're not wholly sure. I can see it from both perspectives (It makes it a tactical decision to nuke a weak unit vs do we really want to punish you for doing your job?)

Does anyone care to chime in with an opinion?

If you eliminate your target squad in a previous phase, should you be able to change targets in a successive phase?

In one way it penalizes underdog units that get lucky, in another it slows down 'death stars' like character squads, preventing them from nuking too much in a single activation.

To me it feels most games don't let you do that for the reason cyporiean mentioned. It lets "Deathstars" do to much in a single phase.

In my limited experience I haven't seen any problems with death stars since most units seem to excell in shooting or Melee. But not both.

The only experience I have is with Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, and 40k.

In the first two games, you're not limited by phases and in the first game, you can't even charge and shoot in the same turn without a specific ability. In 40k, you cannot charge a unit you did not shoot at, but if that unit no longer exists, then you're fine to do with them as you please. So it's not uncommon to try and blow up a transport to get at the juicy infantry inside. I did it last night while playing. Shot at a couple of Dark Eldar Venoms to try and pop them so I could charge the guys inside. I failed to destroy them, so I had to charge the vehicle, and not the guys inside.

It would certainly have to be tested, but I don't think it's too big of a jump to say, you must charge/melee the squad you shot at, unless of course that squad is gone.

Heavy and Light cavarly units are pretty much deathstars and could gain a lot from the retarget option. As they can shoot and meele well, always keep ther MS and RS and they have a lot of options during their activations. You can move(rush) into max range, shoot, charge or run if it didn't slain it, move towards a different target and charge that if it did. Or go and hide.

On a side note, I have searched the books for Heavy & Light Cavalry units, and this keyword is used differently in unit basis. Sometimes it's "Heavy & Light Cavalry" other times it's "Light & Heavy Cavalry", and it's also sometimes "Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry" or the other way.

If you cannot retarget, then you still can activate just enough units to kill that squad and activate the rest later to charge a different one.

I've 2 Troops, 3 Exemplars, and 1 Hero in the planning stages for Mercs Only Additions... gotta do some internal checks/balances on them before we throw them at you, but they should prove to be useful for some folks. Though I think the hero I wrote up might wait until the Book 3 Playtest.

2 of them are based on Lockark's suggestions.

 Cyporiean wrote:
I've 2 Troops, 3 Exemplars, and 1 Hero in the planning stages for Mercs Only Additions... gotta do some internal checks/balances on them before we throw them at you, but they should prove to be useful for some folks. Though I think the hero I wrote up might wait until the Book 3 Playtest.

2 of them are based on Lockark's suggestions.

But no beaver lumberjacks? D:

I'm getting a deeper look into cavalry charging because as far as I have seen it, it is a pretty weird maneuver.

So the squad is foregoing it's movement and ranged phases and move in any direction in a straight line as long as two times their movement plus their total charge range, attacking every squad in this line, or rather in a rectangle area.

Since this is a charge, it ignores obstacles, so you can charge trough solid walls. If a model is in the top of an assault terrain, it still has line of sight with models under it, so the game rules allow a Heavy cavalry unit to bypass the assault by cavalry charging the units on the assault terrain

I assume this rectangle is as wide as the squad is and as long as the charge+rush distance. I believe spreading your models out to make the area wider is allowed, but you have to do it in the squad's previous activation, since you have to forgo this movement phase for the charge.

The rectangle can be as wide as the base of the models plus 3 inch between every two models in the squad. I guess... It might be working on a model basis so you have as many rectangles as models as wide as their bases, but the text doesn't indicate that.

Every squad(friend or foe) that falls under this rectangle at least with one model receives one melee attack set from every model in the charging squad as ranged attack. So if a squad is only being charged over by one model of the chargers, they still receive all attack sets. (If cavalry Charge is model based, then only from models that actually pass that squad).

They may counterattack and even slain models of the charging squad indicating that you have to resolve the attacks and counterattacks starting with the closest squad.

After that, the squad will most likely also forgo it's Melee Phase since squads can't stop short of this charge and therefore the squad is not likely to end up in base to base with any model.

Am I interpreting it right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This maneuver works really really badly for most single model squads, since even the mightiest melee weapon is only deals 4 damage and the rectangle will only ever be as wide as the base of the model, making it unlikely to hit more squad than one, especially if the enemy sees it coming. Regardless it is the only way to attack units hiding behind a low wall.

This charge will also not trigger abilities like Feline Rage.

On top of that the cavalry charging single model squad will end up behind enemy squads, activated and not in melee with them.

Having a squad cavalry charge however can be devastating as tree model can make a rectangle 10-11 inch wide, and tree attack stets can deal a lot of damage. (A five model cavalry charge can be 20 inch wide)

But only a handful of squads can perform Cavalry Charge in a squad. The Badger in the Iron Claw and it's squad, the Civitan Marine if it's equipped with axes, the Gecko Rider, the Faravahar, the Gallowglass with at least one Milean Knight, the Shaka War-Hog(which is a horde unit on top of that) and Oruç & Hızır's squad and the Heavy Brigadier with the Lead the Charge boon, or it can give it to any squad with the Fatal Charge ability.

(Side note, the Gallowglasses What Is Your Quest? ability, gains the mixed squad of knights and gallowglasses Elite Heavy Cavalry type. This squad - based on the ability - can be 10 model top, but the Elite type only allows a squad to have 5 models in it. I believe it would be more clear if they would gain Heavy Cavalry type and immune to Shock)

See Matt's post below.

So it's model based. Okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, hang on, charge targeting is squad based. "E" may be hit if it's in a squad with "C". Depends on damage distribution.

And if "A" and "B" is in a squad, then their squad only receives two attacks instead of tree.

You are correct 'Roo, you treat them like ranged attacks, not Melee attacks.

Targeting is 'squad based', but as no model passes through model E, attacks are not allocated to it.

If A & B are a squad, they suffer 3 Attacks. If D, C & E are a squad, C and D suffer 3 attacks (altogether, not each)

The ignoring terrain mechanic will be adjusted so that these models stop short of Assault Terrain and other Blocking Terrain. They shouldn't be moving through walls. Leave that for Assaults, or destroying fortifications with siege.

So you cannot allocate damage on a model that is not in the area a charger passes trough.

But a charger attacks every model that is in it's target charge rectangle with one melee attack set each. Damage can only be allocated to the models that are passed trough. And on the case of the "1" charger, the defender may not allocate the the damage "A" received on "B", not even if those are in one squad?

Right?

(Em retracted her statement, she was just waking up)

a single squad would receive all the attacks of the charging squad. If A and B are not in the same squad, A's squad would receive 3 attack sets, and B's squad would receive 3 attack sets. Model E would never be able to have attacks allocated to it as no model passes through it.

Individual models are not attacked, entire squads are attacked.

So, if A, B, C, D and E is one squad as well 1, 2 and 3, if this charge is happens, then Squad A-E receives 3 or 5 attack sets?

As a squad they only getting passed by 3 chargers, so 3 attack sets.

As models, 1 and 3 hits two models and 2 hits one that totals to 5.

Either way the defender may not allocate damage on E, since that model is not in the way.

3 Attack sets. Its not about how many times any models get run over, just which ones get run over. I'll see about clarifying this.

So even if A, B, C and D all gets to run over, I can allocate all damage on D? (then C and so on and maybe A will not receive any damage)

Sorry haven't been on much the last little while. Thanks for answering my questions Em. Pwetty pwease put the mercs in the big book of Brushfire! I'll be very happy to see such a product!

Yes, you'd stack all damage on a single model in a squad, until its dead just like ranged attacks.

If a squad performs a cavalry charge, can that squad perform a melee phase in that activation?

Cavalry Charge is your Melee Phase.

 Cyporiean wrote:
Cavalry Charge is your Melee Phase.

For WhiteRoo's reference where can he find this rule?

Page 22, 'Cavalry Charge'

Models that have this ability may forgo moving during their Movement Phase to add their Rush Speed to their Charge Range.

If they are charging, its the Melee Phase.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Cavalry Charge is your Melee Phase.

For WhiteRoo's reference where can he find this rule?

You know me




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Page 22, 'Cavalry Charge'

Models that have this ability may forgo moving during their Movement Phase to add their Rush Speed to their Charge Range.

If they are charging, its the Melee Phase.

That is a little bit vague...

I'd suggest to reword it like this:
Models with this ability may forgo thier Movement, Ranged and Melee phases (but may use tactical and heroic actions before(or after?) doing so) and execute a Cavarly Charge...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about charging MS bonus? Do models get that for Cavarly Charge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like it is not necessary for a Cavalry Charge to hit something, so it can be used to move double speed plus five inches in a straight line ignoring many movement restrictions while also keeping MS, RS and ES.

We'll get it clarified, You'll have to actually hit something like a normal charge, and you'll get the MS bonus.

And you can't stop short on that charge. Right?

Unless you run into blocking terrain or you'd land on a model.(this will get noted in a future update)

What if the charging model ends up on other models? Does it pushes those models and make room or stops short?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
What if the charging model ends up on other models? Does it pushes those models and make room or stops short?

Stops short.

Stops Short, pretty sure that is in the movement rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pg. 13

Obstructions
Models cannot end their movement on other Models or certain terrain types. If their maximum movement would result in a Model’s base landing on another Model, Impassible Terrain, or Unstable Terrain, the Model must end their movement short.

Interesting... I mean Heavy Cavalry models are usually on bigger bases. If there is no room to place the models to the end of the range, they fall back on the charge line until there is a place to put them. Which means models that these models can't been put behind will not receive any attacks either, no? Even if they are technically in range.

Let's go for the extreme here: Loxadon probably will only going to Cavalry charge until he reaches the first model. Beyond that, most likely there will be no room to place down a 120mm base.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Interesting... I mean Heavy Cavalry models are usually on bigger bases. If there is no room to place the models to the end of the range, they fall back on the charge line until there is a place to put them. Which means models that these models can't been put behind will not receive any attacks either, no? Even if they are technically in range.

Let's go for the extreme here: Loxadon probably will only going to Cavalry charge until he reaches the first model. Beyond that, most likely there will be no room to place down a 120mm base.

That's why you have premeasuring... you can ensure you can do what you want before you declare you can do it. And you're overestimating how much space a 120mm base takes up. I regularly play with one in my Trollbloods army, and I've only had to worry once about the size of my base, and unlike Brushfire, there isn't pre-measuring in Warmachine, so I had to commit to my Trample before checking to see if I could fit into the 4.75" space that was there. If I could premeasure, I would have seen my trample wouldn't have worked and I wouldn't have wasted the action.

It would been cool to bodyslam enemy units into walls with charging Valkyrs. Also, a giant elefant stopping it's charge because it bumps into a mouse is just wierd.

But okay, if that's how it works. I guess elephants reall fear mice.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I guess elephants reall fear mice.

I didn't seen that one coming...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I think there will be some timing conflict then.

You have to move the charging models first to see how far they get and what models they will attack exactly, so what models are allowed to counterstrike or fire back.

But Charge Reactions should happen before the chargers move to see how far the chargers go.

Figure out how far they cav charge, then determine charge reactions. Resolve the Attacks/Reactions of the nearest enemy squad, then the next and so on. If a model is dead before it reaches the distance that would stop it/the squad from continuing the charge further, oh well, they still stop short.

That reminds me. How do you perform anti-charge on a Cavalry Charging squad? The most common anti-charge weapon is the Pike, a melee weapon. But during this anti-charge the opposing models are not in b2b. Melee targeting will not work, not to mention the extended reach thing.

All charge reactions work differently against a Cavalry Charge, the targeting works like ranged attacks, just as the Cavalry Charge works (or Counterfire). Anti-Charge/Counterattack just stack against any model in the squad until it's dead. (Again this will be clarified in the book)

It is not clear how a cannon interacts with units hiding behind low walls. Cannons ignore line of sight, but the range is cut short on blocking terrain. It is not clear if the Low Wall is a blocking terrain for the cannon.

Also it looks like Light Cavalry can hide behind low walls, in the next activation rush out, fire then rush back and hide behind the wall again. Is that intended?

The Low Wall is blocking Terrain if a model is hiding behind it.

 Cyporiean wrote:
The Low Wall is blocking Terrain if a model is hiding behind it.

Which is something that Misk said pages ago that was something that cavalry could do.

You'll just have to go around light cav behind low walls, or drop something like a trebuchet's attacks on them.

I bring cannons.

I think it would be much clearer if the Low Wall would not change it's blocking/obscuring state, instead it would say that models that are hiding behind low wall cannot been targeted with ranged attacks -except template attacks- as long as the low wall would obscure that ranged attack.

Currently, it says that the wall somehow grows to block LoS, so obviously a cannon cannot deal damage models behind it. In the same time, if those models are not hiding, it can. Also, models further behind that wall are legit targets and the wall does not block, even if models hiding behind it.

In the same time, the cannon is a template attack, so you can legibly shoot at hiding models behind it with template attacks as long as the middle of the template is behind the wall. The wall only blocks to the hiding models but a cannon doesn't aim at models. I'm actually not sure about this last one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, ES bonus is granted for the defender if a template attack comes beyond an obscuring terrain piece?

The concept is that models are ducking below the low wall to hide from incoming fire. The wall doesnt 'grow'.

Yes you could drop a template at the edge of a low wall, and still hit some models hiding behind it. They would get the +2 ES bonus treating their blocking terrain as cover.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
The concept is that models are ducking below the low wall to hide from incoming fire. The wall doesnt 'grow'.

That's why I think the mechanic shouldn't change the block/obscure state of the low wall. Saying istead that hiding models are cannot been directly targeted from the other side of the wall with ranged attacks accomplishes the same, but the Low Wall doesn't have to have two types. I believe it would make the rules easier to follow. I don't think the blocking mechanic has to be involved here.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 miskatonicalum wrote:
The concept is that models are ducking below the low wall to hide from incoming fire. The wall doesnt 'grow'.

That's why I think the mechanic shouldn't change the block/obscure state of the low wall. Saying istead that hiding models are cannot been directly targeted from the other side of the wall with ranged attacks accomplishes the same, but the Low Wall doesn't have to have two types. I believe it would make the rules easier to follow. I don't think the blocking mechanic has to be involved here.

The offset for the majority of models on the board is that they cannot shoot from behind a wall if they are hiding behind it. Cavalry is just an oddity to the rule.

If Light Cavalry can do that, the book really should mention it. I can see that oddity to generate a lot of "WTF" moments from the players this tactic is being used against.

I'm probably going to use this on my next game, I'll tell you how it goes.

Lots of abilities can give 'WTF Moments' the first the you see them.

 Cyporiean wrote:
Lots of abilities can give 'WTF Moments' the first the you see them.

We like to call those tactics

Edit: Wtf is journey to the east?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Lots of abilities can give 'WTF Moments' the first the you see them.

We like to call those tactics

Edit: Wtf is journey to the east?

They are cheating and you should feel bad.

But seriously, walls are not a big deal. If you're ducking you're not doing much else, and that's almost as good as killing the unit. Also, cannons.

A play on the title of a classic Chinese story.

Saying things like Low Wall blocks LoS and cannons blocked by LoS, then that a Low Wall doesn't blocks a cannon is a little bit twisted. (to be clear, the book doesn't say that, just it is easy to assume from that what it says)

Same thing with walls and light cavalry. You can hide or shoot, except if the model is light cavalry. which case you can do both, not because of hiding, but because of rushing fire. Knowing that is a little bit of a hidden knowledge. If a beginner looses because he doesn't know that, it can loose enthusiasm for the game easily.

If you are showing some brand new to the game, and pulling out your most hardcore play style to crush them into the ground, then yes... They will have a bad time, and probably not want to play anymore.

If you show someone how to play without being TFG, and show the new player the ins and outs it will be a much more enjoyable experience. You could even choose to NOT use the Rushing Fire/Hide tactic in your initial games and just mention it as being a thing after you show them the ropes.

I don't consider that as a good argument against clarifying these things in the book.

I accept if you guys think that the low wall rules are good as they are now and my suggestion is not needed. Just tell me and I'll stop talking about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Trench has similar hiding mechanic as the Low Wall. I'd suggest to create a hiding mechanic and just allow the trench and the Low Wall to be able to hide units.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I don't consider that as a good argument against clarifying these things in the book.

Except every game company out there does this. This is why when you're getting a Demo of Warmachine and Hordes the Pressganger doesn't use power attacks to knock your guy over with a trample so he can get to your warcaster without much difficulty. This is why GW Redshirts tell you to roll a die and if you get a 3 or higher you hit, but don't tell you why. Or why in Malifaux they explain the game without the use of soulstones until an opportune moment when it will aid the person they are demoing for. Because people don't want to be bogged down with all of the rules as you teach them the game. This is why I can run a demo of Brushfire and have a person understand the basics in 5 minutes. Because I teach them just what they need to know.

But I'm not talking about the demo. The full rulebooks contains these things.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
But I'm not talking about the demo. The full rulebooks contains these things.

The hiding behind walls is explained. So you as a player, who I would have hoped has read the rulebook, says, "Hey I can hide behind low walls. But my cavalry can rush out, fire a gun, and then rush back. Oh man, that's awesome I can't wait to try it in a game." Then you would check to see if you can't do that (i.e. a rule stating, this doesn't work like you think it does" and then you say to yourself, "Wow I can do this!"

Edit: We're not going to list out every tactic and trick people can do because then it doesn't leave you as the player to feel crafty when you sit there and go through the process I have earlier in this post.

I think you misunderstand. I didn't said it is not explained. I said it would work better if the low wall would not be either blocking or obscuring terrain depending on the situation. I think it should work somewhat like the trench.

I'm not even sure what the proposed problem is any more. I see nothing wrong with walls. They obscure, blocking if you hide, and light cav can dash over them. Cool.

I see what you're problem is. If no models are behind a low wall, or if the models are not hiding, as cannon's distance is NOT cut short. But, if those models hide, the wall stops cannon fire. I will see about fixing this.

Light cav pop out fire will remain as is.

Personally I don't like that hiding units can shoot with 0 RS from behind a low walls.

-Models always have a 10% hit chance(Rifling and Quick Nock pushes this up to 18%), so even if your model hides, why wouldn't you try? You can still get lucky. And if you have a horde of ranged models, you can critfarm from safety just as effectively.

-Many ranged models only have 3 points of RS anyways. if the defender has 5 or more ES, loosing that 3 RS is not that big of a tradeoff for relative safety.

-You can't do the same in a trench, but I believe the situation is very similar.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Personally I don't like that hiding units can shoot with 0 RS from behind a low walls.

-Models always have a 10% hit chance(Rifling and Quick Nock pushes this up to 18%), so even if your model hides, why wouldn't you try? You can still get lucky. And if you have a horde of ranged models, you can critfarm from safety just as effectively.

-Many ranged models only have 3 points of RS anyways. if the defender has 5 or more ES, loosing that 3 RS is not that big of a tradeoff for relative safety.

-You can't do the same in a trench, but I believe the situation is very similar.

1) Trenches were designed to keep the people in them "relatively" safe while being able to fire back (you're below ground level, your body is protected by tons of dirt, and the only thing sticking up is your head and arms).

2) The loss in RS from Low Walls is due to this:


Do you see how they're not taking the time to aim? They're just firing blindly over the wall HOPING to hit something? That's why you lose your RS when ducking behind a low wall and firing rather than sitting in a trench firing.

It's fine that you personally don't like that hiding units can fire with no bonus, but that's the way it works, and it's a pretty good trade-off. You can't hit me while I'm hiding behind a low wall, but the chances of me hitting you are just as worthless.

(assault rifles are designed for this, you can't do it with crossbows, muskets, pistols of bows)

I do believe if there would be only 1% of hit chance, taking that shot would still worth it, since it's just a test of luck and there is no risk involved.

The minimum chance is pretty significant. 18% is almost as good as one out of five. Even with crossbow it's 10%, and this is the bare minimum,

If you flip trough the book, the basic troops only have 3 ES top, but mostly 1 or 2. So if most squads are being blind fired at, the attacker only has to roll that higher than the defender. And the defender only roll once, while the one who blind fires, once after every shot.

One shot of blind firing has 25% hit chance if the defender has 3 ES.

You can blind fire a musket, crossbow or a pistol, single shot or not. All it takes is putting the weapon up and on the top edge of the wall and firing.

It's actually a fair trade off for safety that favors low-cost horde models. A Badger Grenadier is hurt considerably more than a merc'd in mouse conscript with a bow hiding behind a wall.
There is really nothing wrong with low walls rules. It's a tactical decision where you trade degrees of one thing for degrees of another.

 Zygrot24 wrote:
It's actually a fair trade off for safety that favors low-cost horde models. A Badger Grenadier is hurt considerably more than a merc'd in mouse conscript with a bow hiding behind a wall.
There is really nothing wrong with low walls rules. It's a tactical decision where you trade degrees of one thing for degrees of another.

I do not agree. The advantages of hiding are the same regardless how many your RS drops, but units with low RS loose way less effectiveness.

Also, you can rush to a low wall, hide behind it and shoot without further restrictions to your ranged phase, but cancelling out the vulnerability that rushing causes on those models.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Zygrot24 wrote:
It's actually a fair trade off for safety that favors low-cost horde models. A Badger Grenadier is hurt considerably more than a merc'd in mouse conscript with a bow hiding behind a wall.
There is really nothing wrong with low walls rules. It's a tactical decision where you trade degrees of one thing for degrees of another.

I do not agree. The advantages of hiding are the same regardless how many your RS drops, but units with low RS loose way less effectiveness.

Also, you can rush to a low wall, hide behind it and shoot without further restrictions to your ranged phase, but cancelling out the vulnerability that rushing causes on those models.

And that's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

There are also situations when a model's hit chance per shot on a target will not be any different regardless of hiding or not.

For example, if any rifle wielding model has the choice of hide and shoot or just cover and shoot, if the defender's total ES(base + cover + anything else) is just 4 or more points higher than the attacking model's RS, there is no significant difference between the hit chances of shooting from hiding or from cover.

Dual pistols and quick nocking shots behave similarly. The chance of scoring at least one hit is the same as with rifling.

I'm not seeing an issue

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Zygrot24 wrote:
It's actually a fair trade off for safety that favors low-cost horde models. A Badger Grenadier is hurt considerably more than a merc'd in mouse conscript with a bow hiding behind a wall.
There is really nothing wrong with low walls rules. It's a tactical decision where you trade degrees of one thing for degrees of another.

I do not agree. The advantages of hiding are the same regardless how many your RS drops, but units with low RS loose way less effectiveness.

Also, you can rush to a low wall, hide behind it and shoot without further restrictions to your ranged phase, but cancelling out the vulnerability that rushing causes on those models.

1)That's exactly what I was saying. Advantages are the same but some models lose more for that.
2)Nothing wrong with that.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
There are also situations when a model's hit chance per shot on a target will not be any different regardless of hiding or not.

For example, if any rifle wielding model has the choice of hide and shoot or just cover and shoot, if the defender's total ES(base + cover + anything else) is just 4 or more points higher than the attacking model's RS, there is no significant difference between the hit chances of shooting from hiding or from cover.

Dual pistols and quick nocking shots behave similarly. The chance of scoring at least one hit is the same as with rifling.

I'm okay with that. These are mechanics interacting in subtle ways that allow for or force strategic decisions. Indications of a healthy ruleset.

I also can live with it, but I think it's worth mentioning.

Can you use an enemy burrow marker to ambush with your troops?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Can you use an enemy burrow marker to ambush with your troops?

Yes, but not if an enemy is in B2B with it.

What is the reason the burrow markers being 4" by 4". They are awfully big for just being markers.

Gives you an excuse to make a pretty diorama for it.

Or use Ramshackle's Worm Hole. His Boring Machine is also good for Aquitar..

Good point, but putting a 4"x4" where the deviation points...

That drill capsule thing is awesome by the way.

Centered, just as if you were ambushing a 120mm base model.

Seeing these models... Is the Burrow marker impassable terrain?

Burrow Markers are not impassable. Folks are welcome to use something that models wouldn't stand on too well, like the drill tank, and just follow the same courtesy placement similar to B2B or slopes on hills and what not.

Did we play them as impassable when I was there? I might be mistaken but I recall not being about to move through them.

Four inches are a heck of a grace distance.

The book should mention that no matter the fancy model, the burrow marker doesn't block line of sight or counts as impassable, assault or different terrain than it is stands on.

What do you do when you deviate your ambushing squad into impassable terrain? Like there is a house in the map that you agreed to be impassable and you end up in the middle of it.

You stop short.

The Burrow Marker does not block line of sight, its entry stats that it's LoS is Clear.

I'd suggest to rephrase the description of the Burrow Marker to mention it's use first and how it's placed later to further emphasize what is it good for. I think currently one have to read it a few times to understand it.

Like this:

"Models may enter the table b2b with any burrow marker when they are ambushing instead of deviating, as long as no enemy model is currently b2b with that burrow marker. Burrow markers aren't placed during deployment. You can assign burrow markers to your ambushing squads during deployment (or before ambushing?). Ambush that squad as normal then place the burrow marker b2b with that squad."

Also, if burrow markers are not any kind of assault terrain, there is no point of placing the models next to the marker.. You could place the models on top of the marker. I know it's because of the fancy models, but then are they different terrain or not?

I feel its important to detail how you place a burrow marker first, as it does not end up on the table in the same fashion as other terrain (at the beginning of the game).

You place models in B2B during ambushing, just as if you were placing them in B2B with the first model of the ambushing squad after deviation.

Trenches are also terrain you can move through without penalty, but depending on the type of display piece you use, they're may be places on it where models cannot stand. The same holds true for the Burrow Marker.

I still feel like the current Burrow marker text has some problems.

-It doesn't say when do you assign your burrow markers to the ambushing squads.
-It mentions ambushing models, but squads are ambushing and not models.
-It does not implies strongly enough that burrow markers are really for squads ambushing later in the game.

And if you can't place models on it anyway, it should be marked as unstable terrain, so there would be no confusion. Unstable terrain rules apply.

Edit: nvm

With the burrow marker, it's not perfectly clear how it works, worded any way, until you see it in action. I read about it, but until I actually had some gophers and badgers come in through one, it wasn't clear.

I do remember something being mentioned that wasn't in there. Something about units can only use it to ambush on subsequent turns, and not the turn the burrow marker comes on? I might be remembering something incorrectly about that game. A lot was going on.

'Burrow Markers are held in ambush with a squad' The first line tells you its paired with a squad when they are held in ambush (At the beginning of the game, during deployment)

Individual models can ambush, you are not forced to squad up to ambush.

Squads ambushing after the squad that places the burrow marker, even on the same turn, can take advantage of the burrow marker.

As I said before its not unstable terrain. Like Trenches, which are not unstable terrain, you can place your models on a burrow marker. But the actual terrain piece you use may have literally unstable places where your models shouldn't stand because they'll fall over and get damaged. The same again goes for hills, rivers, or any other terrain. If you use a giant drill as your burrow marker, you're gonna have that issue. if you use the worm hole you will likely not have these issues.

Even on the same turn? Sweet. Now I just need to find a way to overcome the viziers higher skill...

 miskatonicalum wrote:
'Burrow Markers are held in ambush with a squad' The first line tells you its paired with a squad when they are held in ambush (At the beginning of the game, during deployment)

Well, yeah, but that is debatable.

 miskatonicalum wrote:

Individual models can ambush, you are not forced to squad up to ambush.

In a sense you are, because you move squads even if there is only one model in it. So it confuses the terminology. You can have a model in a squad, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

 miskatonicalum wrote:

As I said before its not unstable terrain. Like Trenches, which are not unstable terrain, you can place your models on a burrow marker. But the actual terrain piece you use may have literally unstable places where your models shouldn't stand because they'll fall over and get damaged. The same again goes for hills, rivers, or any other terrain. If you use a giant drill as your burrow marker, you're gonna have that issue. if you use the worm hole you will likely not have these issues.

I personally think a 30mm base that would be unstable terrain would do it great as a burrow marker, but I have to admit I kinda want the mole drill now(I'm kinda sure that is not exactly 4"x4", so the b2b thing is weird). The problem is, you have to work around what you have, and if you can't put the model on it, it is technically is the same as an unstable terrain piece. That's why I would like to suggest to mark them as unstable terrain, since a big pile of dirt is kinda that and it would solve the what-models-you-have-for-it problem.

Trenches are not the same I think since they should be stable terrain pieces as model standpoint.

The Drill Machine is around 3" in diameter IIRC, so throwing it on a 4"x4" base would solve that issue.

I'm once more taking the book apart to point out things I think should be addressed. I might mentioned some of these earlier.

Page 6 - Armor Piercing: This definition should mention that Exemplars and Heroes can promote their AP over the highest most common, as this part of the book will be read first if that question comes up.
- Activation: This definition confuses models and squads.
Page 7 - Squad: This definition doesn't mentions that one model can form a squad.
- Resources: Gold and Wood is usually listed as Wood first and Gold last.
- Rush/Rushed: It says that RS/MS/ES is zeroed out until the model's next activation. Isn't that until the end of the turn?
- Two Profile Models: This definition should mention that if the model has any banners/horns/items, the second profile will have those after the first gets destroyed.
Page 8 - Fearsome: Only Squads get charged. Mentioning of "model" is not necessary.
- Flight: There should be a disclaimer about if the bases of flying models are blocking movement or LoS, how you can move them, where you can put them and so on.
- Shock: This definition doesn't states that winning a shock test grants that squad Immune t Shock until end of turn, if this is still a rule.
- Sniper: I'd suggest to change the last half sentence "additional attacks will roll over to other Squad members as normal." to "all remaining attacks follows the normal damage stacking rules and being distributed by the defender". to indicate that the defender gets back the ability to distribute the damage.

The definition of Immediate/Free Activation to perform an Activation Phase is missing.

Question:

Fearsome - How many models have to have Fearsome to make a squad have Fearsome?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Model or Squad" is used a lot of times. Should I call these out if I see any?

This is an oxymoron as a single model is a squad after all if it get's activated alone or deployed alone.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I'm once more taking the book apart to point out things I think should be addressed. I might mentioned some of these earlier.

Page 6 - Armor Piercing: This definition should mention that Exemplars and Heroes can promote their AP over the highest most common, as this part of the book will be read first if that question comes up.
- Activation: This definition confuses models and squads.

Activation: No it doesn't, models and squads activate, squads are made up of models (at least 1), models can only be activated once per turn.

Page 7 - Squad: This definition doesn't mentions that one model can form a squad.

That's covered under the Squad phase

- Rush/Rushed: It says that RS/MS/ES is zeroed out until the model's next activation. Isn't that until the end of the turn?

Nope


Tried to answer what I can, have a meeting in 5 minutes.

The part where using "model and squad" gets weird is that wording like this indicates that they are not the same thing.

Which means if an ability or an effect targets a squad, then it cannot target single models, or any squad that formed from only one model. Because if it can, it would say "target model or squad".

That means... all abilities in the book, give or take a few.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:

"Rush - The Squad may move up to double their Speed in inches. Their base MS, RS, and ES values are reduced to 0 until the end of the turn. Measurement is made the same as Walk."

from page 13

We'll get heroes/exemps noted in the AP section, it does need to be there.

Yes, the rush effect is only till the end of the turn, not until the next activation. That will get fixed.

Two Profiles: That notation will get added.

Fearsome: A model with Fearsome has to be charged to elicit a Fearsome roll. (Some abilities give Fearsome to an entire squad.)

When we use the phrase Target Squad, it means it targets all the models in a squad. When we say Target model, we mean just a single model, whether it is in a squad with other models or not.

Flight: I'm not sure what you're asking here. Other than ignoring other models for the purposes of movement and ignoring assault failure damage, there are no additional effects.

Passing a Shock Test doesn't give immunity anymore.

 miskatonicalum wrote:

When we use the phrase Target Squad, it means it targets all the models in a squad. When we say Target model, we mean just a single model, whether it is in a squad with other models or not.

I kinda starting to see how you think about it. I'm thinking about it as the math terms of a set and the elements of the set. If you think about it like that then the book talks about the element and the set as they would be interchangeable terms, and they shoudln't be. I think you mean that a "model" is a squad with a single miniature in it.
But even so the word "model" is used as "a squad with only one miniature in it" and also for "a single miniature whitin a squad" which is not always the same thing.

So I think while the term "target model" is okay, "activating model' is not. Since you activate squads, even if that is only one model. Abilities that target squads can be used on any one-model squad, while abilities that target a model are not restricted to squads with only one model in them.

 miskatonicalum wrote:

Flight: I'm not sure what you're asking here. Other than ignoring other models for the purposes of movement and ignoring assault failure damage, there are no additional effects.

I tought models with Flight are flying and they might be not blocking LoS or can be attacked in meele since they are up in the air. But I see now the game only means it they are flying while moving and land at the end of their movement phases. So a Skyhawk Gunship is just bunnyhopping in the battlefield. It's wierd, but okay. Maybe you can land on a wall with a gunship and assault it with the units inside of it.(I don't think so, since there is no room for a gunship in a wall)

Much of our rules design comes down to trying to have interesting mechanics and concepts but without spending several pages on a mechanic that only a few people will use. Not everyone has flying models, so the rules are just simple and abstract.

People get the idea of what it does, without having to be overly complex. So yeah, anything that flies just 'bunny hops'. Silly but easy.

Keeping it simple allows for more subtle interactions with fewer complications. That's one of the things that attracts me to the Brushfire rules; there is great depth without a glut of words. I've found with BF that things are stated simply because that's how they work. Simply.

What about the model-squad thing? Calling a single-model squad a "model" is not going to get anything any simpler.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
What about the model-squad thing? Calling a single-model squad a "model" is not going to get anything any simpler.

Because on page 12 under squad phase it clearly states, "A Squad may also be a single Model" We've already clarified it.

So during your squad phase, you declare which model or squad you're activating. You can say, "I'm activating this 1 model as a squad." bam, that's all that needs to be said. You're adding complexity where it doesn't need to exist based on the idea that it needs to be clarified and "simplified".

That's what I'm saying. The book defines this but doesn't seems to use it.

On Page 6:
-Activation - The collective actions of one Model or one Squad...
-Activate Immediately - An Activation of a Model or Squad
that interrupts a current Activation...

Both should say that "squad' instead of "model or squad"

On page 7: Squad - A group of Models that activated at the same time.
As this is the definition of the term squad, this should mention that one model can form a squad as whatever is on page 12, it shouldn't redefine this definition.

Page 7 doesn't mention the limit upwards or downwards for the size of a squad. The definition is staying the way it is.

Should I mention the "model and squad" thing if I run into it later?

Dude, a single model can be a squad unto itself. It's pretty simple. If something targets a squad it can target a squad MADE OF A SINGLE MODEL, or more!

If something says it targets a MODEL it targets a single model, which is not the same thing as a SQUAD WITH ONE MODEL IN IT.

If you come upon spots where squad vs model creates balance issues in the game, such as an ability that is too powerful because it targets an entire squad, or an ability is too weak because it only targets a single model, feel free to bring it up.

 Zygrot24 wrote:
Dude, a single model can be a squad unto itself. It's pretty simple. If something targets a squad it can target a squad MADE OF A SINGLE MODEL, or more!

If something says it targets a MODEL it targets a single model, which is not the same thing as a SQUAD WITH ONE MODEL IN IT.

That's not the point here. The book says some places that you "activate a model", which is something you can't do. You may activate a squad that is only consist of one model, but you can only activate a squad, not a model. It might be nitpicking, but I would like you guys to be aware of it.


Something else:

the Chugoku Dynastic King's The Jade Seal gives a target friendly squad squad "causes Shock with their ranged attacks".

How many models have to have this effect to make the entire squad cause fear with their ranged attacks?

One model is all it takes to cause shock. If it can make the attack. Same with causing shock on charge. If the model fails to charge, it wouldn't cause shock.

I'll get a notation in Shock about that.

So what if I target a friendly squad and then regroup that squad to spread the shocking ranged attack effect to as many squads I can? It sound's a little broken.

Just the basic example, I start to activate the affected models one-by-one. Since these will be different activations, I can Shock a lot more than one squad in a turn.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
That's not the point here. The book says some places that you "activate a model", which is something you can't do. You may activate a squad that is only consist of one model, but you can only activate a squad, not a model. It might be nitpicking, but I would like you guys to be aware of it.

Then note the pages where this happens, we can discuss it but like I've already said a model may be a single man squad. You also have to take into account when it says things along the lines of a "model may activate" or "activate a model" is specifically refers to a model being activated as part of a squad (even if it's a single man squad). If I have 10 Red Wu with Crossbows, and I get charged in such a way that only 3 of my models are affected, I can choose to activate those models only, get my charge reaction (they won't move) and fire into the charging squad. Now on my activation, I can activate the other 7 as a squad, but I cannot activate those 3, even though they're within cohesion. That's when it means when it says things like "activate a model" or a "model may activate", etc...

As to making sure we're aware of it, you obviously are as we don't see as much of an issue with it as you're making it out to be.

The highest HM of troops in the Chugoku army is a 3; Kau Lung Police. They don't have a ranged weapon.

The CCG have a HM of 1 and a squad limit of 10. At most, you could get 10 shock tests, out of them but with only a HM of 1. Good rolls could see that being successful, but then you're really wasting their crossbows when they could be killing stuff.

The Lem Han have an HM of 2, squad limit of 10, and they have to buy their ranged weapon.

This is balanced out by the August Warrior's army rule, allowing them to reroll failed HM rolls.

So yes, you can do this, but its not overly powerful as is.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
The highest HM of troops in the Chugoku army is a 3; Kau Lung Police. They don't have a ranged weapon.

The CCG have a HM of 1 and a squad limit of 10. At most, you could get 10 shock tests, out of them but with only a HM of 1. Good rolls could see that being successful, but then you're really wasting their crossbows when they could be killing stuff.

The Lem Han have an HM of 2, squad limit of 10, and they have to buy their ranged weapon.

This is balanced out by the August Warrior's army rule, allowing them to reroll failed HM rolls.

So yes, you can do this, but its not overly powerful as is.

Except that Mercenaries are also friendly squads, the affected models doesn't have to be good shots, the Dynastic King has a HM of 7 and a persence of 10 inch, and the 4th rank of The jade Seal boosts the affected models HM to the Dynastic King's, who can wear a Heroism banner.

It never says that the attacking models have to hit, it says they have to shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, rank 3 of the Jade Seal says: "Additional Effect: Target Friendly Squad causes Shock with their Ranged Attacks as a Free Activation." which I don't understand. What doesthe free activation part means?

Copied from the newest PDF on WGV:
"Additional Effect: Target Friendly Squad causes Shock with their Ranged Attacks on their next Activation."

Its still a very specific strategy you have to build for, and if your Hero gets into melee, he no longer provides his HM to anyone outside his squad.

Mercs cost more and are usually more limited than the original version, so that is also a drawback there.

We'll discuss if it should be successful attacks instead of just attacking.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 WhiteRoo wrote:
That's not the point here. The book says some places that you "activate a model", which is something you can't do. You may activate a squad that is only consist of one model, but you can only activate a squad, not a model. It might be nitpicking, but I would like you guys to be aware of it.

Then note the pages where this happens, we can discuss it but like I've already said a model may be a single man squad. You also have to take into account when it says things along the lines of a "model may activate" or "activate a model" is specifically refers to a model being activated as part of a squad (even if it's a single man squad). If I have 10 Red Wu with Crossbows, and I get charged in such a way that only 3 of my models are affected, I can choose to activate those models only, get my charge reaction (they won't move) and fire into the charging squad. Now on my activation, I can activate the other 7 as a squad, but I cannot activate those 3, even though they're within cohesion. That's when it means when it says things like "activate a model" or a "model may activate", etc...

As to making sure we're aware of it, you obviously are as we don't see as much of an issue with it as you're making it out to be.

I agree it's a miniscule thing, but the MTG rule changes are also miniscule things that have big consquences.

anyway, the first two:

On Page 6:
-Activation - The collective actions of one Model or one Squad...
-Activate Immediately - An Activation of a Model or Squad
that interrupts a current Activation...

I'll post if I find any more later.

Also note with that ability that you're opponent is getting an activation in between each individual model. Allowing them to focus fire on your hero if you're activating him alone, or knocking your ranged units out. They can just as easily activate single models or small groups to take out your individual squads.

(I've also got a post on the previous page, in case you missed it.)

 miskatonicalum wrote:
Copied from the newest PDF on WGV:
"Additional Effect: Target Friendly Squad causes Shock with their Ranged Attacks on their next Activation."

Its still a very specific strategy you have to build for, and if your Hero gets into melee, he no longer provides his HM to anyone outside his squad.

Mercs cost more and are usually more limited than the original version, so that is also a drawback there.

We'll discuss if it should be successful attacks instead of just attacking.

The Hero doesn't have to be anywhere near. He just have to be able to use The Jade Seal on that target squad. The 4th rank grants the heroism bonus even if the hero dies right after he used this ability. I think.

Yes you are correct, if you're investing in Rank 4 just for this strategy.

Again though, we'll look at it.

Silence...

What's happening?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Silence...

What's happening?

You haven't asked any more questions.

Also we've been focusing on getting EFT taken care of:

Challenge Accepted.

What's up with that box?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Challenge Accepted.

What's up with that box?

Its yesterday's batch of EFT castings, waiting to get cleaned/sorted/bagged.

When will be the next revision gets released?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
When will be the next revision gets released?

Probably Sunday/Monday, we're focusing on EFT this week.

Let's say there is a structure, like a building. All of it's walls are in blocking hight and they form a ring around it. There is a door in this wall. Can a model move into this structure if it's base is wider than the hole/door in the wall?

Can a model move trough a low wall if other models are hiding in the other side? What if their bases would not block the model moving trough?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Let's say there is a structure, like a building. All of it's walls are in blocking hight and they form a ring around it. There is a door in this wall. Can a model move into this structure if it's base is wider than the hole/door in the wall?

Can a model move trough a low wall if other models are hiding in the other side? What if their bases would not block the model moving trough?

For terrain like your describing, you really just need rules for whole buildings that models can garrison IMHO. Some sort of variation off the Castle Tower, were Enemy squads can charge the building with out the need for a seige tower. Bassicly for stuff like Watch Towers that aren't part of a castle wall system.

more rules for "ruins" that are placed after castle walls, Buildings, ect are destroyed might be nice also.

I think you misunderstand. It's not about garrisons. Maybe I overcomplicate this.

What I'm asking is if there are two pieces of impassible terrain that are close to each other, can that stop models from moving trough between them if their bases are wider than the gap between the terrain pieces?

Doors are "representative" in so much that if there is a door its feasible that a model can move through that space and into the space beyond, assuming there is space for the actual base to fit without overlapping onto anything else, same thing goes for the over the wall question. If there's space you can move through it.

So then there is a game entity called a "door"?

No, he just means if there is an opening wide enough for the model's base to pass through, it can move through it. A model cannot pass through an Obscuring terrain piece.

Currently, with the RAW, you cannot move through a low wall when someone is hiding behind it. Obviously, this is not intentional, and in the next update, this will get changed. Play it as RAI, the low wall doesnt become Obscuring, the models hiding behind it treat it as Obscuring.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Silence...

What's happening?

SSSSSHHHHHHHHH......

Let them work. I think I see one of my Summoners in that pile

Actually I think I had at least one of every figure that was taking a bit longer, so I'm not building any expectations. We'll see which I get first, EFT or my Reaper Bones.

I made that pile of EFT the background on my phone. I'm starting to get excited!

I'd bet on Reaper Bones, since I believe they have everything in-hand and are just working through the shipping queue.

I agree that it's good for OTL to focus on getting the kickstarter campaign for EFT fulfilled! But it does illustrate that with the limited folks they have working on things, having 2 games is forcing them to divert attention from one or the other at times.

So, is it time for the next revision yet?

It's being worked on. With the ramp up to Gencon, EFT has taken a front seat. Especially with a focus on casting and shipping out orders.

Additionally, the next revision is just including the few things that you got answers for in this thread, no new surprises and no unit changes.

I want to talk about the Mission Types. Do you guys work on that currently?

Or what part should I focus on?

All topics are open, what about missions did you want to cover?

I have a long list somewhere here that I'll dig up sometime.

The main points are:
-The descriptions of the missions are hard to follow.
-resource amounts are not scaling.
-Some mission types should account living/dead heroes while determining victory points.

I will say we have not touched them since 1.0, We'll give them a thorough going over at some point.

TBH, I feel comfortable believing that players can invent their own objectives and scenarios. Obviously for competitions it is more important that we write them up.

I don't believe players will do that. You can invent scenarios and objectives, but the hard part is doing so as the two sides start with equal chance to win. I would not believe anyone if he would tell me that the scenario he just invented five minutes ago is totally balanced.

Players want to play and not playtest.

I wasn't suggesting that a scenario invented 5 minutes ago was a 'fair' scenario. But, depending on how you play, balance doesnt matter. In some games, players will play each other, say one as a attacker, one as defender, and then reverse roles, before comparing victory points over the two games.

I was suggesting, that the community as a whole would come up with interesting or fun scenarios. Every player has a bit of GM in them, Its why players create background, color schemes, and strategies for their personal army. They're creating a part of the universe of the game for themselves.

Again though, for tourneys, they would likely use scenarios deemed 'official'. Most often ones ripped straight from the book. Which is why we will review the ones we have and make sure they're agreeable.

I wait with my comments on the scenarios until after that revisit then.

Well, feel free to share them now. When I have some free time, I'll review them and see what needs changing.

Okay

For every mission type, there should be a few lines of description for what that mission is about. Currently you have to read trough the whole scenario to figure out what it is about.

The description should separate what the attacker and the defender gets and how they deploy into it's own paragraph so it's easier to find. Like: Attacker bonus resources, Defender bonus resources, Attacker's deployment, Defender's deployment.

Heroes worth no resource points however they are half of the power of your army. I think Heroes should worth resource points based on their level when you calculate your slain resource total, where this is relevant. Like in Killpoint mission.

I think giving free resources for assault stuff stops players to enlist these things otherwise. If you play a mission like attack/defense, you get those for free. Why would you list those in the first place?

I can see about writing up a short description for each scenario. I was just trying to keep the entries as short as possible.

I'll see about separating the rules out for Attacker/Defender, that's a quick formatting issue.

In Killpoint, I agree, heroes should be worth points. Outside of that, I think it should be a variant rule if players wish to play in that fashion. In many Warmachine Scenarios ganking the hero is a premier strategy, and within that setting it makes sense, theyre directly controlling half your army. But in historicals, while tragic when a general is struck down, there are many instances of generals being killed on the winning side. The Battle of Trafalgar jumps instantly to mind.

Giving free resources does stop players from enlisting those things with their base points, but it also FORCES them to enlist them at all. Which is the intent of the Siege-type scenarios. Its making players take more terrain to create defensive formations, and batteries of artillery. We could say that players have to take X portion of their LR/GD as Siege/Fort, but I think it's slightly less complex and doesn't mess with the army's flexibility this way.

I would also suggest to make the amount of bonus resources relative to the size of the armies.

My biggest match was a 100 resource match so far and one of the scenarios says one of the armies are 100 resources bigger than the other.

Yeah, I'll definitely look into making the scenarios scale.

Also I don't think "generic resource" is a defined thing. It's mentionned on page 46.

In other places the text sometimes says something like "a 100 more resources", and it's not clear if the spendable resource total is 100 or it is 100/100/100 resource.

Silence again...

What's happening?

Its a month till GenCon and we're trying to get EFT shipped out so we don't feel like jerks for selling it at GenCon.

Aye, even without the EFT Kickstarter shipping taking up most of our time, the few weeks leading up to Gencon are always incredibly busy while we get everything prepped.

We did spend a bit of time working on the scenarios and what not yesterday, but I haven't had a chance to plug it into InDesign.

Are you helping with EFT shipping, Alfndrate?

 RiTides wrote:
Are you helping with EFT shipping, Alfndrate?

He cheers us on via messenger services.

If I was, I would have stolen my Cleric pledge and laughed

No I'm not helping with EFT shipping, I've been doing minor tasks Matt and Em have asked me to do, like looking at the EFT quickstart rules, looking over the main rulebook before we send it out for test copies, etc...

I'm sure I should be doing more, but I haven't heard much in the way of, "Hey we need x, y, and z" from them. Oh! Also trying to communicate with CMON about OTL articles in Ravage Magazine, and their guy Brian is a tough guy to pin down

One time, I drove to OTLG to hang out, and they hit me and locked me in a dark room and made me sort models.

I look forward to doing it again soon.

 Zygrot24 wrote:
I look forward to doing it again soon.

I guess we didn't hit you hard enough.

7/12/13 Brushfire Patch Notes:

References to "Move" have been replaced by Walk, Rush, or Movement Phase as appropriate.

Valkyr MkII - Mission Complete has been adjusted.

Hedge Knight - Step Up! has been adjusted.

Activate Immediately/Free Activation and performing specific Phases have been clarified.

Two Profile Models and their Accessories have been clarified.

One Target per Activation has been included on Page 12, with a point included that targeting allies ignores this restriction.

Cavalry Charge has received a full section to itself at the end of the Melee Phase, giving it the full space it needs.

Low Walls/Hedgerows no longer turn into Blocking Terrain for everything when models are hiding behind it. Only those model benefit from it in such a fashion.

Rush/Rushed typo fixed

Attacks or abilities that cause Shock must be successful to force the Shock Test, not simply target something.

Let us know if these only messed things up more, or If you feel we missed something else that still needs adjustment.

I'm rendering the last file now, it will get posted to WGV within the hour.

The stat cards are updated, but could use a fresh set of eyes looking at them to compare with the rulebook, making sure they match up.

Edit: The update is live, you should get an e-mail from WGV.

I GOT AN EMAIL. Thanks!

Nice!

I'll try to check it out as soon as I can!

I can finally check out the new rulebook. Let's see...

"Generic Resource" is not defined.
"Influence Range" is defined as a Hero only ability, or at least it's placement suggests so. I believe it should be defined between the generic terms.

On page 12 the title "One Target, One Activation" is written with small font while on page 13, the title "Line of Sight and Tactical & Heroic Actions" is broken in two lines instead

Kill Point Mission:
Victory Points only have any use if the game is part of a series of games. Therefore if you play only one kill point game, the slain HRLV still has no use in determining the result.

Some missions:
There should be a rule about how the terrain can be placed so the defender cannot wall the objective in too much.

Objective Retrieval:
It is unclear how the attacker has to split it's army. It's too easy to turn these rules around. Like you can leave one model in the last group that you never plan to bring to the table at all.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Kill Point Mission:
Victory Points only have any use if the game is part of a series of games. Therefore if you play only one kill point game, the slain HRLV still has no use in determining the result.

No, it has use in determining the result. If we're playing a hLVL 5 200 resource game, and I managed to kill your Hero (but mine lives), that nets me 55 victory points right there. So if at the end of it all, you've slain 450 total points (FD, GD, LR) and I've slain 400 points and your hero, that gives me a 5 point win over you. Granted it's a Pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless. Could you explain how it only matters if you're playing a series of games, every game has to have winner and a loser, and even in basic kill point missions need some measure of how much of your opponent's army you killed.

As for the "walling in of objectives" It's a valid defense, I've seen plenty of games with objective placement where you make it royally painful for your opponent to get to your objective, like placing an objective in the far corner of the board so your opponent has to travel the entire board and get through your whole army to get to it. With that being said, it might not be a bad idea for people to try it out as it is, and maybe with like a 6 inch buffer zone (like no fortifications may be placed within 6 inches of an objective). I'll try it out at home, but I'd love for people to give me some real life feedback

 WhiteRoo wrote:

"Generic Resource" is not defined.

Page 38.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

"Influence Range" is defined as a Hero only ability, or at least it's placement suggests so. I believe it should be defined between the generic terms.

Heroes are the only ones who have it by default, and 2 Exemplars get it as a special ability.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

On page 12 the title "One Target, One Activation" is written with small font while on page 13, the title "Line of Sight and Tactical & Heroic Actions" is broken in two lines instead

Fixed.

Also WhiteRoo, Objective retrieval doesn't have the attacker splitting his army up in "zones" you're thinking of Escape!

And with that mission, the attacker can only put 25% of his forces in the first two zones, leaving 50% of his forces in the back field.

Edit: Lol, ninja'd by Cy, and why would you want to take models you had no intention of taking?

Alfndrate wrote:Snip

WhiteRoo wrote:Snip

You two are referring to separate sections: The Rule Variant at the end of Kill Point Mission gives Victory Points for each hLVL slain. In the results section of Kill Point each hero slain is converted to Resources to determine Victory.

Then that's lack of clarity on WR's part . No worries, and if that is the section he's talking about, then I think it works as it should. It's a variant on the rules that you can do when not playing the standard mission (i.e. a series of games or a campaign).

 Alfndrate wrote:
Also WhiteRoo, Objective retrieval doesn't have the attacker splitting his army up in "zones" you're thinking of Escape!

And with that mission, the attacker can only put 25% of his forces in the first two zones, leaving 50% of his forces in the back field.

Edit: Lol, ninja'd by Cy, and why would you want to take models you had no intention of taking?

on page 43:
"The Attacker must hold their entire army in Reserve. Split the Attacker’s army into groups of any number of models. Each group rolls for Flanking separately and may deploy from any board edge at the Side Edge TD of 15."

In Retrieval, you could make the defender to move the objective into it's place from a table edge in some number of free turns before the attacker shows up, forcing the defender to set up the field in a way to be able to move the objective trough it, since he also has to do so.

On OR,
With an addition of 'The Attacker may begin rolling for reserves on Turn 1, gaining bonuses on Turn 2' would mean that by turn 3 just about everything should be on the table (You would have to roll awfully and have a Squad with very poor TS) and they would auto come on by turn 4.

And even without this addition, just add one turn to each of those.

You are still not forced to flank I think. Like you can say that you don't want to flank with a particular group even if it would bring them to the field automatically.

You can hold a single model back as long as you want.

Why would you want to hold a single model back for the entire game? The object of the mission is to get the objective and get back to a table edge, the more models trying to accomplish this the better.

Page 26.

"If a model succeeds their Reserve roll, they must deploy. The player cannot decide to hold the model in reserve."

Because you aiming for this:

Glorious Victory:
The Attacker moves the objective to the table edge before all their Reserves have arrived on the field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Page 26.

"If a model succeeds their Reserve roll, they must deploy. The player cannot decide to hold the model in reserve."

But this still not forces you to make Reserve roll for a particular group, it just says once you did, you cannot back out.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Because you aiming for this:

Glorious Victory:
The Attacker moves the objective to the table edge before all their Reserves have arrived on the field.

That just means you have to do it by turn 4/5... It's to put a time limit on the attacker.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Also WhiteRoo, Objective retrieval doesn't have the attacker splitting his army up in "zones" you're thinking of Escape!

And with that mission, the attacker can only put 25% of his forces in the first two zones, leaving 50% of his forces in the back field.

Edit: Lol, ninja'd by Cy, and why would you want to take models you had no intention of taking?

on page 43:
"The Attacker must hold their entire army in Reserve. Split the Attacker’s army into groups of any number of models. Each group rolls for Flanking separately and may deploy from any board edge at the Side Edge TD of 15."

In Retrieval, you could make the defender to move the objective into it's place from a table edge in some number of free turns before the attacker shows up, forcing the defender to set up the field in a way to be able to move the objective trough it, since he also has to do so.

Yes the Defender can move the objective preemptively to protect it. This is why you would want to split your forces and deploy them from several table edges, reducing the Defender's options of where to move the objective.

I will add in the "Make Flanking rolls on turn 1, begin adding bonuses on turn 2".

Second Quote

No, the Attacker HAS to hold all of their models in Reserve to Flank in this scenario. Additionally, you do not have an option about when or if to ambush/flank; in this scenario, or any other. You must roll for everything held in reserve.

I will clarify this in the Reserves section.

Glorious Victory Quote

The Glorious Victory result is not intended to be an easy win. It is supposed to be difficult to achieve, but it provides additional Victory Points in reward. Realistically, a Close or Hard-won is a more realistic goal. A Glorious Victory would require something like Heavy Cavalry Rushing across the table, or Mouse Lancers, grabbing the objective on turn 1 or 2.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Page 26.

"If a model succeeds their Reserve roll, they must deploy. The player cannot decide to hold the model in reserve."

But this still not forces you to make Reserve roll for a particular group, it just says once you did, you cannot back out.

Then this will be further clarified.

Beginning on Turn 2, Players make TS rolls to determine if Squads held in reserve can deploy.

Becomes:

Beginning on Turn 2, Players must make TS rolls to determine if Squads held in reserve can deploy.

But it still means you can undercut your Glorious Victory by rolling well on your resource rolls, no?

Oh I see what you mean. We'll see about tweaking it.

What if we were to change it to "The Attacker moves the objective to the table edge before their Reserves arrive automatically on the field." or by a set turn number (I think a set turn number would be the best).

"Once the Attacker has control of the objective, the Defender never gains control again."

I would also like to point out that the "table edge" as the win condition can only work if the table size is fixed.

Also if I reading this right, you can only ever move the objective 5 inches per turn, and on a 4 by 4 table, it starts somewhat 23-24 inches away from the closest table edges in aerial distance.

Meaning, the attacker needs five turns at minimum to move it down from the table, if the table is empty, and it has two turns to reach it, as seven turns all you have.

I don't know if it is possible to move the objective down from the table at all if there is any terrain or enemies.

The suggested table size at the beginning of the missions section suggests a table size of 2 x 4, making a distance of only 12" to a table edge, which takes 3 turns.

I was going threw some stuff from the last con I went to, and found I note I made to my self. When demoing brushfire I got asked alot of questions. I got alot of the useual stuff like "Witch faction has animal [insert here]" But their were two that seemed to keep crouping up I figured I would ask.

-Will Dominion of North Axony/South Sea Axony Holdings become playable factions/Represented in the Axony Faction? Being in Canada, their was alot of interest in North Axony Dominion. I was also told that their is a lack of Beavers! lol

-I told them that if I remembered correctly Republic of Armarillo was the Equivalent of the republic of Texas. I was asked if these guys might be a playable faction faction within the FSV? (Sort of like how Chugoku has 5 playable subfactions with-in it) Cowboy Armadillos was surprisingly a very popular concept. lol

 Lockark wrote:

-Will Dominion of North Axony/South Sea Axony Holdings become playable factions/Represented in the Axony Faction? Being in Canada, their was alot of interest in North Axony Dominion. I was also told that their is a lack of Beavers! lol

Like Australia, we're working on finding the best means of bringing them in. Axony does have a Beaver character, Sean, as part of the Experts.

 Lockark wrote:

-I told them that if I remembered correctly Republic of Armarillo was the Equivalent of the republic of Texas. I was asked if these guys might be a playable faction faction within the FSV? (Sort of like how Chugoku has 5 playable subfactions with-in it) Cowboy Armadillos was surprisingly a very popular concept. lol

Armarillo Armadillos will likely be a part of FSV's army list.

Oh I never clued in sean was going to be a beaver. I kept thinking he was suppose to be a Cababara for some reason.

Maby consider dog breeds that come from Canada and Australia also for Axony Troop choices? Like Labrador Retrievers and Australian terriers for example? With then a native animal to thows areas to represent the natives of thows area who now find them selves now under axony rule.

I have a few suggestions for the cards.

Their back side should also feature the name of the unit, so it would be way easier to find a card.

As a reminder for cavalry rules:
-MS value for heavy cavalry should be bold or something
-RS value for light cavalry should be also bold (or something)
to indicate that these values doesn't change by Rushing

-ES value for heavy and light cavalry should be in italic (or something ) to indicate that this value doesn't goes down to zero by rushing.

I was flipping trough the books and here are some suggestions:

If a special weapon is so special that it only appears on one unit, there is no point putting it's description into the fraction armory. Like Amamimoto's Oar. There is enough space in Amamimoto's page to hold that information.

I suggest to make Armor Penetration a stat of units as it would be way easier to follow. I know this probably doesn't makes sense logically as weapons pierce armor, but if you look at all units that have upgrade equipment(choose one equipment units and Heroes aside), you can notice this:
-Throughout upgrade, only one unit's AP changes. If a unit gains weapons with AP as one of it's upgrade, it usually has one with AP already.(The Civitan Marine can be upgraded with pistol, but only comes with a sword making him the only exception)
-If all weapons would loose their AP values and all units would gain Melee AP and Ranged AP stats based on what their weapons lost, nothing would change. From that, you would found that a unit either has no ranged weapon or their ranged and melee AP is equal(I'm researching this last bit currently).

Units that can be equipped multiple ways are different of course, but those units basically are 2 or 3 units with no upgrade equipment anyways.
Heroes may gain weapons with AP, but they may gain +1 AP on level X instead.

I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

(I can follow the current AP rules, but I see this opportunity to make the game more straightforward.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other. In some unit pages it says "Standard Equipment", in other pages it's' just simply "Equipment"

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

Ya lost me on that one Whiteroo, I had to read you post a handful of times to figure out what you were saying. Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that instead of the Armor Penetration value being on the weapon, you want it to be added to the model's statline as a Ranged AP and a Melee AP right?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

Ya lost me on that one Whiteroo, I had to read you post a handful of times to figure out what you were saying. Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that instead of the Armor Penetration value being on the weapon, you want it to be added to the model's statline as a Ranged AP and a Melee AP right?

Yes.

Also I'm suggesting that one AP value for both melee and ranged attacks would be enough.

Both of your first comments come down to standardization. It would get confusing if some special weapons are just on the model entry and others are in the armory. In either case, they are listed on the back of the model's card with their information.

I feel enough models change equipment, resulting in different AP values, that it should remain on the weapon. You still have to refer to the weapon to see how much damage is dealt anyway.

Off the top of my head, fusiliers changing stances, many of the heroes, Assassins upgrading to pistols, Rat Raiders using poleaxes, Kernish terriers, etc.

Making exceptions where for some models their AP increases from certain things, or certain special weapon descriptions are listed in different places, just leads to confusion.

Ill go through and make sure all the entries say Standard Equipment instead of 'Equipment'

I went trough both books and look after different AP values on melee and ranged, and I found 21 units including heroes and stance changers.

Many of these comes from having/gaining/upgrading-to Rifle.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

Ya lost me on that one Whiteroo, I had to read you post a handful of times to figure out what you were saying. Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that instead of the Armor Penetration value being on the weapon, you want it to be added to the model's statline as a Ranged AP and a Melee AP right?

Yes.

Also I'm suggesting that one AP value for both melee and ranged attacks would be enough.

Ya, I'm going to agree with misk on this one. The AP should remain on the weapon and not on the model. It's an interesting suggestion, but the way I see it, the reason why a Dagger has AP1 is not because the person wielding the dagger as enough strength to shove that dagger into a model's kidney(s) through armor, but it's because the dagger was designed and implemented to get up under the slits in armor. The strength of the person wielding it didn't matter so much as the dagger's design. The same goes when looking at arrows. A broadhead arrow pierces armor the way it does because of the way it's designed. Two archers with the same strength, but using a field arrow vs. a broadhead will yield different results because of the design of the weapon, not the person wielding it.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Ya, I'm going to agree with misk on this one. The AP should remain on the weapon and not on the model. It's an interesting suggestion, but the way I see it, the reason why a Dagger has AP1 is not because the person wielding the dagger as enough strength to shove that dagger into a model's kidney(s) through armor, but it's because the dagger was designed and implemented to get up under the slits in armor. The strength of the person wielding it didn't matter so much as the dagger's design. The same goes when looking at arrows. A broadhead arrow pierces armor the way it does because of the way it's designed. Two archers with the same strength, but using a field arrow vs. a broadhead will yield different results because of the design of the weapon, not the person wielding it.

I get that. What I'm saying is that it's redundant as a weapon value. AP being on weapons is just overcomplicates things without having any advantage(currently). You have to look up the AP value on weapon base instead of unit base.

Here is the change I suggest:
-Remove all AP values from all weapons, and make all units gain AP as their stats, based what got removed from their weapons. That is going to be either 0 or 1, and rarely 2 or 3.
-Make the Rifle, Sniper Rifle, Long Rifle and so on gain the next ability: Unit's AP value becomes 1 while using this weapon.
-Make Heroes gain AP as they would gain that equipment with extra AP.
-Make Stance Shifters gain/loose AP with their stances where it's necessary.

-Make the Pike using Kernish terrier gain: +1AP in melee.
-Make the Veiled Assasin gain: +1 AP if upgraded with Pistol.

This would not change the game at all, but would make AP way more easier to follow. It could be a big number in the back side of the card instead you have to look for it for every weapon in every attack.

I believer your changes are over complicating simply flipping the card over to see that the weapon has X AP value on it.

What was once 'look at weapon's AP' is not 6 different rule adjustments for no perceivable gain.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I get that. What I'm saying is that it's redundant as a weapon value. AP being on weapons is just overcomplicates things without having any advantage(currently). You have to look up the AP value on weapon base instead of unit base.

Which is on the back of the card. If you're flipping through the rulebook to find these things, you're overcomplicating things on your own. I completely understand that the 2nd ed cards aren't provided with the models, but that's because we're in beta still. When we start releasing models with the 2nd ed cards, then it's a matter of flipping over the cads. Though as someone in the beta, you should have access to all of the 2nd ed cards already


Edit: What advantage is given by having it on the model's statline? Because I don't see an advantage to your proposed changes.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Edit: What advantage is given by having it on the model's statline? Because I don't see an advantage to your proposed changes.

AP is a shared value. It is already not the weapon's own that it's listed with.

You look for the highest on an unit's weapons during it's attack set, and say that is the unit's AP
Checking all attacking unit's AP you are looking for the highest most common.
And occasionally overrule this with the Exemplar, Adjutant or Hero's AP.

It is a massive pain in the... to follow this. My change would make it trivial.

All those things still occur if it is on the model.

You still have to check each individual model in the squad, in Hordes with mixed weapons, you have to check the special rule listed for each model to determine any changes; and an Exemp/Hero/Adj still overrides.

The difference is whether you're looking at a stat next to the damage of a weapon, which you already need to do; or check for special rules + a stat on the front of the card, and THEN check the damage on the weapon anyway.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
All those things still occur if it is on the model.

You still have to check each individual model in the squad, in Hordes with mixed weapons, you have to check the special rule listed for each model to determine any changes; and an Exemp/Hero/Adj still overrides.

The difference is whether you're looking at a stat next to the damage of a weapon, which you already need to do; or check for special rules + a stat on the front of the card, and THEN check the damage on the weapon anyway.

Why would be it in the front? There is room at the back, with the weapons.

Yeah, you would have to check it, but the checking would be easier.

Imagine the difference checking the ranged AP of the Daimyo and it's two attendant's, then checking the melee AP next, while with my change the two would not just be the same by definition, but it would be easy to tell by just glancing to the cards.

And it would be nowhere near as weird as Doyle's Bartitsu Master ability.

So, you're still flipping to the back of the card to check the AP, but you're still referring to the front of the card for any special rules that may adjust AP, like Stances/Styles on Fusiliers, and then checking Special rules on rifles or Pistols, to see the same thing, so now instead of AP being in 1 place for a Melee weapon, and 1 place for a Ranged weapon, both of which you would still have to refer to to see damage, range, other special rules related to the weapon. You're now looking in three places, per card.


What does Doyle's multiple attacks have to do with AP? That you have to refer to the ES of the target model? sure, that's one model that has to refer to a bunch of other cards, not every model having to refer to a bunch of different spots to determine the value of one stat.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Edit: What advantage is given by having it on the model's statline? Because I don't see an advantage to your proposed changes.

AP is a shared value. It is already not the weapon's own that it's listed with.

You look for the highest on an unit's weapons during it's attack set, and say that is the unit's AP
Checking all attacking unit's AP you are looking for the highest most common.
And occasionally overrule this with the Exemplar, Adjutant or Hero's AP.

It is a massive pain in the... to follow this. My change would make it trivial.

Most units have the same weapon, so you're not looking at different weapons during the attack set, hordes units are different and thus have to worry about a little extra work on their part. So a unit will have the same AP regardless unless you have an attached model with a higher AP than the squad.

I also have suggestion for the cards:

I believe it would be more simple if the weapons would be in the front side and just the name of the abilities, having the glossary of the mentioned abilities in the back. This was you only have to flip the card if you want to use one of it's ability, and want to double-check it, and not in every turn when you want to attack.

For example:

------Front:--------

Skyhawk Gunship:

(statline, portrait)

Type: Specialist, Light Cavalry
Base: 120mm
Speed: 10
Special Abilities:
Flight, Ambush, Mechanical, Airsloop, Aerial Barrage,Full Burn

Standard Equipment:
Flame Cannon x2, 5” Range, Large Template, 1 DE, Fire, Ignores, Body Armor
Armor Plating
4 AR, 2 AR Shield

------Back:-------

Skyhawk Gunship:

(Unit Cost)

Airsloop - The Skyhawk is a Garrison for up to
5 Models. Sky Marines Garrisoned on a Skyhawk
may use Assault Assistance Pack as part of their
Activation when they leave the Garrison.
Aerial Barrage - While Models are Garrisoned
in the Skyhawk, its Flame Cannons have a 15”
Range.
Full Burn - The Skyhawk may Rush 25”, but
cannot make attacks with the Flame Cannons on
the same Activation. The Skyhawk retains it ES
when performing Full Burn.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Most units have the same weapon, so you're not looking at different weapons during the attack set, hordes units are different and thus have to worry about a little extra work on their part. So a unit will have the same AP regardless unless you have an attached model with a higher AP than the squad.

Exactly. the AP value is important and doesn't changing like at all. But it's handled as you would have to recalculate it in every turn. Actually, armor is somewhat the same, but it's at least falls into two category that you would have to check separately anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is what I found about AP today:

The next units have different AP values in range and melee:

Warlord(gains Tail Blade, makes it's melee and ranged attack on different AP)
Kernish Terrier(Pike stance - Pike has 1 AP while the Javelin has none)

The next units have different ranged/melee AP because they have Rifle.
Sean, Bull Regular, Otter Ashigaru, Pride Lioness, Veldt Hound, Trapper, Aquiçois Bazaine, Mongoose Legionnaire, Weasel Fusilier, Sardan Commando, Choris al-Iguan, Adwaita Engineer, Gecko Rider,

The Next units change their AP while level-up or upgrade. However once they are reach the upgrade/level, their AP in melee and Ranged is the same:
Imperial Duke(gains Pistol), Veiled Assassin(gains Pistol), Daimyo(gains Pike),Zabaran Chieftain(gains Sharpened Horn), Tactician General(gains Pistol), Conquistador(gains Pistol), Caliph of the Sands(gains Pistol), Vizier(gains Scepter), Hedge Knight(gains Lance).

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Exactly. the AP value is important and doesn't changing like at all. But it's handled as you would have to recalculate it in every turn. Actually, armor is somewhat the same, but it's at least falls into two category that you would have to check separately anyway.

You don't have to recalculate it every turn. If my unit has AP 1 on this turn, it'll most likely have AP1 on the next turn. The only time this changes is when my highest AP dies.

And yes there are things that have different AP under different circumstances, because the WEAPONS ARE DIFFERENT, please go back and see the example of the weapons being different and not the person being different.

Also as to your stat card changes, this was something I had thought about, and it would match other game systems, and after putting all my stat cards down on the table, looking at them, and then flipping them over, your changes would really only work with cards that have little to no upgrades but have a few special rules. If you look at the stat card for the Tanuki Samurai, his equipment takes up almost the entirety of the back of the card, and yet his special rules are only about half of that box on the front.

Edit: Much like the last time, What advantage is there to putting equipment on the front and special rules on the back? if you can provide good reasons as to why this should be done, it'll be easier to discuss it using positives, because 2 out of 3 (Cy, Misk, and least of all myself) of us think that the cards are fine atm, and the third I haven't talked to.

Edit the second: the bold is not to come across mean or anything like that but because I want to make sure that the question I'm asking is easily identifiable.

I think the cards are fine. Putting the names on the back is a pretty good idea.

Not sure what the confusion about AP is at all.

BTW hi! Been busy.

The current Tanuki Samurai's equipment list doesn't even takes half the card.

I don't have a really-really good reason to swap the sides of the cards, except these:
In the case of the Tanuki samurai, you going to need the description of the special abilities once a mach top, while you show it to your opponent who don't know the Tanuki Samurai, while you going to need the weapon stats in every attack.

Also, numbers sequences are harder to learn, so those should be prioritised as you don't need to learn the ability word-by-word, but you need the exact number while performing an attack.

Basically, weapon stats are more frequently used and harder to learn while most of the abilities seldom come into play in the first place.

Weapon ability descriptions like extended reach could also go to the back.

Stance using units really should have one card per stance. Siege weapons should also have cards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

You don't have to recalculate it every turn. If my unit has AP 1 on this turn, it'll most likely have AP1 on the next turn. The only time this changes is when my highest AP dies.

And yes there are things that have different AP under different circumstances, because the WEAPONS ARE DIFFERENT, please go back and see the example of the weapons being different and not the person being different.

This two line is where the devil hides. In the first you are basically saying that a unit's AP will not change often. Actually it's never changing. So once you calculated the AP value, you can highlight it in the unit's card or something for ease of use. (currently, it takes two color of highilght, one for melee and one for ranged, but that's not the point)

In the secound line you are saying that weapons are different, and I understand that. However AP may come from the weapons, in the end it is the stat of the unit that wields it.
For example: A lv1 Civitan Capitaine has a Sword and a Pistol. In melee, he has 1 AP both in his sword and Pistol - or rather on neither of those, he has it on his attack - because AP is the highest most common AP value of the attacking squad, meaning him only and his weapons. The sword has 0 while the Pistol has 1, the Capitaine's AP is 1. It's already the Capitaine's stat it's just a calculated one - or rather, a hidden one.

What I'm saying is that I think this doesn't make any sense to have it like this. You could say that the Capitaine has 1 AP as his stat instead of having this useless logic behind a squad/unit's AP.

What I'm also saying that doing this would not have a big inpact on the game in terms of combat power, but it would simplify a lot in the game. you no longer would have to think about how much AP an unit has, you would just check a single number in it's card.

Actually not weapons are different. weapon combinations are. This is how the rules work.

Giving AP to the units from the weapons would open up more balancing possibilities as a unit may gain or loose an AP regardless of it's weapons.

Also, this bugs me for a while now: Why Speed is not part of the stat line?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
In the case of the Tanuki samurai, you going to need the description of the special abilities once a mach top, while you show it to your opponent who don't know the Tanuki Samurai, while you going to need the weapon stats in every attack.

You should know what every weapon does after a few games, and even if you don't it takes a half second to look at what the model is equipped with (either look at the model or the list) and you then say, "Oh hey, he's got a greatsword, his stuff is x, y, and z."

Basically, weapon stats are more frequently used and harder to learn while most of the abilities seldom come into play in the first place.

Weapon ability descriptions like extended reach could also go to the back.

Stance using units really should have one card per stance. Siege weapons should also have cards.

Flipping the card is a moot effort, once you learn that a rifle on a Fusilier does the same damage and has the same rules as a rifle on an Otter, it doesn't matter how frequently you use them.

Weapon ability descriptions have the description name so we don't have to put them on the back. It saves space on the card, and it prevents us from having to type out 50 words as opposed to 2 words.

And stance units don't need extra cards, it just takes up space, creates clutter, and doesn't really help you if you lose the card. Sure you can print more, but keeping them on 1 card means that you don't have to spend your time searching for your Pike Otters, instead you just find your Otter card...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WhiteRoo wrote:
What I'm saying is that I think this doesn't make any sense to have it like this. You could say that the Capitaine has 1 AP as his stat instead of having this useless logic behind a squad/unit's AP.

What I'm also saying that doing this would not have a big inpact on the game in terms of combat power, but it would simplify a lot in the game. you no longer would have to think about how much AP an unit has, you would just check a single number in it's card.

It's already a single number that you have to check. "I'm shooting at this guy with rifles, what's my AP?" It's 1.

The change you're saying is to make it no different between melee and range. Well sometimes you have AP that is different between the two. You could have a unit with rifles that have AP1. In melee they have swords, which have no AP. So with your changes they have 1 AP as their stat, which means that their swords are just as powerful as their files. Hardly the game changer that firearms were...

Of the current topics, Siege Weapons may receive cards in the future. They would be Print on Demands until we release siege weapons.

AP will remain as is, weapons will remain on the back of the card, and only warband heroes will receive extra cards, to cover the hLVL 2 version.

 Alfndrate wrote:

The change you're saying is to make it no different between melee and range. Well sometimes you have AP that is different between the two. You could have a unit with rifles that have AP1. In melee they have swords, which have no AP. So with your changes they have 1 AP as their stat, which means that their swords are just as powerful as their files. Hardly the game changer that firearms were...

Rifles are the only weapons that are causing this(and the tail blade that is a unique weapon to begin with). So if that is the only thing, then rifles should have an exception trough a keyword. It would be a more commonly used one than extended reach.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

The change you're saying is to make it no different between melee and range. Well sometimes you have AP that is different between the two. You could have a unit with rifles that have AP1. In melee they have swords, which have no AP. So with your changes they have 1 AP as their stat, which means that their swords are just as powerful as their files. Hardly the game changer that firearms were...

Rifles are the only weapons that are causing this(and the tail blade that is a unique weapon to begin with). So if that is the only thing, then rifles should have an exception trough a keyword. It would be a more commonly used one than extended reach.

WhiteRoo, please see Misk's post above yours you may have missed it while typing up this response, I'm fairly certain it answers your problems

Allright then.

But add the card's name to it's back side as well.

PDF Update on WargameVault is going out.

Updates Include:
- Changes to the way Exemplars work; Exemplars may now form squads with other Friendly Exemplars.
- The Wanderers and Experts have lost their ability to sequentially activate.
- The Wanderers have had a slight cost increase.
- Axony History fluff updated.
- Ribenguo's Cards have been updated.

On Aug 21st the Public Playtesting will end.

In September/October we will be releasing 'Brushfire Second Edition - Point Zero' a Rules Only mini book, containing all of the core rules along with of the Units in the initial Eight Factions; But no Fluff or Art. Point Zero will have an SRP of $15 and will be available through our regular channels and WargameVault's Print on Demand*.

Point Zero is intended to be a temporary release to allow the rules to be finalized and on the market while we continue to work on updating the fluff and art.

*This should be nice for our EU/UK fans as it will ship from the EU then, rather than the states.

I have a question about citiy gates and wall. GW castle Walls and gates are 12x2, well in the rules you say that walls should be 6x2. What is the best way to resolve this?

I can only think of 2 ways to deal with this.

1)It counts as two wall sections, so I should mark them in half to represent this. (That and get a extra wall to cut in half for when a wall section goes down)
2)Say it's a single wall section that coasts twice as much.

After Righting it out it feels like 1 is the ovioues choice for the walls, but it's a harder call with the gate.

Those should be treated as two separate walls. If you were treat it as one wall, you'd have to increase the AR and VY along with the cost, and it would never be quite equal to just having two wall sections.

For an extra wide gate, I would suggest marking a section of it to the proper size, say with a piece of felt under it, or dice on the parapets, and treat the other half as a wall. Or have two gates right next to each other. You could imagine that the BF gate represents a small wayfort gate, rather than a full siege-ready castle gate and a double wide is more accurate to that sort, one that a carriage could ride through or the like.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
Those should be treated as two separate walls. If you were treat it as one wall, you'd have to increase the AR and VY along with the cost, and it would never be quite equal to just having two wall sections.

For an extra wide gate, I would suggest marking a section of it to the proper size, say with a piece of felt under it, or dice on the parapets, and treat the other half as a wall. Or have two gates right next to each other. You could imagine that the BF gate represents a small wayfort gate, rather than a full siege-ready castle gate and a double wide is more accurate to that sort, one that a carriage could ride through or the like.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440155a&prodId=prod1095523

This is the gate section, It's 12" in length. The doorway area is about 6", with the door itself being 3.5" wide. Their is 3" to either side. The two doors split in directly in the middle.

Maby if I was to treat it as two gates, with the gates connected?

Yeah, thats what I meant by my last sentence. Also, If you're fighting with resources because you're doubling up, consider giving your opponent an extra siege weapon or two equivalent to what you're taking and go over the limit a bit. For intentional siege based games, you could include 'generic resources' like in the scenarios, that are only spent on Siege/Fortifications.

More just a rules question, but if a model with a bow gets +1 ATT from the Hyena Witch Doctors does quick nock trigger more than once?

Can an army hire Mercenaries from their own list, such as Axony hiring some kernish terriers for 6 Gold instead of the usual 5 Food? If yes, can these mercs form a squad with 'actual' army models?

 Galen wrote:
More just a rules question, but if a model with a bow gets +1 ATT from the Hyena Witch Doctors does quick nock trigger more than once?

No, "Bloodlust" would have to grant an Additional Attack Set for Quick Nock to apply.

 Galen wrote:

Can an army hire Mercenaries from their own list, such as Axony hiring some kernish terriers for 6 Gold instead of the usual 5 Food? If yes, can these mercs form a squad with 'actual' army models?

Yes, there is not a restriction on the mercenaries you can take.

Yes, as long as they follow the Squad formation rules. (IE Same Unit, Same Equipment)

What is the thinking behind 'same equipment' again? Was it just for ease of gaming?

 Casey's Law wrote:
What is the thinking behind 'same equipment' again? Was it just for ease of gaming?

Yes. It makes things easier/quicker.

Fair enough. I'd prefer if it was a little more complex to give me some more choices but I'm probably in a minority. Would it be difficult to add a simple rule to allow it? Like deal with one load out at a time and special rules are negated by different units without the rule? It's be really nice to have those options, it adds so much to the game without much effort and it can be ignored if people want a quicker game.

 Casey's Law wrote:
Fair enough. I'd prefer if it was a little more complex to give me some more choices but I'm probably in a minority. Would it be difficult to add a simple rule to allow it? Like deal with one load out at a time and special rules are negated by different units without the rule? It's be really nice to have those options, it adds so much to the game without much effort and it can be ignored if people want a quicker game.

Hordes, and very specific units (that I can't remember atm) can have mixed equipment.

Could you maybe play a small 50 point game to test this out? You've got till August 21st to make playtest suggestions

 Casey's Law wrote:
Fair enough. I'd prefer if it was a little more complex to give me some more choices but I'm probably in a minority. Would it be difficult to add a simple rule to allow it? Like deal with one load out at a time and special rules are negated by different units without the rule? It's be really nice to have those options, it adds so much to the game without much effort and it can be ignored if people want a quicker game.

Its called 'Horde Infantry', like Kernish Terriers.

I've been out of the loop sorry, so that just applies to equipment instead of units? It's a good start but I think my idea will encourage a meta of players trying to get really interesting lists. You could add a special rule to some units that allows them to pass on their special rules to anyone they join just to grow the idea.

I'll definitely try and get a game to test it but I'm really busy right now, I likely won't get a game of anything for a few months. Maybe someone else could try it out for me? I can explain my idea more if necessary.

 Casey's Law wrote:
I've been out of the loop sorry, so that just applies to equipment instead of units? It's a good start but I think my idea will encourage a meta of players trying to get really interesting lists. You could add a special rule to some units that allows them to pass on their special rules to anyone they join just to grow the idea.

I'll definitely try and get a game to test it but I'm really busy right now, I likely won't get a game of anything for a few months. Maybe someone else could try it out for me? I can explain my idea more if necessary.

Yes, Horde Infantry just allows you to ignore the 'Same Equipment' requirement and ups the Squad Cap to 15.

Mouse Conscripts can activate with other units (Civitan Marines & Chipmunk Weapon Teams), and several Exemplars/Adjutant give their abilities to their squad.

Yeh I remember that stuff, i'm suggesting something rolled out over the whole game though. It would add so many dimensions.

Reminder: 18 Days remain to submit balance issues/clarity issues/play testing reports.

What is resource shifting? I've heard it mentioned in some of the battle reports but had a hard time finding it in the rules.

I think the explanation for how resource shifting works, should be in the section of rules that explain army creation.

 Lockark wrote:
What is resource shifting? I've heard it mentioned in some of the battle reports but had a hard time finding it in the rules.

I think the explanation for how resource shifting works, should be in the section of rules that explain army creation.

Its a nick-name for what Vandalands can do, trading one Resource for another.

Do you guys ever tried what happens if one side decides to build an army list with the sole purpose to have way more squads than the other? I didn't really have the resource to test it, but I see that what will happen is this player will move half of it's army at once when the other runs out of squads to activate.

Same situation, when a player starts to play on this, like activating one model at a time in order to make the other run out of activation so he can make moves whitout the other being able to respond.

Since you cannot flat-out pass activation, when you just want to wait, you just going to start doing these "I activate one and do nothing" type of moves.

Which could go down in a spiral of wait when the other player start doing the same.

Maybe it's not really an issue, but I thought I mention it.

Yes, many times. The slower player ends up having trouble causing damage to his oppenent.

So it's just doesn't works?

It is an issue I face many times with my Red Wu, 10 resources for a 1VY model is rough. I still don't have too many issues. This does change in 2nd ed though

 WhiteRoo wrote:
So it's just doesn't works?

Define 'Works'.

The game still functions, and there are situations where you might want to break things up to several 1 Model Squads, but its not some sort of major game changer.

I am of the opinion that alternating activation makes MSU style armies play at a small disadvantage. Or at least, it makes them more vulnerable and less hard to handle in an IGYG style game.

I only say this because I've played a lot more Heroscape than Brushfire.*




*Through no fault of my own.

As someone that plays a few alternating activation games, there are two ways to go about building your forces.
1) You out activate your opponent. You put down so many models/squads that you choke him with the literal amount of models you have left to activate.
2) You go Grey Knight Draigowing on them and you plop down a few small but hardy units that can weather the storm when it's not your turn.

This second option is harder to do, but it is doable. Like I said, it's a little rough on my Red Wu that lose out in cost to Lem Han (in the current edition), because 10 plus upgrades means that if I limit upgrades to 10 gold and lr per model (on average) then I can at most field 10 models plus a hero at 100 points. Compare that to the 20 Cavalry models I could get with Lem Han.

My Aquitar List functions around the idea that some of the things I have can weather the storm. Namely my Badger at Claw "deathstar" 5 Badgers, Iron Claws, and a medic usually means that you might out activate me, but that unit is going to hurt your face something fierce, and will usually survive long enough to do something about it.

Different armies means different strategies.

If i ever got out of just running brushfire demos. My aquitar list is bassicly a gun line. I start with large blobs of infantry with rifles to blow appart larger threats and then start divideing them up into smaller groups once they get closer to my gunline.

I don't seem to remember if the book mentions how big a piece of forest terrain is supposed to be. Or any terrain piece. It is only going to be important when a particular hero can place forest/water/whatever terrain pieces.

Like the Zabar Huntress. What are the limits of a piece of forest terrain?

It really kind of depends on what you're using for terrain.

I use the Gale Force 9's Small Summer Wood, which comes with two pieces that are like... 6 to 7 inches across. I would put that down as terrain during setup.

When something else places it down, it might need some clarification or limit, though Matt and Em won't let me put, "Don't be a douche" in the book

You may have an older pdf of the new rule book. The free terrain pieces are limited to 5" in diameter.

There are no particular lmited on regular terrain.

I am using a PDF from around the end of may, and I didn't see that. My copy must be outdated

 Alfndrate wrote:
I am using a PDF from around the end of may, and I didn't see that. My copy must be outdated

Very much so.

2.0.072613 is the most recent.

Will printable verstions of the unit cards still come with the brushfire pdfs once 2nd ed hits full release?

 Lockark wrote:
Will printable verstions of the unit cards still come with the brushfire pdfs once 2nd ed hits full release?

Yes, Historia Rodentia will have the pdfs for Aquitar, Civitas, Scyzantium, and Vandalands; Journey to the East will have Axony, Chugoku, Ribenguo, and Zabar. In a few weeks once the rules are finalized and we do the listing split all current owners of the PDF will get a link to purchase JTTE for free.

At that time separate listings for the individual cards and faction decks will go live along with a Print On Demand option to get proper cards, these you will need to purchase.

Weapon Teams:
A weapon team gains +2 RS when not moving, however cannot have a ranged phase if it performed a movement phase. So why isn't this +2 RS is in their stat line?

Just a little fluff thing, but why the Otter Asigaru doesn't have the "Aquatic" ability? Now I think about it lot's of units doesn't have the abilities one would think they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other things:

How do you guys write army lists? I mean with the stance shifting units. Can I just list some Rat Raiders and decide what stance they will run basically when I deploy them? Because that would be awesome. Same question for hero levels and equipments.

Where does it say Weapon Teams cannot have a Ranged Phase if it performs a move phase?

Otters should have Aquatic, good spotting. What else?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
How do you guys write army lists? I mean with the stance shifting units. Can I just list some Rat Raiders and decide what stance they will run basically when I deploy them? Because that would be awesome. Same question for hero levels and equipments.

I don't normally run Hordes, so my Army Lists look a little like this:

Hero:
Wu Xian

Troops:
10 Red Wu w/Heaters, Binfa Upgrade (or w/e it's actually called) - Fd/Gd/Lr
10 Red Wu w/Heaters, Pole-axe Upgrade (you get the idea) - Fd/Gd/Lr
5 Lem Han w/Medium Armor, Rifles - Fd/Gd/Lr

Total: Total Fd/Total Gd/Total Lr


And Weapon Teams get a +2 RS when they have not moved. They can still move and shoot, they cannot Rush and shoot in the same activation.

 Cyporiean wrote:

Otters should have Aquatic, good spotting. What else?

The Soei Toad also should be aquatic I think. I'll run trough the rest if I get some time.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:

Otters should have Aquatic, good spotting. What else?

The Soei Toad also should be aquatic I think. I'll run trough the rest if I get some time.

I know toads are amphibians, but they're not aquatic like their frog cousins... I wouldn't say no to them, I'm just saying there is a bit of a biological difference between frogs and toads.

I know balance issues can come with this, but here are some ideas:

All Clockwork armors(Valkyrs): Immune to Poison (It is really headscratching when those get poisonned, Maybe Immune to Poison should be alse part of the Mechanical ability. Because it currently isn't)
Mongoose Legionnars: Immune to Poison (some mongooses kill cobras and really are immune to it's poison)
Kardaax, Judge of Avestan: Aquatic (I think he is a crocodile)
Siege Tortoise, Seychelle: Aquatic (these are turtles, no?)
Shrew Hussar: Some shrews can echolocate like bats. Maybe something like: Ignores the Stealth ability?

A tortoise is not a turtle.
A toad is not a frog.

Also, about deciding training on troops like weasals and ashigaru; do it at list creation. It's just like a weapon, so it's chosen ahead of time and/or wysiwyg on the model (as in weasals).

Cat units may gain Pathfinder?

I think that's all.

Japanese Common Toads live in marshes and swamps, so I could see them getting the Aquatic tag.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
All Clockwork armors(Valkyrs): Immune to Poison (It is really headscratching when those get poisonned, Maybe Immune to Poison should be alse part of the Mechanical ability. Because it currently isn't)

Valkyr aren't air-tight and poisonous gases could easily get in, poison-tipped bolts or arrows could go in through the view hole.. and Gotz's is open topped.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Mongoose Legionnars: Immune to Poison (some mongooses kill cobras and really are immune to it's poison)

Technically they would be Immune to Venom

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Kardaax, Judge of Avestan: Aquatic (I think he is a crocodile)

Actually a Caiman, but yeah, could be considered Aquatic.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Siege Tortoise, Seychelle: Aquatic (these are turtles, no?)

I was going to say that I have my doubts on the swimming capabilities of Aldabra Giant Tortoises..


But then I saw this:


They are apparently naturally buoyant.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Shrew Hussar: Some shrews can echolocate like bats. Maybe something like: Ignores the Stealth ability?

Hmm.. will have to think on this one.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Cat units may gain Pathfinder?

I know my cats can't pathfinder, but they are pretty derp.