Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I have shown it off to all of my gaming friends, but remember these are all warmachine players. They are the ones I went to TempleCon with and who all each separately commented on how they loved the aesthetic and idea, but the rules looked really loose.
I haven't been commenting on needing to tighten up the rules based on nothing, it's the feedback of the folks around here. I find the game a ton of fun and had a great time playing with Gymnogyps last time, but in a thread discussing competitive play we have to call a spade a spade. The rules need to be tightened up to make the game usable in a "competitive" environment, and to lure in folks that don't join based on the anthropomorphic nature of it alone (although many folks will join just for that, and for-fun-play, myself included).
I consider myself a huge fan of this game, but I can't talk my friends into it (and wouldn't) without telling them honestly what it is- a game that's more for fun than anything else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but anything else they'd see right through in a second.
Again, there's 3/4 of a page for basically each phase of the game in the rulebook. We need more text! Diagrams, order of operations of actions, etc. I'd chip in for that
It migh not come as a suprise, but I agree on that one. I have seen this, but if someone reads the book the first time, you have to have exeptional memory to get a good understanding.
My first games mostly came down as who was able to memorize more from the book, because it is in the pitfall of you often think you know something but then you forgot that a reach weapon is actually giving you a +2 charge range(this was the most recent thing I got memorized finally).
Actually, now that I double-checked it I realized there is Reach and Extended Reach and they are not the same... you get the idea.
RiTides wrote: I have shown it off to all of my gaming friends, but remember these are all warmachine players. They are the ones I went to TempleCon with and who all each separately commented on how they loved the aesthetic and idea, but the rules looked really loose.
I haven't been commenting on needing to tighten up the rules based on nothing, it's the feedback of the folks around here. I find the game a ton of fun and had a great time playing with Gymnogyps last time, but in a thread discussing competitive play we have to call a spade a spade. The rules need to be tightened up to make the game usable in a "competitive" environment, and to lure in folks that don't join based on the anthropomorphic nature of it alone (although many folks will join just for that, and for-fun-play, myself included).
I consider myself a huge fan of this game, but I can't talk my friends into it (and wouldn't) without telling them honestly what it is- a game that's more for fun than anything else. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but anything else they'd see right through in a second.
Again, there's 3/4 of a page for basically each phase of the game in the rulebook. We need more text! Diagrams, order of operations of actions, etc. I'd chip in for that
Those are all fair points, but to assume that we're not tightening the rules up is to assume we're resting on our laurels and don't care.
With that said, this is part of the reason why I'm trying to gain feedback on competitive play, because that's where you tend to find your tightest rulesets (in my opinion) because tournament players want things quick, easy, and streamlined.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "hey guys this game is fun, and very casual, but I think you'd still enjoy it." That's what it takes to get people to play.
Don't use the Brushfire rulebook when demoing the game, you should start out using just the quickstart rules or a "demo script" that highlights the things you should be teaching to get them interested in the game, we want broad strokes and basecoats, not fine blending and detailing. The idea of a demo is to introduce the game and it's mechanics, and not to burden them with all of the rules.
You say you've shown it to your friends, but have you taught them the game?
And WhiteRoo, of course Reach and Extended Reach are two different things, if Extended Reach was the same as Reach, we'd just have Reach Reach: May attack an enemy model that is in base to base with a model you're in base to base with and extends charge range by 2 inches. Extended Reach: May attack through 2 models.
Edit: Can talk more later... small family function.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/03/06 23:39:16
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Alf, I actually had typed more but deleted it as I feel it's not relevant. Honestly, it's my choice whether or not to teach my friends this game. Right now, it's hard to do so as the rules have too many loopholes. I've expressed this a number of different ways, and I'd rather not keep repeating it!
I am a huge fan of the world, the game, the models, and even the basic rules. My feedback is that the rules need to be tightened up before competitive play is attempted, which is what this thread is about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/07 03:10:01
RiTides wrote: Alf, I actually had typed more but deleted it as I feel it's not relevant. Honestly, it's my choice whether or not to teach my friends this game. Right now, it's hard to do so as the rules have too many loopholes. I've expressed this a number of different ways, and I'd rather not keep repeating it!
I am a huge fan of the world, the game, the models, and even the basic rules. My feedback is that the rules need to be tightened up before competitive play is attempted, which is what this thread is about.
I fully understand that it's your choice to teach this game, but you say a fan of the game, and you love everything about the game, yet you refuse to teach the game to your friends because, "The rules have too many loopholes." Excuse me for saying this, but those don't add up. You've said it yourself, you've probably played more Brushfire than anyone with the exception of Cy, and Misk (and maybe the original playtesters), to say that you won't teach the game until the rules are "tightened" is a little ridiculous in my book. You teach the games you love because you want people to see why you love them, and in hopes that you can get them to love these games too, even if it's just a fraction of the amount of care and love you have for a game. You've worked with kids, I have PMs that said you did, teaching a game to friends and strangers is like teaching to children. You only do it if you are passionate about what you're teaching. To say that you love the game, yet not pass on this love I know that you love the game, you've played with the designers, you've gone to conventions just to play Brushfire, but you sit here telling me that the rules need to be tightened, and yet offer no help.
The last time I played Brushfire was at GenCon giving demos in the Event Hall 15 minutes after I received my first game in over a month. I hadn't touched the game from that point up until last Friday where I played 6 games throughout the weekend. I had minor rules issues, granted I texted Cy, but they were simple questions like, "Who wins a tie in combat", "Is Celestial Tactician's Lay of the Land Flank automatic or do I roll Flank as normal". Other than that, I had no trouble interpreting the rules to teach 2 different players how to play, both of whom had never played wargames in their lives.
I guess I just don't see how you can say you love the game, and yet offer no help.
This is now going off topic, and I suggest that if you have thoughts about competitive play, other than, "the rules need to be tightened," then post them here. If not, you are free to post your opinions elsewhere. Your feedback is generally regarded in high favor.
You misunderstand me- my friends aren't wanting to pick up the game because the rules aren't clear. I don't know how many ways I can say that. It's their feedback, not just my own.
I would Love to see the rules be made better. I've put up a Q&A thread when I started playing to resolve rules issues, and posted about them a lot. If that's not helping, what is?
If you had no issues with the rules after a short demo, you're simply not acknowledging the problem / not looking deep enough. The first step to making better rules is acknowledging the gaps!
I'm personally not a big fan of "demo plays", because as usually it is pretty close to the real thing, it is in the uncanny valley of rules.
For example I have played the Island of Blood which is the Warhammer Fantasy demo. When the demo rules explain you that Skavens have a Warpfire Thrower and a Poison Wind Globaldier but you will not get to use them despite you even have the models because as the purposes of the demo they operate as a flame thrower and a stone thrower... this was the point when I lost a lot of enthusiasm about the game.
And from there it get's worse. Turns out the two armies are not matching in point, one runs a model that it shouldn't the other cannot run it's warband rules that it should and you don't even play the real thing. I felt cheated. That thing is not cheap and turns out now that I have it I still can't play warhammer.
My friend tries to get me into Hordes/Warmachine, but I think the two player battle box tries to pull the same trick. I have read their demo rules and yeah, it kinda tries.
I can see the reasoning behind this phenomenon but having the demo teach some "basics" to you then contradict it with "well it's actually works like this..." creates a gap between players who start out with the demo and players who play the real thing.
In short, I don't want to play that kind of demo, and it is great that Brushfire doesn't tried to pull this on me. Maybe I skipped the "demo" part altogether, but I also wouldn't start to teach anyone to Brushfire with the demo script. I would use the full rulebook and never teach something just so I can contradict it later.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Powder Keg mission sound's really cool and we will try it.
I cannot feedback a lot on competitive-like play, but I can feedback as a starting out player. And my biggest problem is that most of the scenarios simply aren't playable when the total model count of the two armies together is 14. I can imagine it's even worse when you didn't invested in other miniature games to round out the model count to try out things. I think it's a common problem with the genre, but still.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/07 09:07:53
Well, that document is looking really good! Fantastic job, Alfndrate and Cyp
I have a question since it is mentioned specifically in the first scenario- Cyp, could you clarify for me when a model flees off the table? The reason I ask, is for example in Gymnogyps' and I's last game, I caused one of her units to flee twice, from 2 separate hamster balls (landing consecutively).
First, her unit fled to the table edge. Then, they fled sideways along it to avoid going off of it.
I feel like perhaps a way to resolve the issue of having sooooooo much of your army instantly disappear if they flee off (and since in that scenario they're set aside separately from what has been killed) is to treat them like you guys treated my hamster ball at TempleCon which went off the table- namely, they could walk back on the next turn, but couldn't take an action.
What do you think? The way I've currently been playing it, it's either devastating (most of Gym's army would've been off the board in the first turn) or somewhat meaningless (they just shuffle along the board edge, having lost their action but getting ready to unload on my hamsters in the coming turn).
The document reminded me of this since in the first scenario it calls out units that flee off the table separately from those which are destroyed. Otherwise, in that scenario, someone could have most of their army flee off the table, and still win if what remained killed more than their total in points / contested enough objectives, without the fleeing units really mattering for either side.
RiTides wrote: If you had no issues with the rules after a short demo, you're simply not acknowledging the problem / not looking deep enough. The first step to making better rules is acknowledging the gaps!
You missed the part where I said I played 6 games after 6 months of not touching Brushfire, 2 warband games, 2 games under 100 points and 2 games of at least 100 points. Far from short demos if you ask me, and I'm aware there are places where clarifications can and should be made, but with the current ruleset you can play the game without any issue that can't be resolved with a little effort and thought.
WhiteRoo wrote:I'm personally not a big fan of "demo plays", because as usually it is pretty close to the real thing, it is in the uncanny valley of rules.
Spoilered for Wall of Text:
Spoiler:
For example I have played the Island of Blood which is the Warhammer Fantasy demo. When the demo rules explain you that Skavens have a Warpfire Thrower and a Poison Wind Globaldier but you will not get to use them despite you even have the models because as the purposes of the demo they operate as a flame thrower and a stone thrower... this was the point when I lost a lot of enthusiasm about the game.
And from there it get's worse. Turns out the two armies are not matching in point, one runs a model that it shouldn't the other cannot run it's warband rules that it should and you don't even play the real thing. I felt cheated. That thing is not cheap and turns out now that I have it I still can't play warhammer.
My friend tries to get me into Hordes/Warmachine, but I think the two player battle box tries to pull the same trick. I have read their demo rules and yeah, it kinda tries.
I can see the reasoning behind this phenomenon but having the demo teach some "basics" to you then contradict it with "well it's actually works like this..." creates a gap between players who start out with the demo and players who play the real thing.
In short, I don't want to play that kind of demo, and it is great that Brushfire doesn't tried to pull this on me. Maybe I skipped the "demo" part altogether, but I also wouldn't start to teach anyone to Brushfire with the demo script. I would use the full rulebook and never teach something just so I can contradict it later.
There is a difference between a demo script and an introductory guide. A Demo Script is something that a Pressganger, Henchman, or some other volunteer of a company can use as the skeleton of a demo game (I'll be including the text to a demo script from Wyrd at the end of my post). An introductory guide is generally something that companies include that are different than a demo script, that are usually supposed to take the place of having someone demo the game for you. The problem is that they are supposed to take 1 of 2 levels of understanding on how to do it. The first level is someone with no wargaming experience, these are often too barebones and assume the player is an idiot (you tend to see these with GW box sets), while over-simplification is not always a bad thing, when you combine it with an obvious advantage for 1 army over the other (like Dark Angels in DV), then it tends to sour one person's view of the game, while inflating the other person's view. The second level tends to throw the intro guide out the window (for the most part) and give you quickstart rules, which are the basics. They might gloss over things like reach, power attacks, extended reach, and rifling (to pull from WM/H and Brushfire), but by the end of at least the first game you should know the broad things like unit activation, turn order, and phases. After the second or third, you should start to remember the things and relying on the books less and less.
The Warhammer Fantasy and 40k starter boxes are far from balanced, it's an issue they've had for a long time, and seem to ignore and refuse to correct. the Warmachine and Hordes 2 player starter boxes should probably have any demo script they have ignored, and players download the quickstart rules that normally come with the battle boxes. From what I've seen (having given a kid a demo using his Khador side of the box) they're balanced, and are good starting points for those armies. I haven't tried the Hordes box, but what I know of the Legion side of things, it's balanced pretty well against the Circle side.
Remember, a demo game is usually given to you by another person that knows the game. GW Red Shirts do this, but they're forced to use the intro guides because well... it's GW...
The Powder Keg mission sound's really cool and we will try it.
I cannot feedback a lot on competitive-like play, but I can feedback as a starting out player. And my biggest problem is that most of the scenarios simply aren't playable when the total model count of the two armies together is 14. I can imagine it's even worse when you didn't invested in other miniature games to round out the model count to try out things. I think it's a common problem with the genre, but still.
Awesome! I had some fun writing it. And the model count shouldn't be too much of an issue at smaller point levels, as you'll be playing on a smaller board (something I'm still working out for things that need to get placed x inches away). If you want to proxy models for Brushfire, head over to Wargames Vault and pick up Paperfire, a free (I believe) pdf you can download with has pictures of the models so you can use them without having the models. fix these to some bases (which you will probably have to buy), and you can try out larger point sizes
Demo Script:
Spoiler:
The Demo
• Prep the table. Have the Strategies and Schemes the players will be using already set aside for easy reference. Have models already deployed so they can jump right into the action. Have decks in easy reach.
• Gather the players together. Get to know the players’ names, and introduce opponents to one another if they don’t already know their opponent. (2 min)
• What do they know? Start off by asking if the players are familiar with Malifaux or with minis games in general? Make it a casual question, not an interrogation. It gives you a sense of what they may already know, and if you play some of the games mentioned it might give you a reference point for explaining rules. Good time to feel out what they want to see from the demo as well. (1 min)
• What is Malifaux? Tell them about the card-based system, how Crews are small in size, etc. in generalities for a quick summary. Don’t spend too much time on setting for now; get them into the game quickly. (2 min)
• Show the card mechanic. It’s the ‘cool stuff’ outside of the swanky setting and figs, give it a spotlight.
o Find an unopposed Duel (spell or Terrifying) on one of the models in your demo sets and show how it functions first. (1 min)
o Then show how an opposed Duel would work (quickly show an attack, either ranged or melee) and how the damage flip works. (2 min)
• Show the AP system last. Show how models get 2 AP and how they might spend them in a given activation. This is not a new innovation, so most minis gamers will be familiar with it. (1 min)
• Vocally walk the players through the first turn. Announce what each phase is and what they should be doing. Activations may take an odd amount of time, but the first turn should be fairly straightforward for what the players choose to do – ‘gently’ guiding the players on what to do first time out is a good idea if they seem to be taking too much time. (10 mins~15 mins)
• Turn them loose! Starting with turn two, the players are on their own. Hover for questions and/or offer suggestions/tips. Some groups will move faster than others, don’t make either feel pressured. They’ve paid to play a full game, let them. (30 mins)
• Any questions? (leave Encounters/Crew building for here) (6mins)
• Tell them where to buy their starters and rules!
Also they have specific ones that are set up and play out in a specific manner... but that's the gist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/07 13:26:31
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
RiTides, I agree with you. Currently the rules seem very loose to me. If I had to teach myself the game from the rulebook I would have struggled with it, just like we did Friday night at Templecon. I have every reason to belive though that, thats something their currently working to correct. Alot of people have made some great points and I'm sure Matt, Emily and Tom are going to take that into account when they release V2.0 of the rulebook.
If I was going to introduce someone new to the game I wouldn't start by handing them the rulebook. I'd start them off with a 25 resource demo game using the modified Stat Cards I'm currently working on. If they seem enthousiastic about the game I'd then move on to another demo game with regular stat cards and a cheat sheet. My point is that for any game system I'd walk a new player through a few games before I unleashed them on a rulebook.
@White - I'm going to go into a little Teaching a Game 101 and talk about stuff I've learned through the years selling other peoples products for very little reward.
First off there are two completly different types of demo games.
The first type is the type I belive your talking about. It's the 15 minute Demo you get at a large convention. During one of these demos I usually only have 15 or 20 minutes to get across the core consepts of a game before the player looses intreset and walks off. Because of that I give a very very bare bones demos. I will go over some background to grab their attention, I will go over the mechanics that make the game unique to get them interested, I will then play a few rounds of the game with them so they can see the flow of the game, I will let them win. If I've done my job correctly they will wander over to the booth and spend some money. At a large convention I'm not there to teach you all the rules to a game, I'm there to get you interested.
The second type of demo game is the type that you'd get at a FLGS. This type of demo is ment to explain the rules to a new player and get them to buy a force. It's longer and more indepth. Generally I like my FLGS demo games to build on themselves adding more levels of rules as we go along.
Talking specifically about Island of Blood and Dark Vengenence... I think your under a false impression here. Both of those sets are actually self conatined games within themselves that can later be used to break into the larger games of 40k or WHFB. Their both ment to tell a story in a box and introduce a new player to the world.
As I said I see the point of the Island of Blood, but I don't like it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I actually won a Killpoint mission once by making my opponent flee from the table. I... scored Victory... I guess but only my Warlord was alive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/07 14:41:28
Cyporiean wrote: RiTides, under the current rules, running your opponent's off the table via fear tests is a viable strategy.
What do you think about my suggestion of letting them walk back on next turn, but not activate, though? I might try that out with Gym as a test. Otherwise our last game would've been over before it began for her. Seems like a decent middle ground
Further demo discussion deserves it's own thread, I think. I'm not sure how we got there but that's not the topic of this thread so maybe start another if you guys want to discuss it more.
Cyporiean wrote: RiTides, under the current rules, running your opponent's off the table via fear tests is a viable strategy.
What do you think about my suggestion of letting them walk back on next turn, but not activate, though? I might try that out with Gym as a test. Otherwise our last game would've been over before it began for her. Seems like a decent middle ground
Further demo discussion deserves it's own thread, I think. I'm not sure how we got there but that's not the topic of this thread so maybe start another if you guys want to discuss it more.
Could she have avoided having that much of her force run off the table by doing something differently?
I think competitive play and demos go fairly hand in hand personally.
We was just finished two 2v2 matches. First, Ribenguo and Axony Vs Vandalands and Syzantine then Ribenguo and Syzantine Vs Vandalands and Axony
Things that I learned today:
- Hassan Kusuuf and his squad should not ambush. The first match was lost because he simply cannot enter the field until turn 4.
-Amamimoto the Ronin can be called in in a 45 point mach effectively and he is really hard to deal with(we wasn't able to).
-I should Fatherland a lot more.
-Defender only have to roll one defense dice agains all attacks he recieves against an attacking model. I only realized this after the two matches.
-Syzantines can't stand units with fear.
-Devon Brigardiers are damn awesome but die easily.
-Pulling off the "I'm charging the unit next to the Otter Asigarus with guns and redirecting most of the attacks to the Asigarus" trick really annoys the Ribenguo player.
-I should pay a lot more attention to setting up the table.
-Hordes Warpborn Skinwalkers are making awesome looking Hamster Berserkers.
-Horns are important and Ribenguo always have all of them.
-Vandalands can't shoot at all.
So the first match was lost really badly for Vandalands- Syzantine because most of the Syzantine army wasn't able to enter the battelfield. The secound was a hard-won victory for Ribenguo-Syzantine, they destroyed 55 points more worth of models. (we played 45/45/45 HRLV 2, 2v2, Killpoint matches). Even so both commanders were alive from Vandalands-Axony and both died from Ribenguo-Syzantine. Killpoint should somehow award points for destroyed commanders.
I won't be able to play soon, and even then, only at the 25 Resources level. However, I can still read.
I've passed thought the .05 Beta Tournament Pack, and I must first say that you did a really good job Alfndrate. It's clear and short. I just want to bring up some points that caught my eyes.
Page 2 - Army Lists I'm not a fan of writing list on the fly. That's a personal preference thing, though. That's one of the reason why I don't want to into competitive Malifaux. You do block the Resources pool at 1.5 times, the size, but still. You mention that players don't know their opponents before picking, but just based on previous round results, some players might be able to have a pretty good guess, and so customize their army in that sense.
At a higher Resource level, building on the fly might become a bit tedious too. Also, at those sizes, you should already be able to build a pretty versatile list anyway.
Page 2 - Modeling and Painting Why do you restrict the use of unreleased models, but allow proxy for them? I know that PP does restrict it for Steamroller, both they also don't allow for proxy, or use of any unreleased stuff at all.
Page 6 - Victory Severity The victory severity is based on fixed number of points, but the tournament format allow for various game sizes, which mean that at some game sizes, it's impossible to win by Glorious Victory, or even Close Victory. I would suggest using either a percentage, or to provide a table by game size.
There really aren't that many restrictions on models compared to other tournement packs...
1 - If a model is officially released use it.
2 - Conversions are allowed so long as their based off a Brushfire Model (i.e making a Badger in the Iron Claws out of a Badger at Claw.
3 - Unreleased models may be proxied but it has to be clear whats being proxied (i.e don't use Space Marines as Weasel Fusilers.)
Catyrpelius wrote: There really aren't that many restrictions on models compared to other tournement packs...
1 - If a model is officially released use it.
2 - Conversions are allowed so long as their based off a Brushfire Model (i.e making a Badger in the Iron Claws out of a Badger at Claw.
3 - Unreleased models may be proxied but it has to be clear whats being proxied (i.e don't use Space Marines as Weasel Fusilers.)
The missions/scenarios are being worked on....
I do understand that. But why adding a specific ruling to prevent the use of unreleased models, as people can still proxy them? It's not like PP where you can't use a unreleased model at all, even with proxy/custombuilt one.
Tonio wrote: Page 2 - Army Lists I'm not a fan of writing list on the fly. That's a personal preference thing, though. That's one of the reason why I don't want to into competitive Malifaux. You do block the Resources pool at 1.5 times, the size, but still. You mention that players don't know their opponents before picking, but just based on previous round results, some players might be able to have a pretty good guess, and so customize their army in that sense.
At a higher Resource level, building on the fly might become a bit tedious too. Also, at those sizes, you should already be able to build a pretty versatile list anyway.
The army list thing is currently something I'm testing, and hope that people can also help me test. The "lists on the fly" doesn't actually prevent you from coming to the tournament with pre-made lists. I do it in Malifaux all the time, especially once you have a solid foundation of what you like in a crew. The same holds true for Brushfire. Originally I liked the idea of 1 or 2 lists, but Caty and I were bouncing the ideas around of a lists on the fly, it is most certainly something that needs to be tested though.
Page 2 - Modeling and Painting Why do you restrict the use of unreleased models, but allow proxy for them? I know that PP does restrict it for Steamroller, both they also don't allow for proxy, or use of any unreleased stuff at all.
The "unreleased model thing" is modeled after PP and Wyrd. A good example of this is the Gargantuans that were for sale at GenCon (Hyperion and Woldwrath), or the new plastic kits from Wyrd. All of those unreleased models were allowed at GenCon events because someone could get them without issue (unless they were sold out >_< lol). The months following, you couldn't use those models in official tournaments (technically) because the models weren't officially released. So if you were to run a Brushfire tournament before the end of march/AdeptiCon and a Chugoku player wanted to play some Lem Han models he got early (because Cy and a few others have them), he wouldn't be allowed to use it. The rules are released, but the model is (if that makes sense). As soon as that model becomes officially released, then he can use them. Originally I didn't want to allow for conversions/kitbashes for models that had an official OTL release, but it was brought up to me that such a rule might actually get people to avoid tournaments/organized play. If/when we get far larger, then we can change the rule if need be.
Page 6 - Victory Severity The victory severity is based on fixed number of points, but the tournament format allow for various game sizes, which mean that at some game sizes, it's impossible to win by Glorious Victory, or even Close Victory. I would suggest using either a percentage, or to provide a table by game size.
Actually the only mission that is impossible to get a Glorious Victory for is the Kill Point Mission because you can't get a resource difference high enough (remember you add the resource number of each resource, so 25/25/25 = 75). But that is a pulled from the book mission, which we're looking over anyways.
Thanks for the feedback guys
Also thanks for the compliments on the document. I've only just started working with InDesign. I've got a smaller paged document atm that's ready for release, and I don't have any of the compression issues that the tournament doc had
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Page 2 - Modeling and Painting Why do you restrict the use of unreleased models, but allow proxy for them? I know that PP does restrict it for Steamroller, both they also don't allow for proxy, or use of any unreleased stuff at all.
The "unreleased model thing" is modeled after PP and Wyrd. A good example of this is the Gargantuans that were for sale at GenCon (Hyperion and Woldwrath), or the new plastic kits from Wyrd. All of those unreleased models were allowed at GenCon events because someone could get them without issue (unless they were sold out >_< lol). The months following, you couldn't use those models in official tournaments (technically) because the models weren't officially released. So if you were to run a Brushfire tournament before the end of march/AdeptiCon and a Chugoku player wanted to play some Lem Han models he got early (because Cy and a few others have them), he wouldn't be allowed to use it. The rules are released, but the model is (if that makes sense). As soon as that model becomes officially released, then he can use them. Originally I didn't want to allow for conversions/kitbashes for models that had an official OTL release, but it was brought up to me that such a rule might actually get people to avoid tournaments/organized play. If/when we get far larger, then we can change the rule if need be.
I was probably unclear. The .05 beta document allows the use of entries with unreleased models, by using proxies. But at the same time, it prohibits from using the unreleased MINIATURES. So you can use a Lem Han, but only if you convert/kitbash one. That's what I find doesn't make sense. If you can use the rules, why limits the model? I understand where the idea is coming from, but all that boils down to is the fact that these games block the entries to be played at all. Which you aren't doing.
Allowing people to use unreleased models for stuff in the book but without mini is fine. A bit like GW does, contrary to PP/Wyrd. In a game with a slow or inegal release schedule like Brushfire, it's the right way to go if you want to have more than a couple factions represented.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 20:22:39
I was probably unclear. The .05 beta document allows the use of unreleased models, by using proxies. But at the same time, it prohibits from using unreleased MINIATURES. So you can use a Lem Han, but only if you convert/kitbash one. That's what I find doesn't make sense. If you can use the rules, why limits the model?
Allowing people to use unreleased models for stuff in the book but without mini is fine. A bit like GW does, contrary to PP/Wyrd. In a game with a slow or inegal release schedule like Brushfire, it's the right way to go if you want to have more than a couple factions represented.
Hrm... perhaps I'm getting my signals crossed... the way it's supposed to read is like this:
1) Miniatures (physical things) that have not been released to the general public cannot be used except at an event where they're available
2) Released unit types with rules, but without miniatures (physical things) may be used, but must have a proxy that have to fit the theme of the game, be easily identifiable and on the right base.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
I was probably unclear. The .05 beta document allows the use of unreleased models, by using proxies. But at the same time, it prohibits from using unreleased MINIATURES. So you can use a Lem Han, but only if you convert/kitbash one. That's what I find doesn't make sense. If you can use the rules, why limits the model?
Allowing people to use unreleased models for stuff in the book but without mini is fine. A bit like GW does, contrary to PP/Wyrd. In a game with a slow or inegal release schedule like Brushfire, it's the right way to go if you want to have more than a couple factions represented.
Hrm... perhaps I'm getting my signals crossed... the way it's supposed to read is like this:
1) Miniatures (physical things) that have not been released to the general public cannot be used except at an event where they're available
2) Released unit types with rules, but without miniatures (physical things) may be used, but must have a proxy that have to fit the theme of the game, be easily identifiable and on the right base.
Then, we are reading the same thing, but we don't agree on the principle. Why would you limit a miniature from being used, if the player can proxy the unit anyway? It doesn't give him a unfair advantage. That's all the ban in WM/H or Malifaux boils down to: if the model is not released, you cannot play the unit at all, to warrant an even playing field.
It's the spirit of the ruling I don't understand, not the ruling itself. I hope that is a bit clearer.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 20:29:29
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
