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.

what is unclear about a Stand and Shoot/Counterfire charge reaction?

That wasn't my own question (it came up for Catyr I believe) but I think it was "when" the shot happened against a heavy cavalry charge. Also possibly who could take it (those not being contacted) and again when for determining if they were in range.

That's off the cuff, some of it may be clearer than others. After talking to you guys, Lots more is clear for me. But a lot isn't necessarily clear from the text- hence the need for More text (explaing rules more thoroughly), examples, and diagrams if/when the next rulebook happens

After discussing Template Deviation with Matt, I no longer believe him on rules lol

 RiTides wrote:
if/when the next rulebook happens

There are about 30 copies of 1.2 aka 3rd Printing remaining... take that as you will.

 Cyporiean wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
if/when the next rulebook happens

There are about 30 copies of 1.2 aka 3rd Printing remaining... take that as you will.

What your saying is, it's almost time for 1.2.0.1?

Could always send out the call for people to do a Brushfire tournament, and see what rules need tightening up...

Or just die from the "How do EFT rule work!?" aneurysm I am causing Matt. Only then will you be truly free.

 Wehrkind wrote:
Or just die from the "How do EFT rule work!?" aneurysm I am causing Matt. Only then will you be truly free.

Huh, I always assumed EFT rules were pretty easy... I know horizontal LoS was giving us a headache, but errythang seems pretty well explained imo.

I turn the derp up to 11.

 Wehrkind wrote:
I turn the derp up to 11.

it's okay, I'm sure you think resin casting is a pretty simple affair for the most part... It's fething magic to me.

Copying this in from the thread I put up about balancing the warbands. I realised I ended up starting into territory that this thread covered better.

 Casey's Law wrote:
I'd like to see at least one perfectly balanced warband for each faction in the future with equally well balanced boosters to choose from. This would actually lend itself to competitive play which their is already talk of in another thread. Actually, if it was set up like this I'd be inclined to build a tournament scene here and consider holding some kind of campaigns and events.

Thoughts?

Balancing on power and money is tricky. Of course there is no reason why an "X Resource Tournament Pack' has to cost the same as another, but it would be relevant.

Good point. Do you think people would pay more for a 'tournament pack?' Or would there have to be a cost balance too?

Does any miniature game produce a tournament pack?

Surely a serious tournament player would rather just make up their personal list rather then using something prefab?

True, but...

Yeah, well said.

Of course, I'm not opposed to selling 'Army in a Box' bundles, like what we do around Christmas, if folks wanted to write up 'Balanced' 100~150 Resource armies.

That'd be really good for an event.

With the tournament pack idea. I guess the real solution is just to balance the warbands. It's just the same concept so their is no point in doing it twice really. If the warbands could, in theory, be well balanced in play and in cost then they serve both necessary purposes. They can be bought as a taste for the game or to be used in small competitive tournaments which fullfils the needs of the two main demographics I believe.

As for boosters to add to the warbands, there is no real need to change what you are doing. Your current system, as you say, allows people to choose their force and add to it as they see fit.

So overall, if the rulebook was reprinted to clarify a few questions and the warbands were balanced then a tournament, event, campaign scene could well be on the cards. I think the main selling point of Brushfire gameplay, for me at least, is it's easy to play. If it was competitive too then I think there is a market out there that hasn't been tapped very well and is ripe for the picking. Or are other companies targeting that market too and I haven't realised?

 Casey's Law wrote:
Good point. Do you think people would pay more for a 'tournament pack?' Or would there have to be a cost balance too?

I'm going to have to agree with Cy on this one. Tournament packs would be nice, but most people would rather make their own competitive team. I mean, two players can take the same army in the same game, have the same list and end up with 2 different results, and a valid tournament scene would almost immediately invalidate any pre-constructed tournament packs, as the local metagame starts to tear into the rules and models, seeing what's the best bang for their buck.

I refer you to my previous post, sir.

I did read your post . Your post seems to focus on warbands being the mainstay of competitive play. If an average tournament game takes place somewhere between 100 and 200 resources, that means your average player be using a quarter or an eighth of his resources on the warband, that's not very much when you think about it in the long run. My current Army is Chugoku, and if I were to use the warband (not quite released yet), it would be 1 Celestial Tactician, 2 Red Wu, and 1 Lem Han (at the moment). So looking at my current Red Wu List of 100 Resources, I would be better buying the Red Wu box of 5 models, and 4 boxes of Lem Han (so I could get the 100 Food for my list). I wouldn't even need the warband, because it wouldn't work out too well in the long run for what I need.


Much like every other wargame out there, warbands are great for starting out, and learning the game, but when it comes to competitive play, you want a tight ruleset and the ability to create an army that you can play as competitively as you want.

That makes more sense now. And yeh I see what you mean, I haven't done a lot of gaming and I overlooked those points. I was actually thinking along the lines of getting people into the game which really isn't anything to do with competitive play.

Ah well nevermind.

 Casey's Law wrote:
That makes more sense now. And yeh I see what you mean, I haven't done a lot of gaming and I overlooked those points. I was actually thinking along the lines of getting people into the game which really isn't anything to do with competitive play.

Ah well nevermind.

Another option is to build up two small (50pts?) armies, that are thematic and balanced to each other... Doing an Axony VS Zabar setup based on Rorke's Drift for instance, especially if you have the terrain from this: http://www.warlordgames.com/us-store/horns-of-the-buffalo-rorke-s-drift-collector-s-set.html

That'd be sweet. You mean as an event or as a bundle?

 Casey's Law wrote:
That'd be sweet. You mean as an event or as a bundle?

An event/scenario most likely.

 Casey's Law wrote:
That makes more sense now. And yeh I see what you mean, I haven't done a lot of gaming and I overlooked those points. I was actually thinking along the lines of getting people into the game which really isn't anything to do with competitive play.

Ah well nevermind.

There are two ways to go about getting people to "average game size"

You either get them playing and naturally let them advance to that game size and then try a tournament. The other is to run a beginner's league where you start them with the warband and either keep them going to the average game size, and then cap it off with a tournament.

Though I'd probably try something like a 1 day achievement league, where you play 3 rounds or so (like a tournament), and try to achieve objectives that aren't based on the outcome of the game. That way new and old players alike don't just skew the results, with the more experienced players stomping the newbies...

Those are all great ideas. Once I get used to the game and whatnot I'll no doubt consider running something like this.

 Casey's Law wrote:
Those are all great ideas. Once I get used to the game and whatnot I'll no doubt consider running something like this.

The last idea comes from my time with Wyrd as a Malifaux Henchman. SoCal Malifaux runs a 1 day "Beginner's Achievement League" and it's fantastically successful.

That's interesting, I'll have to look into it!

I have a convention to go to this weekend but after that I'm going to start working on getting a tournement pack and tournement running in my area. It will definatly be procedded by a months worth of demos, not sure if I'm going to bother with a slow growth league or not. Most likely the first tournement will run around 50 resources.

 Catyrpelius wrote:
I have a convention to go to this weekend but after that I'm going to start working on getting a tournement pack and tournement running in my area. It will definatly be procedded by a months worth of demos, not sure if I'm going to bother with a slow growth league or not. Most likely the first tournement will run around 50 resources.

*Looks at screen* You been peeping at my twitter and emails?