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.

Warning: Wall of Text

My Maelstrom’s Edge musings

Firstly let me say I’ve been playing wargames since I started with Warhammer back in 1984. I’ve played a massive selection of games over that time. I started to lose interest in 40k back when flyers and all the huge stuff came in. I lost interest in Warhammer fantasy when the unit size crept from 16 or 20 up to 30-40.

Of the current crop of games, I tend to devote most time to Bolt Action, Deadzone, and Kings of War, although Frostgrave, Open Combat and Iron Cross get a look in now and again. (In fact my wife prefers Iron Cross to any other game). X-Wing is the game to play with my 10 year old lad.

I badly wanted a Sci-Fi game to replace my lost interest in 40k. Deadzone was small skirmish rather than a wargame, so imagine how excited I was to see Dakka announce a kickstarter – not only that, it seemed a massive amount of the groundwork had been done to ensure it was out on time. AND, it was focusing on having a handful of small units. Awesome for oldies like myself who haven’t got all the painting time in the world. The books (Faith and Sacrifice) really set the background and I haven’t enjoyed a book so much in quite a while. They were written perfectly, each chapter I read, my allegiance between each faction changed to the point I wasn’t sure which one I wanted to play most when the game arrived.

Through the Kickstarter I got myself 2 starter sets and couldn’t wait. The models looked fantastic and I hadn’t been excited to receive a game so much in a long time. Everytime I go in a DIY shop, my wife catches me looking at drain parts asking me what model buildings I’m planning to build out of them.

Spiral Arm Studios delivered perfectly and it arrived on time, with beautiful looking sprues.

So... why is all my stuff still sitting in the box awaiting building and I’ve not played a game yet?

I dunno. I just think it’s a problem I’m going to have with the rules. My only regular opponent is my wife. She likes playing the games, not reading rules. So when a new game comes, I try to digest the rulebook as much as possible so when we have our first small tester game, there’s very little time spent reading the rules. If during a quick test game, we spend more time looking at the rules than playing, then that game that will never see light of day again and be consigned to a shelf gathering dust.
I’ve read through the Maelstrom’s Edge rules at least three times now and still feel like I haven’t a clue how to get this game going without spending the entirety of a game with my nose in the rules.
I’ve watched the ‘Let’s Play’ video (by Guerilla Miniature Games), and despite me spotting a few errors in their interpretation of the rules, I’m still worried about trying a game as I’d hate to see it become a rules-fest and end up going to the ‘shelf’.

What do I think will cause problems for me and my wife with the game? Off the top of my head, there's these;

(#1) I realise that SAS have ensured the rulebook be watertight for rules, so this game can become a perfect tournament game without too many rules problems, but it’s a horrendous read to try and figure how to play without having fingers in a dozen pages at the same time.

(#2) The small physical size of the rulebook doesn’t help either. I’m a sucker for a larger hardback that will sit open on the table without cracking spines or needing reading glasses.

(#3) Despite designing the game with cards to reduce paperwork, there are too many places when I’m going to be recording things during the game. Such as;
a) Secret bidding at the game start and at the start of every turn.
b) Recording points. I know there’s a well designed counter system for this, but when a mission states the points are conditional, it seems I have to subtract the points if the condition isn’t met.
That means somehow remembering which turns I added those points on so I can remove the correct amount.

(#4) Special ability keywords. I thought 40k was going from bad to worse, but I’m sure the page of abilities in ME has 40+ of them. That many won’t be remembered, so it’s going to be rulebook time most games.

(#5) D3’s. Really? Who likes D3’s? Seems way too many D3's in the game.


Anyway, as I love the fluff and the models, I’m going to try and get my stuff built and have some small starter games.
My plan was to build and try a 50 point game to learn the rules and hope the wife is going to enjoy playing it regularly.

Epirian Foundation (50 points)
Command: Journeyman Bot Handler (with 2 Maglock pistols)
Core: Contractor Engineers squad (3+ leader) One with Grenade Launcher
Hammer: Scarecrow Sniper
Vanguard: Firefly Recon Drones (4)

Karist Enclave (50 points)
Command: Kaddar Nova
Core: Angel Minnow Pack (4)
Core: Karist Troopers (3 + leader) One with Radwave emitter
Hammer: Tempest Elites (1 + leader)


Anyway, before I spend my time with the poly cement, here’s a few rules questions I can think to start off with.

MAS and damage.
I’ve read through this many times and still can’t figure it out.
The rules state “Once a model has enough points of damage inflicted to exceed its MAS characteristic, it suffers an injury”. Does that mean PER injury?
In other words, if I manage to get 7 damage through to a 2 MAS model, is it:
a) 7 damage: use 2 damage of it to ‘exceed it’s MAS’ and then cause 5 injuries.
OR
b) 7 damage: use 2 damage per injury. Total 3 injuries and 1 ‘unused’ damage point.

Fleeting Targets and Cover
I understand that being against cover grants both fleeting target and a cover value. So, If I stand against a terrain feature (eg a building) but the opponent is facing me like a firing squad, they will apply the ‘denying cover’ which removes my cover value. Does it also remove the fleeting target modifier?


Thanks for reading this wall of text.

I’m hoping this game is easier to play than the rules seem to be suggesting. I was so hoping this was the game I could introduce at the school where I teach to reinvigorate the 40k club I run. GW’s pricing these last few years has nearly killed the club off and I need a good looking Sci-fi replacement with reasonable costing plastic figures. Fantasy and WW2 just doesn’t hit the spot with most of the kids and I’d hate to put kids off wargaming for life by getting them to try Deadzone’s core restic models – despite the game being an ideal size and (with v2 rules) simplicity.

MAS and damage.
I’ve read through this many times and still can’t figure it out.
The rules state “Once a model has enough points of damage inflicted to exceed its MAS characteristic, it suffers an injury”. Does that mean PER injury?
In other words, if I manage to get 7 damage through to a 2 MAS model, is it:
a) 7 damage: use 2 damage of it to ‘exceed it’s MAS’ and then cause 5 injuries.
OR
b) 7 damage: use 2 damage per injury. Total 3 injuries and 1 ‘unused’ damage point.

It is a little confusing.

I am assuming multiple weapon hits that have all succeeding in penetrating the target's armor and the total DAM of all those hits is 7.

1) Each hit applies it's DAM individually. DAM must equal or exceed the target's MAS. I.E. A DAM3 hit vs a MAS2 target causes a loss of 2 FORTITUDE.

2) Any excess DAM caused by a hit that kills a target is lost. I.E. The hit above that hits a FOR1 target kills it with one point of DAM and the 2nd point of DAM is lost.

Hope this helps.

tberry7403 wrote:

MAS and damage.
I’ve read through this many times and still can’t figure it out.
The rules state “Once a model has enough points of damage inflicted to exceed its MAS characteristic, it suffers an injury”. Does that mean PER injury?
In other words, if I manage to get 7 damage through to a 2 MAS model, is it:
a) 7 damage: use 2 damage of it to ‘exceed it’s MAS’ and then cause 5 injuries.
OR
b) 7 damage: use 2 damage per injury. Total 3 injuries and 1 ‘unused’ damage point.

It is a little confusing.

I am assuming multiple weapon hits that have all succeeding in penetrating the target's armor and the total DAM of all those hits is 7.
(yes, that's what I was meaning - all rolls for hit, pen etc are done and there's 7 damage to apply)


1) Each hit applies it's DAM individually. DAM must equal or exceed the target's MAS. I.E. A DAM3 hit vs a MAS2 target causes a loss of 2 FORTITUDE.

2) Any excess DAM caused by a hit that kills a target is lost. I.E. The hit above that hits a FOR1 target kills it with one point of DAM and the 2nd point of DAM is lost.

Hope this helps.

1) Each hit applies it's DAM individually. DAM must equal or exceed the target's MAS. I.E. A DAM3 hit vs a MAS2 target causes a loss of 2 FORTITUDE.

As an Angel has 4 MAS and there isn't a single Epirian weapon that has DAM4, then using the above method would mean the Angel really is unkillable. I can't imagine that the weapons apply their DAMage individually. I interpreted it as you totaled up all the damage from that unit's shooting phase then applied it. So 7 Damage, goes onto the defending unit as a lump of 7 damage.

I'm really going to have to re-read that part of the rules (again and again)

This is a wargame, the main part of the game is killing each other's models - the hardest part of the rules seems to be working out how to pass damage onto a model. There has to be something wrong with the way it's written to have everyone confused by it.
:-(

Thanks for trying to help though.

On doing damage

You can look at it this way: a model's FOR times its MAS is the number of DAM required to kill it in one round of shooting.

For example: a FOR2 MAS2 model requires 4 DAM to be done in order to kill it.

Gimgamgoo: this means your option (b) is correct.

tberry7403 is correct in that each hit (or actually penetration) applies damage individually, but penetrations do add up on a model. (However, once the system clicks with you, you'll quickly see the results of a round of shooting in most cases.)

tberry's statement (1) as I read it is incorrect: a DAM3 hit against a MAS2 target would cause 1 injury, and thus deduct 1 FOR rather than 2 (see example 1 on page 57). The remaining point of damage will be combined with the damage from other penetrations on this same model to contribute to further injuries on this model, but will not pass on to another model. If there are no further penetrations on this model, that remaining point of damage is discarded.

Further examples:

A unit comprised of 5 FOR2 MAS2 models takes 7 penetrations with DAM3:
Each models takes 4 damage to kill, which means it takes 2 of these penetrations to kill 1 model. This means 6 of the 7 penetrations are used to kill 3 models. The remaining penetration will cause 1 injury on another model, leaving 1 FOR1 model and 1 FOR2 model in the unit. Looking back, 7x3=21 points of damage were inflicted on the unit. Only 15 of these were actually applied, as the other 6 were in excess of what was needed to kill. This number, 15, is used to work out the number of STs to place (half that, so 8). Only 14 of the 15 caused any injuries, as the last point of damage wás applied to a model, but was nót sufficient to add another injury. This last point is only discarded after calculating STs.

A unit comprised of 2 FOR3 MAS4 models takes 5 DAM3 penetrations and 2 DAM4 penetrations. The DAM4 penetrations must be applied first, and will each cause 1 injury to the first model in the unit that gets penetrations applied to it. This leaves this first model with FOR1. Two of the DAM3 penetrations are required to cause the last injury and kill this model (after all, it still has 1 FOR, and it's MAS4, so still needs 4 points of damage). The remaining 3 DAM3 penetrations cause 2 more injuries to the second model, using up 8 of the 9 damage caused by these three penetrations. The last 1 point of damage from those 3 penetrations is applied to that model, but has no effect as it's not enough for another injury. Calculating STs: 2x4 and 2x3 = 14 damage was assigned to the first model, but this model was dead at 12 damage, so the remaining 2 are immediately discarded. 3x3 = 9 damage was done to the second model. Only 8 of it actually caused injuries, but the last one was still applied as the model wasn't dead yet, so counts for STs. Total STs is half of (12+9), makes 11.

A unit comprised of 4 MAS2 FOR2 models takes 6 DAM1 penetrations and 1 DAM3 penetration. The DAM3 penetration is applied first and causes an injury to the first model with 1 point of damage to spare. This point combines with one of the DAM1 penetrations to cause the final injury on this first model. Of the remaining 5 DAM1 penetrations, 4 will add up to kill another model, and the last 1 is applied to a third model, but causes no injury. STs: none of the damage was in excess of what was needed to kill, so everything counts for STs: half of 9 damage makes 5 STs.


Fleeting targets and cover
Your understanding is correct: a unit is a fleeting target if it's in cover. When its cover is denied, it is not in cover and thus not a fleeting target (at least not for that reason). Where the rules say "If such a situation results in half or more of the models in the
unit not being in cover, then the unit does not count as being in cover against that (and only that) firing unit." (p. 55), this is for all rules purposes.

Other points from Gimgamgoo
#1: true, work on tutorial vids is in progress.
#2: it's not the same as a fancy hardback of course, but you could print the digital file at a larger size and have it bound so it will lay flat.
#3: a) yes there is bidding, but you just need to put some dice behind your hand with the number you bid and compare against your opponent, which is a fairly quick process, b) I can't think of a situation where you'd need to remember in which turn you added those points. For example, for the 'Worth more than your head' mission, you give yourself 3 points in the turn you cause an injury to the enemy commander. When the commander later heals itself, you deduct those points again. It doesn't matter in which turn the points were originally rewarded.
#4: no need for the rulebook, there are handy reference sheets
#5: can't help there

Also: thanks for pointing out where the rules could be more clear.

Crap, ninja'd by Sergeant Oddball! Some of my comments below are going to be redundant given that he already answered them!

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
(#1) I realise that SAS have ensured the rulebook be watertight for rules, so this game can become a perfect tournament game without too many rules problems, but it’s a horrendous read to try and figure how to play without having fingers in a dozen pages at the same time.

(#2) The small physical size of the rulebook doesn’t help either. I’m a sucker for a larger hardback that will sit open on the table without cracking spines or needing reading glasses.

(#3) Despite designing the game with cards to reduce paperwork, there are too many places when I’m going to be recording things during the game. Such as;
a) Secret bidding at the game start and at the start of every turn.
b) Recording points. I know there’s a well designed counter system for this, but when a mission states the points are conditional, it seems I have to subtract the points if the condition isn’t met.
That means somehow remembering which turns I added those points on so I can remove the correct amount.

(#4) Special ability keywords. I thought 40k was going from bad to worse, but I’m sure the page of abilities in ME has 40+ of them. That many won’t be remembered, so it’s going to be rulebook time most games.

(#5) D3’s. Really? Who likes D3’s? Seems way too many D3's in the game.

I'm really sorry to hear that the rules (or the way they're written) are putting you off from the game. Obviously I take full responsibility for that, and I appreciate the feedback. We're still planning on trying to get some learn to play videos made which would help for people that find the rulebook difficult to parse. Certainly all the feedback you provide will also be helpful for the future if/when we make a 2nd edition of the rules, we can try to change or streamline things wherever possible.

I'll do my best to try to answer your specific questions here to help you out, for sure:


1) Understood. We went through several different ways to organize the rulebook trying to figure out the best way to present the rules in a coherent manner, and they all had their own drawbacks. The one we ultimately settled on is probably best once you know the rules a bit and are looking to find specific references. The drawback for that, of course, is that it isn't the absolute easiest format to read through for the first time for some. We tried to work on putting in a separate 'learn to play' section, but it was going to add a bunch of additional pages/cost to the book and boxed set, and it also struggled from the fact that the rules of the game are so intertwined, that you kind of need to have references to other rules right from the very beginning (which is why the main rules themselves tend to be presented that way).

Ultimately I believe that making some video rules tutorials will go a long way towards solving this issue for people who find the rulebook difficult to parse.


2) We all love big hardbound rulebooks as well. That was purely a cost necessity in order to make this project a reality. If there is demand, we would certainly love to make a full-size hardbound rulebook. In the meantime, although it is not the same (at all), using a tablet (like an iPad) and our digital version of the rules does give you a page size much closer to a standard full-size book. The other positive of using the digital version is that we have hyperlinks built in for every page reference, so you can quickly click on them to jump to the section of the rules you need to check out.


3) The secret bidding at the beginning of each turn was designed for you to use the 'command point' tokens we provide in the box (the '1', '3' & '5' tokens). Simply put the cumulative total of what you want to bid in your hand and then reveal it at the same time as your opponent. If you don't like that, another option is to use dice behind your hand. So put any number of dice behind your hand and then reveal your totals at the same time as your opponent.

With keeping track of victory points, you do a 'check' at the end phase of each turn to see how many victory points you gained or lost and adjust your VP tracker by that amount. It really is super easy once you start doing it. And in the case of 'conditional' VPs, the world certainly isn't going to end if you immediately track those when you gain (or lose) them, even if that's not how it technically works from a strict rules standpoint. So, for example, if you get VPs for killing the enemy commander, and you manage to do precisely that, immediately adjusting your VP counter to gain those VPs in the middle of the turn won't break the game (as long as you remember that you can't claim 'mission completed' and immediately end the game until the end phase of a turn).


4) I know it seems daunting, but I'd wager there are actually way less than what 40K has, its just that with 40K, we all gradually learned them over the years as the game progressed, and in this case you're starting out from scratch looking at a bunch of new special rules you don't know.

We do have a few print-and-play summary pages you can download and print out from our website (maelstromsedge.com) that should really help you out with this issue, though!


5) Why the hate for D3s?

The reason they are used is because even a D6 has a pretty big swing of luck every time you roll (obviously between 1 and 6). A D3, instead provides a little bit of randomness, but in a much tighter grouping, so a player has a better knowledge ahead of time what the likely outcome of that roll will produce. This is especially true between a single D6 roll and a 2D3 roll. With the D6 you can end up getting any result with an equal likelihood, making you as the player have no idea what result you're going to get. With a 2D3, you know you're much more likely to get a total result of 3-5 rather than a '2' or '6'.

Anyway, before I spend my time with the poly cement, here’s a few rules questions I can think to start off with.

MAS and damage.
I’ve read through this many times and still can’t figure it out.
The rules state “Once a model has enough points of damage inflicted to exceed its MAS characteristic, it suffers an injury”. Does that mean PER injury?
In other words, if I manage to get 7 damage through to a 2 MAS model, is it:
a) 7 damage: use 2 damage of it to ‘exceed it’s MAS’ and then cause 5 injuries.
OR
b) 7 damage: use 2 damage per injury. Total 3 injuries and 1 ‘unused’ damage point.

It is option 'B'. I totally understand what you're saying about this being confusing and its probably a case where having some picture diagrams would have helped to get the point across better. But certainly once you get the idea it is really, really simple in practice.

The main rules for casualty removal were written from the perspective of models only having a Fortitude of 1 (so one injury kills them). There were a couple of examples on page 57 of the rules (the 'Muti-Fortitude Models' section) that tried to help clarify this point a bit more (but obviously didn't help much in your particular case!):

Fleeting Targets and Cover
I understand that being against cover grants both fleeting target and a cover value. So, If I stand against a terrain feature (eg a building) but the opponent is facing me like a firing squad, they will apply the ‘denying cover’ which removes my cover value. Does it also remove the fleeting target modifier?

Yep. In the case of terrain 'obstacles' (buildings, barricades, etc., i.e. NOT area terrain), if the firing unit's squad leader gets in a position to deny the target its cover, then they lose all benefits from that cover.

However, note that even so, the target unit still could be a fleeting target for other reasons, such as being obscured by another unit in the way, for example.

Thanks for reading this wall of text.

I’m hoping this game is easier to play than the rules seem to be suggesting. I was so hoping this was the game I could introduce at the school where I teach to reinvigorate the 40k club I run. GW’s pricing these last few years has nearly killed the club off and I need a good looking Sci-fi replacement with reasonable costing plastic figures. Fantasy and WW2 just doesn’t hit the spot with most of the kids and I’d hate to put kids off wargaming for life by getting them to try Deadzone’s core restic models – despite the game being an ideal size and (with v2 rules) simplicity.

No problem! Thanks for taking the time to let us know about what you think.

Hi again.

Thanks for all those replies and explanations. The time it's taken up answering is really appreciated.
I'm getting my head around some of the points, but I still have a few questions. I'm just trying to get all the parts I'm unsure of out the way before I try my first game.


Defensive Fire situation

A situation I'm not sure I've got right, or understand the reasoning behind it.

My unit of troops is sitting in cover behind a row of barrels/barricades.
My opponent has a unit 5" away in the open, facing towards me. (They are not On the move or Pinned)
It's my turn.
I decide to Hold and Fire (and do some focused fire).
My opponent will get to shoot at me defensively first (assuming they pass a discipline check). Not only do they fire first, the shots they fire at me count as if I'm not in any cover at all, but on the move.
Is this correct? I haven't moved, and I'm behind a big barricade, but count as moving and not in cover.


Applying Damage

Yep, my bugbear again :-(
I think I have some of this sorted in my head now.

After hit/pen, each DAMaging hit is applied individually to the models of my opponents choosing. Once he has picked a model, that model has to take all the DAM until it is removed and the opponent picks another model.

Is this example correct thinking?
If I do DAM3 against a MAS4 angel, there is no injury, but if there was also a DAM1, that would then add enough to have reached its MAS4 and cause 1 injury.
If this had been DAM3, DAM2, DAM2, DAM1, this uses the first 2 pens (DAM3/DAM2) to cause an injury, the 'lost' 1 here still adds to the DAM2/DAM1 to cause another injury (I assumed this because the Angel is a multi-fortitude model and you keep stacking up the damage - grey section page 57).

Is this very hypothetical example correct thinking?
If I do DAM3 against a MAS4 FOR1 unit (hypothetically), there is no injury, but if there was also a DAM1, that would then add enough to have reached its MAS4 and cause 1 injury killing a model.
If this had been DAM3, DAM2, DAM2, DAM1, this uses the first 2 pens (DAM3/DAM2) to cause an injury, but in this case, there would be a 'lost' 1. Then the DAM2/DAM1 would not cause an injury to a second model. This is due to the unit not being multi-fortitude models unlike the realistic example with the Angel above.

Is this example correctly done?
If I do 7 x DAM1 to a unit with MAS2, FOR1. The first DAM1 does nothing, but when the second DAM1 is applied, the first model takes an injury and is removed. Overall this would remove 3 models and lose the last point of damage.

I really find this procedure to be very hard to get my head around. I'm hoping the examples above are right. If they are, I've nailed it. For the record, I'm not totally mathematically challenged, I'm Head of Mathematics in the large Academy I teach at. I should be able to grasp this from the rules instantly. :-(


Close Combat

I charge in, and effectively have a round of 'special' shooting, using CQ weapons etc. I'm just not sure of the reasoning for (EVS+MAS+FOR)/2 rounded up for the number of attacks. Is this to reflect that a small minority of models would lose an attack if damaged? It doesn't seem to affect most models dropping from FOR2 to FOR1 because of the rounding up rule. It doesn't affect FOR1 models as they'd be dead. A single stat showing the number of attacks would seem easier but obviously that minority of models being injured to a specific amount would cause only a single drop of 1 attack.
I just dread having to explain this one to my wife when we try our first game out.


The conditional VP tracking again

I'm not sure anyone understood what I was asking when I first asked, so I'll try again.
It states (page 90) that if the condition is no longer met, the points are revoked.
So, If I'm on Decimation (conditional 3 VP) and I gain the 3 VP in turn 2, and again in turn 3, but during turn 4, my opponent brings back enough models so it's no longer being met. At the end of turn 4, do I have to subtract 6 points for the previous turns I gained them. This does mean tracking where every VP came from during the game.


Thanks again for your time in answering any of my questions.

Defensive Fire

My opponent will get to shoot at me defensively first (assuming they pass a discipline check).

If they don't pass they'll still fire, but wild.

Not only do they fire first, the shots they fire at me count as if I'm not in any cover at all, but on the move.

The abstractions for defensive fire only count when the target of the defensive fire is moving. In this case, you are not moving. The rules then say: "If an enemy unit does not move during the action whereby it triggers a Defensive Fire action, then ignore the above abstractions for resolving that defensive fire, except that the target is still automatically considered to be within short range and in line of sight." (page 59) So, all the normal rules count, including cover.


Applying Damage
All your examples are correct. Seeing what happens is, imho, much simpler when actually rolling the dice than seeing it in writing.


Close Combat
I'm really not the person to comment on this, I'll leave that to Jon.


Conditional VPs
The idea behind conditional points is you can only gain them once, and keep them as long as the condition is satisfied. So, it's not possible to get the points first in turn 2 and then again in turn 3; it's not an 'each end phase' type of VP, you just check for the condition in each end phase. An example to clarify this in the rulebook might be a good idea. So yeah, in your example you'd get these three points in turn 2, then in turn 3 nothing happens, and in turn 4 you lose the three points again.

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:
Defensive Fire

My opponent will get to shoot at me defensively first (assuming they pass a discipline check).

If they don't pass they'll still fire, but wild.

Not only do they fire first, the shots they fire at me count as if I'm not in any cover at all, but on the move.

The abstractions for defensive fire only count when the target of the defensive fire is moving. In this case, you are not moving. The rules then say: "If an enemy unit does not move during the action whereby it triggers a Defensive Fire action, then ignore the above abstractions for resolving that defensive fire, except that the target is still automatically considered to be within short range and in line of sight." (page 59) So, all the normal rules count, including cover.

Thanks.
That's my bad for missing the bit at the bottom of the page.

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:

Applying Damage
All your examples are correct. Seeing what happens is, imho, much simpler when actually rolling the dice than seeing it in writing.

Yay. I've got this sorted then and ready to play. :-)

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:

Close Combat
I'm really not the person to comment on this, I'll leave that to Jon.


Conditional VPs
The idea behind conditional points is you can only gain them once, and keep them as long as the condition is satisfied. So, it's not possible to get the points first in turn 2 and then again in turn 3; it's not an 'each end phase' type of VP, you just check for the condition in each end phase. An example to clarify this in the rulebook might be a good idea. So yeah, in your example you'd get these three points in turn 2, then in turn 3 nothing happens, and in turn 4 you lose the three points again.

Thanks. I hadn't realised the conditional ones were awarded only once. I've re-read the paragraph (since your reply) and it makes sense now.
I had planned on using 'Purple Gold' as the starting mission to test the game out. I guess with only a max of 3 VP from the Decimation (secondary part) and 3 VP from the Faction Objectives (tertiary), I guess that's 12 points needed from the Primary to win so if you are in control of a marker, then you get the 2 points to keep every turn end that you are in control.


My thanks again for the swift replies.
Now I've got a few rulings/mechanics clearer in my head, I'm excited again to get the models built up and a game going. :-)

All I have to do is finish up the Bolt Action US Dodge WC51 and 10 German soldiers sitting on my paint desk and I'll have space to get the poly cement out and start putting stuff together.

Happy to help! I'm sure we'd all love to see your stuff if your blog is anything to go by, really nice stuff there.

Sorry if I confused anyone (including myself).

At least all this helped ME understand the combat process better.

As for having examples...

While I understand the need to keep down the size of the book you might consider writing some and placing them in the "Articles" area of DAKKA DAKKA and/or "HOBBY" section of "Maelstrom's Edge".

No problem tberry, as you say in the end everyone benefits

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:
On doing damage

You can look at it this way: a model's FOR times its MAS is the number of DAM required to kill it in one round of shooting.

For example: a FOR2 MAS2 model requires 4 DAM to be done in order to kill it.

Gimgamgoo: this means your option (b) is correct.

tberry7403 is correct in that each hit (or actually penetration) applies damage individually, but penetrations do add up on a model. (However, once the system clicks with you, you'll quickly see the results of a round of shooting in most cases.)

tberry's statement (1) as I read it is incorrect: a DAM3 hit against a MAS2 target would cause 1 injury, and thus deduct 1 FOR rather than 2 (see example 1 on page 57). The remaining point of damage will be combined with the damage from other penetrations on this same model to contribute to further injuries on this model, but will not pass on to another model. If there are no further penetrations on this model, that remaining point of damage is discarded.

Further examples:

A unit comprised of 5 FOR2 MAS2 models takes 7 penetrations with DAM3:
Each models takes 4 damage to kill, which means it takes 2 of these penetrations to kill 1 model. This means 6 of the 7 penetrations are used to kill 3 models. The remaining penetration will cause 1 injury on another model, leaving 1 FOR1 model and 1 FOR2 model in the unit. Looking back, 7x3=21 points of damage were inflicted on the unit. Only 15 of these were actually applied, as the other 6 were in excess of what was needed to kill. This number, 15, is used to work out the number of STs to place (half that, so 8). Only 14 of the 15 caused any injuries, as the last point of damage wás applied to a model, but was nót sufficient to add another injury. This last point is only discarded after calculating STs.

A unit comprised of 2 FOR3 MAS4 models takes 5 DAM3 penetrations and 2 DAM4 penetrations. The DAM4 penetrations must be applied first, and will each cause 1 injury to the first model in the unit that gets penetrations applied to it. This leaves this first model with FOR1. Two of the DAM3 penetrations are required to cause the last injury and kill this model (after all, it still has 1 FOR, and it's MAS4, so still needs 4 points of damage). The remaining 3 DAM3 penetrations cause 2 more injuries to the second model, using up 8 of the 9 damage caused by these three penetrations. The last 1 point of damage from those 3 penetrations is applied to that model, but has no effect as it's not enough for another injury. Calculating STs: 2x4 and 2x3 = 14 damage was assigned to the first model, but this model was dead at 12 damage, so the remaining 2 are immediately discarded. 3x3 = 9 damage was done to the second model. Only 8 of it actually caused injuries, but the last one was still applied as the model wasn't dead yet, so counts for STs. Total STs is half of (12+9), makes 11.

A unit comprised of 4 MAS2 FOR2 models takes 6 DAM1 penetrations and 1 DAM3 penetration. The DAM3 penetration is applied first and causes an injury to the first model with 1 point of damage to spare. This point combines with one of the DAM1 penetrations to cause the final injury on this first model. Of the remaining 5 DAM1 penetrations, 4 will add up to kill another model, and the last 1 is applied to a third model, but causes no injury. STs: none of the damage was in excess of what was needed to kill, so everything counts for STs: half of 9 damage makes 5 STs.


Fleeting targets and cover
Your understanding is correct: a unit is a fleeting target if it's in cover. When its cover is denied, it is not in cover and thus not a fleeting target (at least not for that reason). Where the rules say "If such a situation results in half or more of the models in the
unit not being in cover, then the unit does not count as being in cover against that (and only that) firing unit." (p. 55), this is for all rules purposes.

Other points from Gimgamgoo
#1: true, work on tutorial vids is in progress.
#2: it's not the same as a fancy hardback of course, but you could print the digital file at a larger size and have it bound so it will lay flat.
#3: a) yes there is bidding, but you just need to put some dice behind your hand with the number you bid and compare against your opponent, which is a fairly quick process, b) I can't think of a situation where you'd need to remember in which turn you added those points. For example, for the 'Worth more than your head' mission, you give yourself 3 points in the turn you cause an injury to the enemy commander. When the commander later heals itself, you deduct those points again. It doesn't matter in which turn the points were originally rewarded.
#4: no need for the rulebook, there are handy reference sheets
#5: can't help there

Also: thanks for pointing out where the rules could be more clear.

Hey guys,

I think the clearest issue here is sheer amount of math required in these explanations. Very few wargamers want to deal with this and the additional struggle of trying to figure out where to look in the book.

I'm a strong supported of your game (I drove 16+ hours total just to shoot a Let's Play of it) but the rules need a lot of clarifications. I have passed the rule book around my friends and most people end up giving up halfway through trying to understand it. It's been really hard to get newbies interested and even I'm struggling to keep interested. I bought 2 starter boxes and a ton of extra bits and bobs, but it looks like these are getting shelved for a while.

I really suggest making as many standardized charts as possible because in it's current state, the game takes 5-7 hours to complete because of the amount of checking and rechecking required to play. The damage and melee sections ruined Ash and I.

If you'd like, I can send page numbers with clear examples of what I like and what is confusing. Releasing a free 2.0 rule book might be necessary to get people into this, because currently no one in Massachusetts seems interested in playing with the involved math.

Hiya Travis,

About how many games have you got played now? I totally see how your first games would take long and wear you out looking up rules and stuff, but past that phase we assume it won't be 5 hours for a game!

Now about the math in my examples: those examples were purposely 'designed' to cover every situation I could think of. With the DAM vs MAS factor added in, wounding a model is a bit more involving than just rolling a die, yeah. However, if I were to fully write out what a complex close combat situation in 40k looks like, I think MEdge would come out favorably. It has a different approach though, that can cause some frustration getting used to if all you have is the rulebook. Like I said though, once the system clicks it's much more straightforward rolling dice on the table than reading it in writing. I hope!

I remember starting Warhammer fantasy back when internet wasn't so much a thing yet. For my first game I'd only read the rulebook, no other info. I got the most basic stuff wrong and made stuff up where the rules 'surely made no sense'. As long as there is no tutorial or learn to play material for MEdge (in progress!), having only the rulebook to hand out to give people a quick impression of the game is not ideal, I feel you there.

Now, the good bit is that through people like you who take the effort to voice their issues, we know better where to focus our attention, so yeah, if you have examples of what you find confusing in the book, that'd be great (probably best mail Jon through rules[at]maelstromsedge dot com). It's a learning phase on our side too

It's not just the math. For what it's worth, the amount of flipping back and forth - especially for special rules - is frustrating and at our age (40) it's getting harder and harder to remember all this stuff.

A couple of examples of the things that left me and my group feeling frustrated:

Mobile isn't an ability, instead it's the "type" of the model. This seems unintuitive (I spent five minutes trying to figure out where I remembered seeing that the Shadow Walker was a mobile unit). Worse, Mobile means that a unit has special abilities - in this case: Dodge. Dodge should just have been written on the Shadow Walker's cards, because spending five minutes looking for the mobile reference on the unit card, then having to flip through the book to find Mobile (which of course isn't in the Unit Abilities section) left me feeling like I was back in GW land ("Unit has Zealot, hmm.." - check special rule - "Zealot confers Hatred and Fearless on the unit. Aaggghh! Why didn't you just write that?")

From memory, at least one (maybe more) of the weapon abilities are missing from the Weapon Abilities section of the rulebook. Slow Projectile, for example. This means if you're using the summary sheets for quick reference instead of the Weapon section at the back of the rulebook, you'll never be able to find the rules for (e.g.) Slow Projectile because you'll automatically assume they're in the Weapon Abilities section and they're not.

There's a lot of white space on the unit cards. In a hypothetical updated version I'd like to see this space used to actually spell out some of the special rules that units have (e.g. the Shadow Walker's Dodge save) so we don't have to refer back to the rulebook as often. I really like the game and I want it to take off, but I've got to agree that it's going to be hard to get newbies into it until I've got the rules memorized front to back, and that's going to be quite a challenge.

Thanks for listening, guys.

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:
Hiya Travis,

About how many games have you got played now? I totally see how your first games would take long and wear you out looking up rules and stuff, but past that phase we assume it won't be 5 hours for a game!

Now about the math in my examples: those examples were purposely 'designed' to cover every situation I could think of. With the DAM vs MAS factor added in, wounding a model is a bit more involving than just rolling a die, yeah. However, if I were to fully write out what a complex close combat situation in 40k looks like, I think MEdge would come out favorably. It has a different approach though, that can cause some frustration getting used to if all you have is the rulebook. Like I said though, once the system clicks it's much more straightforward rolling dice on the table than reading it in writing. I hope!

I remember starting Warhammer fantasy back when internet wasn't so much a thing yet. For my first game I'd only read the rulebook, no other info. I got the most basic stuff wrong and made stuff up where the rules 'surely made no sense'. As long as there is no tutorial or learn to play material for MEdge (in progress!), having only the rulebook to hand out to give people a quick impression of the game is not ideal, I feel you there.

Now, the good bit is that through people like you who take the effort to voice their issues, we know better where to focus our attention, so yeah, if you have examples of what you find confusing in the book, that'd be great (probably best mail Jon through rules[at]maelstromsedge dot com). It's a learning phase on our side too

I'm 6 games in so far, and every game has had to be a teaching game sadly. I can't get anyone to play more than once, which is SUPER frustrating.

I think the issue I'm having is that the examples used in the book are designed to cover many situations (as you write above), but become clunky to read when you're trying to play. Sometimes the way the examples are structured end up causing the reader to doubt previous interpretations.


An example of wording being slightly too dense can be found on page 43:

"Example: Matt is firing at an enemy unit, so must determine that unit’s EVS characteristic. The unit contains two models with EVS 4, two more models with EVS 3 and one model with EVS 5. Therefore, the unit has EVS 4, because it is the highest amongst the two values that are tied for being most common, as both 3 and 4 are equally common."

By shortening or clarifying the wording in the above example, readers may be able to read this faster and understand the rule system easier.

Page 51:

"Example: Danielle is moving her Firefly Drone entirely over an obstacle that is 3” tall with a 16” double move. Moving completely over the crate (3” up and 3” back down) means the Firefly will have 10” of horizontal movement to work with. Alternatively, the Firefly could opt to fully engage its powerful engines and move dynamically, thereby ignoring the obstacle completely."

I still take issue with the wording above, as the fluff of the powerful engines being engaged mingles with the dynamic move rules. This makes it difficult to understand that you're referring to the dynamic move rule as opposed to a fictional matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

angryboy2k wrote:
It's not just the math. For what it's worth, the amount of flipping back and forth - especially for special rules - is frustrating and at our age (40) it's getting harder and harder to remember all this stuff.

A couple of examples of the things that left me and my group feeling frustrated:

Mobile isn't an ability, instead it's the "type" of the model. This seems unintuitive (I spent five minutes trying to figure out where I remembered seeing that the Shadow Walker was a mobile unit). Worse, Mobile means that a unit has special abilities - in this case: Dodge. Dodge should just have been written on the Shadow Walker's cards, because spending five minutes looking for the mobile reference on the unit card, then having to flip through the book to find Mobile (which of course isn't in the Unit Abilities section) left me feeling like I was back in GW land ("Unit has Zealot, hmm.." - check special rule - "Zealot confers Hatred and Fearless on the unit. Aaggghh! Why didn't you just write that?")

From memory, at least one (maybe more) of the weapon abilities are missing from the Weapon Abilities section of the rulebook. Slow Projectile, for example. This means if you're using the summary sheets for quick reference instead of the Weapon section at the back of the rulebook, you'll never be able to find the rules for (e.g.) Slow Projectile because you'll automatically assume they're in the Weapon Abilities section and they're not.

There's a lot of white space on the unit cards. In a hypothetical updated version I'd like to see this space used to actually spell out some of the special rules that units have (e.g. the Shadow Walker's Dodge save) so we don't have to refer back to the rulebook as often. I really like the game and I want it to take off, but I've got to agree that it's going to be hard to get newbies into it until I've got the rules memorized front to back, and that's going to be quite a challenge.

Thanks for listening, guys.

I 100% agree with this. The issue isn't just trying to figure out some complicated close combat rolls, but trying to remember all the rules while doing it. The units are all unique and great, allowing for super specific uses, but there is simply no way a player can remember all of them without better quick-play materials.

angryboy2k wrote:Mobile isn't an ability, instead it's the "type" of the model. This seems unintuitive (I spent five minutes trying to figure out where I remembered seeing that the Shadow Walker was a mobile unit). Worse, Mobile means that a unit has special abilities - in this case: Dodge. Dodge should just have been written on the Shadow Walker's cards, because spending five minutes looking for the mobile reference on the unit card, then having to flip through the book to find Mobile (which of course isn't in the Unit Abilities section) left me feeling like I was back in GW land ("Unit has Zealot, hmm.." - check special rule - "Zealot confers Hatred and Fearless on the unit. Aaggghh! Why didn't you just write that?")

Yeah it might be a good idea to put abilities inherent to unit types or designators on the cards somehow, or make a unit type quick reference sheet.

angryboy2k wrote:From memory, at least one (maybe more) of the weapon abilities are missing from the Weapon Abilities section of the rulebook. Slow Projectile, for example. This means if you're using the summary sheets for quick reference instead of the Weapon section at the back of the rulebook, you'll never be able to find the rules for (e.g.) Slow Projectile because you'll automatically assume they're in the Weapon Abilities section and they're not.

Any unique abilities are not in the abilities section. They áre on the actual summary sheets though. Maybe it would be good to clarify whether the abilities in the weapon or model profiles are unique.

angryboy2k wrote:There's a lot of white space on the unit cards. In a hypothetical updated version I'd like to see this space used to actually spell out some of the special rules that units have (e.g. the Shadow Walker's Dodge save) so we don't have to refer back to the rulebook as often. I really like the game and I want it to take off, but I've got to agree that it's going to be hard to get newbies into it until I've got the rules memorized front to back, and that's going to be quite a challenge.

I'm not sure we could make something consistent from this. Every ability is on the faction's summary sheet though, so you don't need to refer to the actual book.

angryboy2k wrote:Thanks for listening, guys.

Thanks for sharing I'm not sure if and when you'll actually be seeing changes on unit cards and such, but we áre taking note!

StraightEdgeFTW wrote:An example of wording being slightly too dense can be found on page 43:

"Example: Matt is firing at an enemy unit, so must determine that unit’s EVS characteristic. The unit contains two models with EVS 4, two more models with EVS 3 and one model with EVS 5. Therefore, the unit has EVS 4, because it is the highest amongst the two values that are tied for being most common, as both 3 and 4 are equally common."

By shortening or clarifying the wording in the above example, readers may be able to read this faster and understand the rule system easier.

I would personally not want to drop any information from that example, though I agree it would be clearer if we had two examples, the first being simpler. Unfortunately the realities of printed paper real estate means we couldn't just add another couple dozen pages to add in many more examples. Your point is still very valid though.

StraightEdgeFTW wrote:Page 51:

"Example: Danielle is moving her Firefly Drone entirely over an obstacle that is 3” tall with a 16” double move. Moving completely over the crate (3” up and 3” back down) means the Firefly will have 10” of horizontal movement to work with. Alternatively, the Firefly could opt to fully engage its powerful engines and move dynamically, thereby ignoring the obstacle completely."

I still take issue with the wording above, as the fluff of the powerful engines being engaged mingles with the dynamic move rules. This makes it difficult to understand that you're referring to the dynamic move rule as opposed to a fictional matter.

Agreed, it would be more clear to have the fluff and rules element more clearly separated. In this case it doesn't help that the dynamic move rule mentioned here is 4 pages away from this example, that is kind of hard for the first time reader. Again, these types of examples are as much meant to solve any dispute over the rules in question should they come up, rather than just to learn new people the game. For the first goal it makes sense, I think, to use this specific example, whilst for the second goal it would have been better not to use a Firefly (or, again, use two examples).

StraightEdgeFTW wrote:I 100% agree with this. The issue isn't just trying to figure out some complicated close combat rolls, but trying to remember all the rules while doing it. The units are all unique and great, allowing for super specific uses, but there is simply no way a player can remember all of them without better quick-play materials.

You mentioned charts earlier, is there any specific material you'd like to be included on the reference sheets?

Thanks again

 Sgt. Oddball wrote:

angryboy2k wrote:From memory, at least one (maybe more) of the weapon abilities are missing from the Weapon Abilities section of the rulebook. Slow Projectile, for example. This means if you're using the summary sheets for quick reference instead of the Weapon section at the back of the rulebook, you'll never be able to find the rules for (e.g.) Slow Projectile because you'll automatically assume they're in the Weapon Abilities section and they're not.

Any unique abilities are not in the abilities section. They áre on the actual summary sheets though. Maybe it would be good to clarify whether the abilities in the weapon or model profiles are unique.

So they are. My mistake!
Again, it's a terrific game - and the small number of errata is a good indicator of this. I just wish the rules didn't feel so dense somehow. Looking forward to playing again sometime soon and getting this locked down.

Hey Sgt. Oddball,

I think the biggest need for clarification/charts would be specifically to help figure things out like the melee shots characteristic. After re-reading the section again, I really believe it would almost make more sense to list the CC SHO in the unit profile. This amount of math seems unnecessary.

Additionally, I understand the limitations of printed goods and that's a reason I really believe in selling or giving away a streamlined rule book that removes all the fluff and flavor in favor a clean and clear experience. I've actually begin copy and pasting from the PDF to create one for my own use because of the amount of flipping I have to do during games.

Just to be 100% clear: I LOVE MAELSTROM'S EDGE. If I didn't care so much about this game I wouldn't have bought wayyyy too much plastic, filmed a Let's Play and post so often on these forums. I would love to discuss ways to make "quick-play" rule sheets to attract new players, because I'm really struggling in this area to get you some new business.

StraightEdgeFTW wrote:
Hey Sgt. Oddball,

I think the biggest need for clarification/charts would be specifically to help figure things out like the melee shots characteristic. After re-reading the section again, I really believe it would almost make more sense to list the CC SHO in the unit profile. This amount of math seems unnecessary.

Additionally, I understand the limitations of printed goods and that's a reason I really believe in selling or giving away a streamlined rule book that removes all the fluff and flavor in favor a clean and clear experience. I've actually begin copy and pasting from the PDF to create one for my own use because of the amount of flipping I have to do during games.

Just to be 100% clear: I LOVE MAELSTROM'S EDGE. If I didn't care so much about this game I wouldn't have bought wayyyy too much plastic, filmed a Let's Play and post so often on these forums. I would love to discuss ways to make "quick-play" rule sheets to attract new players, because I'm really struggling in this area to get you some new business.

We hear you loud and clear, and calculating the melee shots is definitely the top of the list of something to simplify some day when we do a v2 of the rules.

It occurred because the focus of this game was always much more on shooting than melee (compared to say 40k), and even in our CQ fighting if you're using a pistol, you have a fixed SHO characteristic. So it was thought that it was not worth having an extra characteristic on the profile (to keep the model profile more simple) because it just wouldn't be used all that often, and instead just have the number of melee shots calculated based on the model's other characteristics.

In the initial playtesting, it wasn't brought up as an issue, but the sample group was pretty small and those people, I'd say, were pretty hardcore and likely didn't mind doing the calculation. Once we got further along and opened up playtesting to more people, we definitely did start to get feedback from some people that calculating the number of melee shots seemed needlessly complex. However, by that point we were pretty far along designing the unit cards and stuff (which all had the existing model profile on it).

What I do like about they system is that for models with multiple FOR (characters & big models especially), it naturally reduces the number of melee shots they get as the take damage without needing any specific rules to accomplish that. However, in hindsight I don't think it is worth it, and adding a melee shots characteristic for each model on their profile is definitely top of the list for v2 improvements. Unfortunately, it is unknown when/if that will happen, and naturally will require a complete re-print of all the existing unit cards to make that change as well.

But I did want to let you know that I hear the complaint, understand it, and sympathize!

 yakface wrote:

What I do like about they system is that for models with multiple FOR (characters & big models especially), it naturally reduces the number of melee shots they get as the take damage without needing any specific rules to accomplish that.

Yes, I agree and understand that this is the nice part about it. But it could also be accomplished by having multiple melee shot values printed on the card for those multi-FOR models like the Angel. The calculation in the background would remain the same, but the player just needs to say "Angel's down to 1 FOR, so his melee shots are...[check card]"

angryboy2k wrote:

 yakface wrote:

What I do like about they system is that for models with multiple FOR (characters & big models especially), it naturally reduces the number of melee shots they get as the take damage without needing any specific rules to accomplish that.

Yes, I agree and understand that this is the nice part about it. But it could also be accomplished by having multiple melee shot values printed on the card for those multi-FOR models like the Angel. The calculation in the background would remain the same, but the player just needs to say "Angel's down to 1 FOR, so his melee shots are...[check card]"

That'd be one way of doing it. But the difference between a quick reference chart that I might write on my card and the official version is that they have to make sure the official version looks nice (good font choice, big enough to read, doesn't crowd anything else on the card out, makes sense on that side of the card, etc...).