Switch Theme:

Maelstrom's Edge V2 Beta Rules - WE NEED YOUR FEEDBACK (through Feb 2022)!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA



Hey everyone,

As covered in this thread, we've released the v2 beta rules for Maelstrom's Edge (you can download the beta rules here, right now) and it goes without saying that: we need your feedback!

While we have internal playtests in the works, from now until the end of February (2022) the more feedback we can gather from external sources (aka YOU) the better. At the end of February, we'll wrap up the beta period of the rules and get hard at work crafting the final rulebook for release.

Anyone who takes the time to give us feedback during this period will be entered in a chance to win a free copy of the final version of the v2 rulebook. More on that below.


WHAT FEEDBACK ARE WE LOOKING FOR?

Even if you have no interest in playing games of Maelstrom's Edge, we would still love and appreciate feedback from you. At the very minimum, if you can download and read the full v2 beta rules and then give us your constructive thoughts on what you like and don't like about it (layout, mechanics, how the force balance looks to you on paper, etc), that would be a huge help.

If you're willing to give the rules a try (even as a solo player playing both sides), we'd obviously love to hear how the games went. These don't even need to be fully detailed battle reports with pictures, but at the bare minimum we need:

  • A breakdown of the forces each side used.

  • What mission you played.

  • Which side won, on what turn and what the final VP tallies were.

  • At least a brief overview of what happened in the game (which units dominated, which were useless, etc).

  • Your thoughts about the game, the rules in general and the balance of the forces you played with.


  • Obviously if you want to go hog wild and include pictures, maps, detailed turn by turn descriptions, etc, we'd love that even more, but any details you can provide about your games will help us make the final v2 rules that much better.


    WHERE DO I GIVE MY FEEDBACK?

  • You can give your feedback right here, in this forum. You can either reply directly to this thread (or any other existing one) or even start your own new thread if you feel like it.

  • If you're a member of our Comm Guild Facebook group (and if you're not, you should join!), you can leave your feedback there as well (best to make a new post there with your feedback).


  • HOW DO I WIN A FREE V2 RULEBOOK?

  • If you give any constructive feedback at all on the beta rules (whether it's positive or negative constructive feedback), you will be entered in a chance to win a free copy of the final v2 rulebook. This feedback can be in this forum, on facebook or any other method that we can see it.

  • For each battle report you post, you will be entered an additional time into the drawing for the rulebook (increasing your chance to win).


  • I will keep an ongoing list of people who are eligible to win the rulebook at the bottom of this post. We may (likely) end up giving away more than one rulebook when all is said and done, but no matter how many additional times you get entered into the drawing (for example, if you submit like 4 battle reports), you'll still only be able to win a maximum of 1 rulebook.

    Thanks in advance!


    -----

    Here's the list of those who have (so far) given beta feedback and are therefore eligible to win a copy of the v2 rulebook. If you feel as though you've provided feedback but your name isn't on this list yet, please shoot me a PM:

    • Arbiter Iain (via email)
    • dicewar (via dakka)
    • JNAProductions (via dakka)
    • solkan (via dakka)






    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/08 00:07:22


    I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
    yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
    yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
    yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
    Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
       
    Made in ie
    Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





    Dublin

    Great news, I'm glad you're keeping it going. Sub'd

    On a related note Yak, do you guys have plans to design any new models? Some of the existing ones are ace.

    I let the dogs out 
       
    Made in au
    [MOD]
    Making Stuff






    Under the couch

    New models are always in development, although our release schedule has been slightly disrupted over the last two years thanks to Covid complications. But yes, there are new models coming for all factions, and another faction coming soon.

    There's a sneak peek at some of what's on the way here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/802830.page

     
       
    Made in ie
    Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





    Dublin

     insaniak wrote:
    New models are always in development, although our release schedule has been slightly disrupted over the last two years thanks to Covid complications. But yes, there are new models coming for all factions, and another faction coming soon.

    There's a sneak peek at some of what's on the way here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/802830.page
    Nice!

    I let the dogs out 
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






    Defensive Fire
    -Is not listed in Unit Action Overview (page 7)
    -Is listed in Unit Activation section (page 23)

    Question: Do you have to select Defensive Fire during the Shooting step of your unit’s activation (one of a unit’s 3 actions) and then mark the unit with a token or something to remember that it selected this action? It is located between two actions that cost you 1 of your 3 available, but nothing says to keep track that you selected this Action.

    Extinguish
    -Is not listed in Unit Action Overview (page 7)



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Also, on the UNIT ACTIVATION OVERVIEW (page7) the limit of 3 actions is listed before describing 3 action categories, so I'm pretty sure that you mean you can do 3 actions divided among those categories. But there's part of me that reads it as 1 move action + any number of status actions + 1 shoot action. So maybe that needs a little clarification? I wrote a quick page that takes the info and firms it up, but obviously, feel free to disregard. I think classifying Actions into Limited and Free might help.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mXzUOGSH7QxbrtsC5CM6lnCGmT7vC6GbP6SPoljQUnk/edit?usp=sharing

    This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/02/12 15:25:37


     
       
    Made in us
    [ADMIN]
    President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






    Los Angeles, CA

     bbb wrote:
    Defensive Fire
    -Is not listed in Unit Action Overview (page 7)
    -Is listed in Unit Activation section (page 23)

    Question: Do you have to select Defensive Fire during the Shooting step of your unit’s activation (one of a unit’s 3 actions) and then mark the unit with a token or something to remember that it selected this action? It is located between two actions that cost you 1 of your 3 available, but nothing says to keep track that you selected this Action.

    Extinguish
    -Is not listed in Unit Action Overview (page 7)

    The 'Unit Activation Overview' on page 7 is meant to be a general introduction to the idea of what actions units take during their activation, so by design certain actions that are not commonly used (like Extinguish) or aren't actually performed during a unit's activation (like Defensive Fire) aren't included so as not to confuse first time readers. By the time people get to the full 'Unit Activation' section they'd have a better grasp of some of the rules and so *all* unit actions are listed in full there, even those that aren't technically performed during unit activation (like Defensive Fire).

    The first thing the Defensive Fire rules say is: "Defensive Fire is not performed by a unit during its activation. Instead, it is a free shooting action automatically triggered in specific situations..."

    So why is Defensive Fire listed in that section despite being an action that is not performed during a unit activation? Just because there really isn't a better place to put it. While it could go at the end of the 'Shooting' section (where the steps of a round of shooting are explained) a bunch of concepts still haven't been introduced at that point which are pretty key to defensive fire (like charging, for example). In the final release of the rulebook, we can put Defensive Fire in a box-out to further highlight that it is a special situation.

    Also, on the UNIT ACTIVATION OVERVIEW (page7) the limit of 3 actions is listed before describing 3 action categories, so I'm pretty sure that you mean you can do 3 actions divided among those categories. But there's part of me that reads it as 1 move action + any number of status actions + 1 shoot action. So maybe that needs a little clarification? I wrote a quick page that takes the info and firms it up, but obviously, feel free to disregard. I think classifying Actions into Limited and Free might help.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mXzUOGSH7QxbrtsC5CM6lnCGmT7vC6GbP6SPoljQUnk/edit?usp=sharing

    During its activation, a unit can perform up to 3 activations. All 3 of those could theoretically be status actions if you wanted (though not the same one more than once), but you are limited to a max of 1 movement and 1 shooting action.

    While I appreciate the granularity of what you propose in your google doc (calling all actions either 'limited' or 'free'), there really aren't many free actions (at least not in the core rulebook), so there isn't much of a need to call 95% of the actions 'limited'...they are just regular actions and then there are free actions which do not count against the maximum of 3 actions a unit is able to perform during its activation (as explained in the box-out on page 21).


    I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
    yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
    yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
    yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
    Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






     yakface wrote:

    The first thing the Defensive Fire rules say is: "Defensive Fire is not performed by a unit during its activation. Instead, it is a free shooting action automatically triggered in specific situations..."

    So why is Defensive Fire listed in that section despite being an action that is not performed during a unit activation? Just because there really isn't a better place to put it. While it could go at the end of the 'Shooting' section (where the steps of a round of shooting are explained) a bunch of concepts still haven't been introduced at that point which are pretty key to defensive fire (like charging, for example). In the final release of the rulebook, we can put Defensive Fire in a box-out to further highlight that it is a special situation.



    A box-out section sounds like a good move. While the text of the rule did indicate it was free, being located between two non-free rules was throwing me off.
       
    Made in us
    Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps







    I haven't played either version, (though I have some of the models), and this was an initial half hour readthrough, so take these thoughts with a grain of salt.....
    These are somewhat critical but really I love seeing "indi" miniatures in game design, so keep up the great work!

    1) Layout looks great - easy to follow, great illustrations, fully professional.
    2) The use of the term "Retire" is cool.
    3) It seems odd to have a "Command" pool and not have it interact with activations.
    4) Dice flips is an interesting mechanic - however it seems like it interacts in strange ways with the size of the unit. I preferred the old resolution chart which seemed very elegant.
    5) I always want to avoid markers in a miniatures game - what is the point of lovely figures and terrain if it is covered with stuff. In a game with facing defined by the squadleader, you can reverse one model to show the unit has activated.
    6) I loathe having rules that give models other rules. If a vehicle is also large, please just put "Vehicle, Large" on the model's card, so I know it has both rules, rather than having to remember that being a vehicle makes you "large". It would also allow you to have vehicles that were not large, if you wanted to for some reason.
    7) The three action layout seems inelegant. Double Move + Dash is basically just three move actions, and it hard to see many circumstances where you don't just Move - Status - shoot. You don't seem to lose or gain actions (or maybe you do in the unit rules). It just seemed like a lot of rules for not much flexibility. In a squad game I'd love to be able to shoot then move.
    8) I'd put all the Suppression rules in one section to give the reader a better feel for its role in the game.
    9) Big fan of squadleader based movement!
    10) The reward for getting behind your enemy seems pretty small. I really loved the way the original game's concept was described - that enemies in cover were basically safe from shooting until you outflanked them.

    Anyway, love your project! The setting is cool and the factions have been great so far.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/15 23:08:40


     
       
    Made in us
    [ADMIN]
    President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






    Los Angeles, CA

     kestral wrote:
    I haven't played either version, (though I have some of the models), and this was an initial half hour readthrough, so take these thoughts with a grain of salt.....
    These are somewhat critical but really I love seeing "indi" miniatures in game design, so keep up the great work!

    Thanks so much for the feedback. I've responded to a few of your points below. Feel free to follow up if you have the inclination to do so.

    3) It seems odd to have a "Command" pool and not have it interact with activations.

    Command Points are representative of the number of command models you have on the table, as well as by other abilities that represent how connected to off-table HQ your force is. In turn, Command Points are spent on either things connected to your force's off-table HQ (reinforcements, blocking enemy reinforcements) or abilities that are essentially triggered by command models. The "Command Point Pool" is just where you keep the command points you've earned until you spend them.

    I know other games use things like a "command pool" to determine unit activation orders, etc...is that what bothers you about the name? Because while I do understand how other games work activation order into the chain of command, I've never found it to be a wholly enjoyable mechanic, so we've kept the activation order pretty basic in MEdge.

    If you think the name "Command Point Pool" is flawed/confusing, what would you suggest instead?

    4) Dice flips is an interesting mechanic - however it seems like it interacts in strange ways with the size of the unit. I preferred the old resolution chart which seemed very elegant.

    I totally understand the feeling. As a longtime 40k player, the chart we used in v1 felt very familiar to me. But we did get feedback from people complaining that they had to 'look at a chart' everytime they went to resolve a round of shooting, and I realized that not every player is as intimately familiar with it as many of us are.

    The dice flips mechanic may seem novel, but I can assure you even those amognst our internal playtest team who were quite skeptical about it at first ended up relenting after a few games that it does the job it needs to do, and it ultimately is quite a bit easier/quicker once you use it a few times.

    You are correct that, being a limited resource, it does have an 'issue' with squad size, but even the v1 rules used a limited 'special defense' resource mechanic (cover, field and dodges), so adding a limited dice flips mechanic for both the skill of the firing unit and the defending unit's armor in a way codifies it all together nicely. And were the game to feature 40k sized units of 30 Orks, yeah, the mechanic would totally breakdown, but given that MEdge will never have squad sizes more than 6 models, it can, and does seem to work nicely.

    5) I always want to avoid markers in a miniatures game - what is the point of lovely figures and terrain if it is covered with stuff. In a game with facing defined by the squadleader, you can reverse one model to show the unit has activated.

    I totally agree with you in principle and the v1 rules went to great pains to try to limit the amount of tokens in the game down to just suppression markers (that were 'cinematic' old epic-style blast markers). But the truth is, watering down all the effects in the game to just suppression made everything feel a bit too same-y. In hindsight, I do think sacrificing a bit of the 'cool' looking clean table to have some fun game mechanics can be/is a worthwhile trade-off.

    Your suggestion for 'marking' activated units is a great one, and we could certainly suggest it as an option for players to consider, though ultimately how players want to mark their activated units (assuming they even feel like they need to) is really up to them.

    6) I loathe having rules that give models other rules. If a vehicle is also large, please just put "Vehicle, Large" on the model's card, so I know it has both rules, rather than having to remember that being a vehicle makes you "large". It would also allow you to have vehicles that were not large, if you wanted to for some reason.

    This is an interesting suggestion. We have two types of 'Large' models: Behemoths & Vehicles (even though there aren't any vehicle models in the range yet). Going by your suggestion we'd have to rename 'Behemoths' to either 'Large Behemoths' or just go with 'Large Infantry'. Though I think going with 'Large Infantry' then creates a bunch of potential confusion when you're talking about what types of units can enter buildings and such, you now always have to mention 'standard infantry' (instead of just 'infantry'). We could certainly also get rid of the whole term 'large model' completely and instead always say: "vehicles & behemoths", but that would be super wordy/difficult to write cleanly throughout the rules.

    I know you're just railing against the concept of 'hidden' (or 'stacked') rules, and we did take great pains to try to eliminate as much of that as possible in v2, but I'm not sure this is an instance that is really too big an issue, do you? We don't ever have plans to make any non-large vehicles, so there isn't any value for splitting 'large' off from 'vehicle'. Ultimately there are just those 2 unit types (behemoth & vehicle) which are large models, and the main rules for large models (including behemoths & vehicles) are all together in the rulebook. Having a single term ("large models") is super convenient for referring to abilities/rules that affect both of them, so I don't think we can lose that.

    7) The three action layout seems inelegant. Double Move + Dash is basically just three move actions, and it hard to see many circumstances where you don't just Move - Status - shoot. You don't seem to lose or gain actions (or maybe you do in the unit rules). It just seemed like a lot of rules for not much flexibility. In a squad game I'd love to be able to shoot then move.

    You can only make a single move (and shooting) action per activation, so you can't take 3 movement actions in a single activation.

    The point of the system is that 90% of the time you will be doing a movement action, a status action and then a shooting action. I know in other games, with even simpler actions, the ability to fire twice or move twice or shoot and then move is what a lot of the tactical options of the game revolves around. Because the status actions in MEdge often represent what the 'unit is doing' once it finishes its activation (e.g. a unit that is 'on the move' represents a unit that is currently moving, and a unit 'taking cover' represents a unit hunkering down to take cover).

    If we allowed units to make actions in absolutely any order, then you end up with some really bizarre interactions that don't really work. For example, if a unit was allowed to 'fire' then 'move' and then go 'on the move', then that unit would get the protection of being 'on the move' from enemy firing, but wouldn't suffer any of the penalties from being 'on the move' because that effect shuts off the next time that unit activates. We could try to change when the 'on the move' effect shuts off to get around this, but then you end up having to remember all these little provisos instead of the much more simple: when a unit activates it removes all of its 'on the move' or 'take cover' tokens.

    With that said, both the Broken and Artarian Remnant do have special rules that allow them to 'Aim', 'Fire' and then 'Move' (in precisely that order) in some cases. But that has been left as a special ability for certain factions/units and it is necessarily rigid (doesn't allow 'on the move' as part of it, for example) to make it all work.

    8) I'd put all the Suppression rules in one section to give the reader a better feel for its role in the game.

    Can you give me some specific examples of precisely what you're suggesting (where would you want this section to be, what exactly would it include)? I could see maybe adding a 'recap' box-out of most of the common suppression mechanics somewhere, but totally removing the rules for raising/lowering suppression out of, for example, the rules for shooting seems like it would cause more confusion than anything!

    10) The reward for getting behind your enemy seems pretty small. I really loved the way the original game's concept was described - that enemies in cover were basically safe from shooting until you outflanked them.

    While that was the original design goal of v1, the reality was that we even had to back off that a bit in v1, because in a 5 turn game it becomes really hard to implement a system where the only real damage is caused by outflanking enemy units and still have the game be any fun. Even with the level of this we did end up with in v1, units were nigh indestructible in cover which we got TONS of feedback saying that it just wasn't fun to constantly shoot at enemy units and only cause suppression.

    With that said, I do think that if you try out the v2 rules, you'll see a -1 cover & -1 AV penalty for being behind a unit is really quite significant and worth going for when you have the opportunity.


    I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
    yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
    yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
    yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
    Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
       
    Made in au
    [MOD]
    Making Stuff






    Under the couch

     yakface wrote:
    You are correct that, being a limited resource, it does have an 'issue' with squad size, but even the v1 rules used a limited 'special defense' resource mechanic (cover, field and dodges), so adding a limited dice flips mechanic for both the skill of the firing unit and the defending unit's armor in a way codifies it all together nicely. And were the game to feature 40k sized units of 30 Orks, yeah, the mechanic would totally breakdown, but given that MEdge will never have squad sizes more than 6 models, it can, and does seem to work nicely.

    To add to this, from my experience single-model units (aside from weapons-heavy examples like the Epirian Hunter) tend to be inherently disadvantaged due to the way shooting (and specifically cover and other 'special' defense mechanisms) works, so larger units not receiving an entirely equitable benefit from the dice flip mechanic actually serves as something of a balancer. When you have a unit like the Scarecrow firing a single, 1-shot weapon, it's far more critical for it to score a hit than it is for that individual trooper's weapon in a 5-man unit.

     
       
    Made in us
    Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps







    Fair points all. I would still like a complete summary of all the effects of suppression somewhere (maybe as a side bar)- it is the kind of thing that is very easy to forget. As you say, if unit sizes are always quite small, that changes the kind of rules you need. I think there is definitely a niche for a small unit game. Have you considered putting out an algorithm for players to work out points for their own units?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    For "unofficial" play of course.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/19 12:25:18


     
       
    Made in no
    Nervous Karist Novitiate





     yakface wrote:

    If you think the name "Command Point Pool" is flawed/confusing, what would you suggest instead?


    Maybe good alternative to the name Command Points could be Tactical Points. That name could feel more disconnected from "commanding"/"activating". Instead it hints more to doing something "extra"/"special".
    That probably wasn't what you were asking for there, anyway.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






    Just curious when the V2 rules might be ready. I never got a chance to dive into the beta rules like I wanted, but at this point I'm not sure if I should or if I should just wait for the official release.
       
    Made in au
    [MOD]
    Making Stuff






    Under the couch

    We're still hoping for a release in June, but everything is still somewhat unpredictable globally.

    The Beta rules document will remain available in the interim, and is playable as is. While there will be some changes in the final version, the overall structure will remain the same. And we think it's a much better system overall than V1, so it's certainly worthwhile jumping in now to start getting used to how it all works

     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






    Thanks! I, for one, welcome our new MEdge V2 rules overlords.
       
     
    Forum Index » Maelstrom's Edge General Discussion
    Go to: