Switch Theme:

Crisis Protocol - First Thoughts on the Rules  [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 nl
Regular Dakkanaut





So I've just bought the Crisis Protocol Starter set - mainly to paint the miniatures (which, I can't wait to get started on - they look great), but I also had it mind to maybe have a go at playing the game. But my first thoughts on the rules are that it isn't quite what I expected. Here's why:

(1) Flying - it seems to me that the game is played as if the characters are all basically standing on the ground all the time, which is NOT what happens in the comics/films. Flying is just a fast way of getting from A to B and over the top of obstacles. What about characters who stay airborne for a while or fight in the air? Or shoot from the air to the ground? Surely that should be possible?

(2) Climbing - ditto. I want Spiderman to be able to cling to the side of a building for a while and not simply climb from ground to roof and back again.

(3) Throwing terrain etc. It's a great feature that you CAN throw things but the size categories are a bit limited aren't they? Surely there's a big difference between a house and a skyscraper but that is also not accounted for in the rules is it? Hulk couldn't throw the Empire State building but he could probably smash it up and make if all over which leads to.....

(4) Debris. Surely after BIG things are smashed up their damaged remains should be able to litter the battlefield, get in the way and provide yet MORE stuff to be thrown around.

Am I being picky? Couldn't they introduce these features into the rules to make the fights more like the REALLY are in the comics.

Finally, isn't it all a bit complicated (and yes, I know my extra rules would make it even more so) but what I don't get is how the rules are presented. A sort of general introduction describing what a game is like would have been really helpful but instead the booklet just launches into the mechanics of movement, fighting etc.

Am I wrong, or am I right? And, above all, is the game really worth playing? Is it FUN?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





It's my favorite game at the moment. One of the things I really enjoy about it is that it rarely gets bogged down in rules minutia and quickly gets into a snappy back and forth. There's definitely things that are over simplified here and there, but having played a lot of games that try to incorporate precise verticality.

I find the simplicity more in keeping with the comics than anything. Like rarely do you see characters fail to reach their target because the terrain is a little rocky or fights transition between the streets and rooftops of skyscrapers. The game doesn't have a lot of "can't" so much as options to weigh. You can probably get to your target and attack them but you might not be able to do that while also grabbing an objective you might want.

I will say, generally speaking I don't think the game really works with skyscrapers. If you want to use them as non-interactive terrain its fine, but a couple 2-3 story buildings is often more than enough. It's not a large battlefield (particularly with the larger scale the figures run) and trucks and cars and stuff makes for a far more dynamic game.

In any case, hope you're having fun with it. I really do think its my current favorite out of the dozen plus systems I've played recently. Let me know if you've got any other questions. Happy to help!
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




Jandgalf wrote:
So I've just bought the Crisis Protocol Starter set - mainly to paint the miniatures (which, I can't wait to get started on - they look great), but I also had it mind to maybe have a go at playing the game. But my first thoughts on the rules are that it isn't quite what I expected. Here's why:

(1) Flying - it seems to me that the game is played as if the characters are all basically standing on the ground all the time, which is NOT what happens in the comics/films. Flying is just a fast way of getting from A to B and over the top of obstacles. What about characters who stay airborne for a while or fight in the air? Or shoot from the air to the ground? Surely that should be possible?

(2) Climbing - ditto. I want Spiderman to be able to cling to the side of a building for a while and not simply climb from ground to roof and back again.

(3) Throwing terrain etc. It's a great feature that you CAN throw things but the size categories are a bit limited aren't they? Surely there's a big difference between a house and a skyscraper but that is also not accounted for in the rules is it? Hulk couldn't throw the Empire State building but he could probably smash it up and make if all over which leads to.....

(4) Debris. Surely after BIG things are smashed up their damaged remains should be able to litter the battlefield, get in the way and provide yet MORE stuff to be thrown around.

Am I being picky? Couldn't they introduce these features into the rules to make the fights more like the REALLY are in the comics.

Finally, isn't it all a bit complicated (and yes, I know my extra rules would make it even more so) but what I don't get is how the rules are presented. A sort of general introduction describing what a game is like would have been really helpful but instead the booklet just launches into the mechanics of movement, fighting etc.

Am I wrong, or am I right? And, above all, is the game really worth playing? Is it FUN?


The thing is, you kind of seem to be leaning towards the GW mindset of designing a game i.e. trying to make the game feel like the narrative as much as possible, even to the detriment of the game as a whole. MCP isn't really like that.

MCP is a game first and foremost. The rules are flavorful and the miniatures do really feel like the comic characters on the table. HOWEVER, it's not particularly simulationist and it's absolutely not GW's 'forge the narrative'. The rules exist how they are because they make the best gameplay experience the designers could come up with while preserving as much of that Marvel Universe feel as possible. A lot of miniature games try to stick to the genre's RPG roots. MCP no so much.

1. Flying exists how it does in the game because juggling Captain Marvel's FTL flight and Bob, Agent of Hydra's walking on the same board without making it seem stupid is almost impossible. See GW's attempts to add aircraft to 40k (or Relic's attempt to add aircraft to Dawn of War). They made the game a little bit less narrative while making it a lot better experience.

2. Climbing is a microcosm of flight except you also kind of have to ask, exactly what is Spiderman being able to stop his move halfway up a wall accomplishing in terms of creating a good experience? Nothing compared to the rulings nightmares on how exactly that interacts with other abilities in the game.

3. There are 5 different size ratings, from traffic cone all the way up to skyskraper and what size something is changes how bad it hurts to get hit by it AND whose strong enough to lift it. Hulk absolutely can hit you with a skyscaper, but Captain America is only going to be tossing Volvos.

4. This just seems like a headache. How much debris would a given terrain piece leave behind? Would what destroyed it affect that? How big are the pieces? How do you place the pieces? Do the pieces ALSO do damage to things they hit? How much? Who's going to buy and paint the extra 20-100 pieces of debris terrain we need now? Debris isn't in the game because it's would be terrible for the experience and gameplay.

MCP is one of the best game systems on the market right now. It's fast, fun, flavorful, well balanced and with great minis. It just isn't DND with way more stuff the way games like 40k and AOS are.



 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Just a technicality, but the only way to throw a skyscraper is to have Hulk and She-Hulk team up to throw it together.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





Thanks for the responses. I feel like a bit of killjoy now. I’m impressed with the enthusiasm for the game and get that it should capture the spirit of the comics without getting bogged down in detail that would clog up the gameplay. Still sees to me that the flying thing is missing a trick and if Spidey can’t hang around on the side of buildings he ain’t Spidey is he? And as for debris, why not say that things above a certain size when destroyed result in X amount of smaller size pieces? Cars would automatically be removed, skyscrapers replaced by smaller pieces. But I’ll stop moaning. Genuinely looking forward to giving the game a go now and sure I’ll like it!!
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Jandgalf wrote:
Thanks for the responses. I feel like a bit of killjoy now. I’m impressed with the enthusiasm for the game and get that it should capture the spirit of the comics without getting bogged down in detail that would clog up the gameplay. Still sees to me that the flying thing is missing a trick and if Spidey can’t hang around on the side of buildings he ain’t Spidey is he? And as for debris, why not say that things above a certain size when destroyed result in X amount of smaller size pieces? Cars would automatically be removed, skyscrapers replaced by smaller pieces. But I’ll stop moaning. Genuinely looking forward to giving the game a go now and sure I’ll like it!!


I've definitely seen the latter implemented in some fun ways. I know I've seen at least one game set in a construction yard in which someone had created a pile of bricks that effectively acted as infinite size 1 terrain. If you want to make a building composed of multiple parts that can be interacted with independently, absolutely more power to you. Same with the idea of having terrain that leaves behind terrain when destroyed to some sort. I think the rules support that just fine its just that people don't have a lot of terrain in their collections for that to be a widespread thing. Definitely a cool idea though that could be well implemented.

I do want to stress that as the game currently exists, Size 5 terrain largely isn't destructible. The only way to do so currently is a single use card that requires both Hulk and She-Hulk to play. Skyscrapers in the sense that a lot of people think are probably best limited to size 6 and non-interactive, just because the verticality is pretty goofy with the way climbing rules work and honestly, if they were more precise, I think spending 2+ turns (of 6 or less) getting up there would detract from a lot of the game. I've seen at least one rooftop map that captures that particular style pretty well though as an idea, but otherwise even in the comics I think its pretty rare to see a fight take place between the top and bottom of a 10+ story building.

Also keep in mind, particularly with the way flyers are "grounded" (though in truth most of them are constantly flying in their sculpts now) that attack ranges aren't literal by any means. They're more a dynamic range in which a character can affect the battlefield from their position. The standard punch in this game is 3" from figures that are generally about 1.5" tall. Ranges are very intentionally very loose and meant to represent more dynamic attacks. If someone in the comics needs to get a flier, they're probably leaping off a car or something to get in the hit. The game very rarely feels like it wants characters to actually be out of range of one another unless they're intentionally staying far out of the fight and away from the missions.

Honestly, I kind of take issue with the idea that the game isn't "forging the narrative" or whatever. You can make it numbers if you want, but there's a lot of flavor to everything. The objectives all represent things that lend to moments like Thor weilding two Hammers of the Worthy while holding Mjolnir in his teeth Zoro style. Toad sacrificing himself to cure the Legacy Virus or demonic portals burning anyone that tries to close them. The abilities are all very flavorful and while that can lead to things like 10 names for -1 damage, if you want a narrative game you really owe it to yourself to cry "Bow to the Will of M.O.D.O.K.!" when using the power. Like most games, its just how much you want to put into it and with things like the Ultimate Encounters there are definitely a lot of ways to play with as much narrative as you want.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




I definitely prefer when designers first and foremost want to have a neat, elegant game of simple, interlocking mechanisms that create a lot of decision space for players rather then when they are hell-bent on writing pages upon pages of niche, corner-case rules full of exceptions because the just have to represent, for instance, how erratic Goblin Fanatics are.

It ends up with slowing the game down, when you try to re-read the minutiae for a single action, with making mistakes and with abusing the hell out of these rules, because they are too long and convoluted not to be full of loopholes. And at the end of the day you don't really get any more opportunities for interesting decisions and interplay out of them
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





Here’s a thought - maybe the game could include the things I’d like to see without being more complicated if it trimmed down the existing rules. I haven’t played it yet but it looks extremely complicated already. I wouldn’t say any of the things I’m proposing are niche - I’d say they’re pretty fundamental to what the superhero genre is all about.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think it's not really the length of the rule that is important on its own but rather the ratio between how long/complicated the rule is and how many interesting and relevant decision points it adds to the game.

A page of rules that offers players multiple opportunities for interesting, non-obvious, impactful decisions is something else than the same page of rules that introduces one mostly obvious decision every 5 games.

With how, for example, flight is difficult to depict on a flat table, I'd expect it to be more in the second category -its impact on gameplay not warranting the length and complication of its rules. As such it's a thing to cut from the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/10 12:19:43


 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





I get that but I’d also say it’s important what the game is about that matters. You couldn’t make a game about WW2 spitfires without rules for flight. I’d say it’s just as essential for superhero games. Characters who fly are a completely different kettle of fish from those who don’t and flying IS a big important part of the comics. Also your very much encourages to use buildings which makes the game is 3D and not a 2D thing
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, actually many (most) games about dogfighting air/spacecraft ignore the altitude aspect just for that reason - the amount of added rules and upkeep wouldn't translate into similar amount of added decision opportunity and relevant gamestate changes.

Even tiny rules can be useless like that. GW are masters in such inelegant, wasteful design. For example the fact that some unit seargant has +1A and +1S doesn't affect your decisions or gamestate in the slightest apart from corne-case scenarios once every 30 games. It could be removed at no loss in either. But it just stays as pointless memory deadweight.

Rules like this should be avoided IMHO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/10 15:11:05


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Honestly, I don't think flight is all that important in comics combat. It's a big part of comic characters, but more as a travel mechanic. In actual combat its pretty rare you see a fight where someone is flying and just shooting a foe that can't reach them for very long. It has more to do with the range of their attacks than being able to fly. If the enemy is on the ground, so is Thor. Hilariously, even Iron Man usually ends up fighting on the ground unless his job is to get knocked out by something thrown at them.

Overall, flying characters feel like they're flying in this game often because their sculpts depict it well (except original Iron Man sadly) and the ability to move to high elevations mixed with long range attacks lets them get to where they need to be and contribute. They're just always flying for the most part.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





I can see what you mean. It isn't a game about superheroes travelling long distances - it's a game about up close fighting. Now that I've assembled the whole set I realise how big the cars and terrain pieces are and how the action really is focussed in on a quite a small area. I can see how being able to fly a few km away wouldn't add much. The miniatures are all fantastic and I'm really looking forward to getting painting now.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Yeah. One of the things that's not immediately obvious is that the figures are actually Primaris scale rather than the usual 30 mm. It makes the table a little smaller than most 3x3 games, particularly since you deploy 6" up, making the board more like a 2x3.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






The game is a ton of fun. It is essentially a streamlined mission-focused 2D game with 3D playing pieces and a superhero theme. It's not meant to be a crunchy simulation for "realistic" super hero fights.

Flying / Climbing - MCP is a 2D game. Terrain cannot overlap other terrain, Characters cannot overlap other characters. Characters must always be entirely within the bounds of any terrain they are standing on. Height is an abstract concept that is accounted for with the Size attribute of a model. The elegance of this is that line of sight and cover are extremely straightforward and easy to determine. Also, every character is able to hurt every other character. Having the ability to fly above the table or cling to buildings would make it so some characters are untouchable. It would completely undermine the point of the game being streamlined and mission focused and every character needs to be a possible threat to every other character.

Throwing terrain / Debis - Throwing terrain or throwing characters into terrain is a TON of fun and extremely useful in the game. Again, MCP is a streamlined mission focused game. The terrain rules are there to add to the flavor of the super hero setting in a relatively simple and elegant way without adding unnecessary crunchiness to the rules. Besides the tactical usefulness of throwing stuff, there are sometimes strategic advantages to being able to "delete" a piece of terrain from the game if you need to clear a path for your team to get to an objective or attack an enemy. Adding to the complexity of the game by trying to work around debris would slow things down and keep battlefields clogged up.

MCP is a great game, but as I've said, it's a very specific type of game that works extremely well with a super hero theme. It's not a crunchy simulator. It's not a sloppy kill fest. It's a game about scoring victory points with a rule set mean to facilitate quick, strategic, and clean gameplay while avoiding complicated positioning. The crunchiness in the game comes from the bespoke character rules as they interact with each other and the missions.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





It's a great game, my favourite at the moment. Rules wise it takes a bit of getting your head around, there's quite a few conditions and niche situation's to work out but I keep a laminated cheat sheet with a summary of the rules to hand.
And the rules being relatively abstract as with the power ratings of the characters is ideal for this type of game.
In fact I think it's one of those few games that rules wise is just about perfect. The individual characters need the odd tweak which Atomic Mass have already started doing.

I've been playing a while, my first model was a lead marine and my first White Dwarf was bound with staples 
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

It's one of the best games in the market, but it heavily leans on the casual side. Very little rules minutia

AI & BFG: / BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / WWX: Union

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




 Vector Strike wrote:
It's one of the best games in the market, but it heavily leans on the casual side. Very little rules minutia


Be careful here, while the rules are very easy to learn, the actual strategic depth of the game is as great or greater than any other game on the market. It's one of the few games where 'do I kill my opponent's model' can be a brain-buster of a question.


 
   
 
Forum Index » Atomic Mass Games (Star Wars & Marvel: Crisis Protocol)
Go to: