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.

Of the current topics, Siege Weapons may receive cards in the future. They would be Print on Demands until we release siege weapons.

AP will remain as is, weapons will remain on the back of the card, and only warband heroes will receive extra cards, to cover the hLVL 2 version.

 Alfndrate wrote:

The change you're saying is to make it no different between melee and range. Well sometimes you have AP that is different between the two. You could have a unit with rifles that have AP1. In melee they have swords, which have no AP. So with your changes they have 1 AP as their stat, which means that their swords are just as powerful as their files. Hardly the game changer that firearms were...

Rifles are the only weapons that are causing this(and the tail blade that is a unique weapon to begin with). So if that is the only thing, then rifles should have an exception trough a keyword. It would be a more commonly used one than extended reach.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

The change you're saying is to make it no different between melee and range. Well sometimes you have AP that is different between the two. You could have a unit with rifles that have AP1. In melee they have swords, which have no AP. So with your changes they have 1 AP as their stat, which means that their swords are just as powerful as their files. Hardly the game changer that firearms were...

Rifles are the only weapons that are causing this(and the tail blade that is a unique weapon to begin with). So if that is the only thing, then rifles should have an exception trough a keyword. It would be a more commonly used one than extended reach.

WhiteRoo, please see Misk's post above yours you may have missed it while typing up this response, I'm fairly certain it answers your problems

Allright then.

But add the card's name to it's back side as well.

PDF Update on WargameVault is going out.

Updates Include:
- Changes to the way Exemplars work; Exemplars may now form squads with other Friendly Exemplars.
- The Wanderers and Experts have lost their ability to sequentially activate.
- The Wanderers have had a slight cost increase.
- Axony History fluff updated.
- Ribenguo's Cards have been updated.

On Aug 21st the Public Playtesting will end.

In September/October we will be releasing 'Brushfire Second Edition - Point Zero' a Rules Only mini book, containing all of the core rules along with of the Units in the initial Eight Factions; But no Fluff or Art. Point Zero will have an SRP of $15 and will be available through our regular channels and WargameVault's Print on Demand*.

Point Zero is intended to be a temporary release to allow the rules to be finalized and on the market while we continue to work on updating the fluff and art.

*This should be nice for our EU/UK fans as it will ship from the EU then, rather than the states.

I have a question about citiy gates and wall. GW castle Walls and gates are 12x2, well in the rules you say that walls should be 6x2. What is the best way to resolve this?

I can only think of 2 ways to deal with this.

1)It counts as two wall sections, so I should mark them in half to represent this. (That and get a extra wall to cut in half for when a wall section goes down)
2)Say it's a single wall section that coasts twice as much.

After Righting it out it feels like 1 is the ovioues choice for the walls, but it's a harder call with the gate.

Those should be treated as two separate walls. If you were treat it as one wall, you'd have to increase the AR and VY along with the cost, and it would never be quite equal to just having two wall sections.

For an extra wide gate, I would suggest marking a section of it to the proper size, say with a piece of felt under it, or dice on the parapets, and treat the other half as a wall. Or have two gates right next to each other. You could imagine that the BF gate represents a small wayfort gate, rather than a full siege-ready castle gate and a double wide is more accurate to that sort, one that a carriage could ride through or the like.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
Those should be treated as two separate walls. If you were treat it as one wall, you'd have to increase the AR and VY along with the cost, and it would never be quite equal to just having two wall sections.

For an extra wide gate, I would suggest marking a section of it to the proper size, say with a piece of felt under it, or dice on the parapets, and treat the other half as a wall. Or have two gates right next to each other. You could imagine that the BF gate represents a small wayfort gate, rather than a full siege-ready castle gate and a double wide is more accurate to that sort, one that a carriage could ride through or the like.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440155a&prodId=prod1095523

This is the gate section, It's 12" in length. The doorway area is about 6", with the door itself being 3.5" wide. Their is 3" to either side. The two doors split in directly in the middle.

Maby if I was to treat it as two gates, with the gates connected?

Yeah, thats what I meant by my last sentence. Also, If you're fighting with resources because you're doubling up, consider giving your opponent an extra siege weapon or two equivalent to what you're taking and go over the limit a bit. For intentional siege based games, you could include 'generic resources' like in the scenarios, that are only spent on Siege/Fortifications.

More just a rules question, but if a model with a bow gets +1 ATT from the Hyena Witch Doctors does quick nock trigger more than once?

Can an army hire Mercenaries from their own list, such as Axony hiring some kernish terriers for 6 Gold instead of the usual 5 Food? If yes, can these mercs form a squad with 'actual' army models?

 Galen wrote:
More just a rules question, but if a model with a bow gets +1 ATT from the Hyena Witch Doctors does quick nock trigger more than once?

No, "Bloodlust" would have to grant an Additional Attack Set for Quick Nock to apply.

 Galen wrote:

Can an army hire Mercenaries from their own list, such as Axony hiring some kernish terriers for 6 Gold instead of the usual 5 Food? If yes, can these mercs form a squad with 'actual' army models?

Yes, there is not a restriction on the mercenaries you can take.

Yes, as long as they follow the Squad formation rules. (IE Same Unit, Same Equipment)

What is the thinking behind 'same equipment' again? Was it just for ease of gaming?

 Casey's Law wrote:
What is the thinking behind 'same equipment' again? Was it just for ease of gaming?

Yes. It makes things easier/quicker.

Fair enough. I'd prefer if it was a little more complex to give me some more choices but I'm probably in a minority. Would it be difficult to add a simple rule to allow it? Like deal with one load out at a time and special rules are negated by different units without the rule? It's be really nice to have those options, it adds so much to the game without much effort and it can be ignored if people want a quicker game.

 Casey's Law wrote:
Fair enough. I'd prefer if it was a little more complex to give me some more choices but I'm probably in a minority. Would it be difficult to add a simple rule to allow it? Like deal with one load out at a time and special rules are negated by different units without the rule? It's be really nice to have those options, it adds so much to the game without much effort and it can be ignored if people want a quicker game.

Hordes, and very specific units (that I can't remember atm) can have mixed equipment.

Could you maybe play a small 50 point game to test this out? You've got till August 21st to make playtest suggestions

 Casey's Law wrote:
Fair enough. I'd prefer if it was a little more complex to give me some more choices but I'm probably in a minority. Would it be difficult to add a simple rule to allow it? Like deal with one load out at a time and special rules are negated by different units without the rule? It's be really nice to have those options, it adds so much to the game without much effort and it can be ignored if people want a quicker game.

Its called 'Horde Infantry', like Kernish Terriers.

I've been out of the loop sorry, so that just applies to equipment instead of units? It's a good start but I think my idea will encourage a meta of players trying to get really interesting lists. You could add a special rule to some units that allows them to pass on their special rules to anyone they join just to grow the idea.

I'll definitely try and get a game to test it but I'm really busy right now, I likely won't get a game of anything for a few months. Maybe someone else could try it out for me? I can explain my idea more if necessary.

 Casey's Law wrote:
I've been out of the loop sorry, so that just applies to equipment instead of units? It's a good start but I think my idea will encourage a meta of players trying to get really interesting lists. You could add a special rule to some units that allows them to pass on their special rules to anyone they join just to grow the idea.

I'll definitely try and get a game to test it but I'm really busy right now, I likely won't get a game of anything for a few months. Maybe someone else could try it out for me? I can explain my idea more if necessary.

Yes, Horde Infantry just allows you to ignore the 'Same Equipment' requirement and ups the Squad Cap to 15.

Mouse Conscripts can activate with other units (Civitan Marines & Chipmunk Weapon Teams), and several Exemplars/Adjutant give their abilities to their squad.

Yeh I remember that stuff, i'm suggesting something rolled out over the whole game though. It would add so many dimensions.

Reminder: 18 Days remain to submit balance issues/clarity issues/play testing reports.

What is resource shifting? I've heard it mentioned in some of the battle reports but had a hard time finding it in the rules.

I think the explanation for how resource shifting works, should be in the section of rules that explain army creation.

 Lockark wrote:
What is resource shifting? I've heard it mentioned in some of the battle reports but had a hard time finding it in the rules.

I think the explanation for how resource shifting works, should be in the section of rules that explain army creation.

Its a nick-name for what Vandalands can do, trading one Resource for another.

Do you guys ever tried what happens if one side decides to build an army list with the sole purpose to have way more squads than the other? I didn't really have the resource to test it, but I see that what will happen is this player will move half of it's army at once when the other runs out of squads to activate.

Same situation, when a player starts to play on this, like activating one model at a time in order to make the other run out of activation so he can make moves whitout the other being able to respond.

Since you cannot flat-out pass activation, when you just want to wait, you just going to start doing these "I activate one and do nothing" type of moves.

Which could go down in a spiral of wait when the other player start doing the same.

Maybe it's not really an issue, but I thought I mention it.

Yes, many times. The slower player ends up having trouble causing damage to his oppenent.

So it's just doesn't works?

It is an issue I face many times with my Red Wu, 10 resources for a 1VY model is rough. I still don't have too many issues. This does change in 2nd ed though

 WhiteRoo wrote:
So it's just doesn't works?

Define 'Works'.

The game still functions, and there are situations where you might want to break things up to several 1 Model Squads, but its not some sort of major game changer.

I am of the opinion that alternating activation makes MSU style armies play at a small disadvantage. Or at least, it makes them more vulnerable and less hard to handle in an IGYG style game.

I only say this because I've played a lot more Heroscape than Brushfire.*




*Through no fault of my own.

As someone that plays a few alternating activation games, there are two ways to go about building your forces.
1) You out activate your opponent. You put down so many models/squads that you choke him with the literal amount of models you have left to activate.
2) You go Grey Knight Draigowing on them and you plop down a few small but hardy units that can weather the storm when it's not your turn.

This second option is harder to do, but it is doable. Like I said, it's a little rough on my Red Wu that lose out in cost to Lem Han (in the current edition), because 10 plus upgrades means that if I limit upgrades to 10 gold and lr per model (on average) then I can at most field 10 models plus a hero at 100 points. Compare that to the 20 Cavalry models I could get with Lem Han.

My Aquitar List functions around the idea that some of the things I have can weather the storm. Namely my Badger at Claw "deathstar" 5 Badgers, Iron Claws, and a medic usually means that you might out activate me, but that unit is going to hurt your face something fierce, and will usually survive long enough to do something about it.

Different armies means different strategies.