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.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
"body armor" on walls and gates and inanimate objecs sound's wierd to me.

Also, considering the fire, If I'd have the siege-ram-tank, I would take my chances on the wall pieces. Archers still can miss and can't ignore armor. This fire effect can't miss and ignores armor.

There technically is just armor and shield armor. Armor represented by AR on the model/fortification without the shield tag. If something ignore(s) body armor, then damage from that attack will ignore any points of Armor from the target that does not have the shield tag.

It's also just fire, so it's a Vy test... Which can fail and is up to you failing it, not your opponent failing an attack roll...

 WhiteRoo wrote:
"body armor" on walls and gates and inanimate objecs sound's wierd to me.

Also, considering the fire, If I'd have the siege-ram-tank, I would take my chances on the wall pieces. Archers still can miss and can't ignore armor. This fire effect can't miss and ignores armor.

'Body Armor' is a standardization of terms. Valkyr also have 'Body Armor' that is just the wood and metal frame of the mecha suit.

Archers can still deal more damage then your 5 AR, All it takes is 3 Archers to do that.

Lets say you've got your fully upgraded Siege Ram (20L, 20G) that moves Speed 4, and gives its operators 2AR Shield.

I've got 5 Weasel Fusiliers up on the wall with Rifles. I Sniper your Siege Ram, 1AP knocks its armor down to 4.. 2 Shots remove its armor, and then 3 more shots finish off its Vitality.

Okay, but...

If we have a wall piece full with archers and a gate piece right next to it on A side, and a fully upgraded siege ram on B,

If B wants to assault A, where will he do it?

Logic dictates he would go to the gate and try to ram it. After all how hard can be to ram down a gate in comparsion to the wall next to it? Well the gate can be opened while walls doesn't built with this option in mind. Arrows/shots will rain no matter where the ram goes.

In game terms the wall stands with 15 HP while the gate with 10 HP and 2 AR shield. Body Armor is ignored because it's an upgraded ram. Let's say I use two rat raiders and two Hamster berserkers on the ram MS 3 and MS 7. and player B don't use any bonus on this.

Let's also say that player B has the opportunity to ram this construction of one wall and one gate.

Well, 2*3+2*7 is 20 is enough to get the gate down on any roll on the D10, or it's also enough to get the wall down right next to it.

What's player B gonna do?

It will say skip on the fire and rams down the wall causing 5 model casuality in the process and making the hole he needs.

If this ram is propelled by 4 MS 2 models, B still have the chance to get the wall down on one try on a roll 8 or more. Or it will definetly go down on 2, sparing B's units from the fire. Yeah, the units on the wall might have an arrow or two to say, but even if you take down the gate first try, units of player B still has to face them AND the fire.

So, currently it's wise to not ram the gates.

Isn't that wierd just a little?

Why was player B allowed to get so close to Player A's wall without being shot?

Like Cy said, 5 Weasels with Rifles can Sniper your Siege Ram. I can do that with automatically hitting from 25 inches away.

Why is that important?

Siege Rams has to go near to the walls or they worth nothing. So we can assume this siege ram managed it.

What I would like to say is that ramming the wall is a better strategy than ramming the gate.

Then Ram the wall, Siege Rams did do that after all...

Or burrow under the wall.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Why is that important?

Siege Rams has to go near to the walls or they worth nothing. So we can assume this siege ram managed it.

What I would like to say is that ramming the wall is a better strategy than ramming the gate.

And if your siege ram gets near my wall or my gate then they're worth nothing, so I could just as easily assume that I manage to prevent it.

The problem with all of your hypothetical situations is that you're only ever taking into account a very particular set of circumstances which is leaving you with a very narrow mindset of the how the game is and should be played. You're free to walk up the board with Siege Rams and attempt to break down my walls, just as much as I'm free to take things on those walls to shoot at your operators.

And since this is the playtest thread, you won't know the effectiveness of your siege rams until you get out there and play. Stop Theoryfiring everything and start playing Brushfire.

Edit: My posts might seem inflammatory, but they're not I'm just trying to get you to see the broader picture WhiteRoo. You do provide us with lots of good feedback.

With that said, I've got 5 Red Wu with Bingfa I've got to paint, I'll be back later.

Sadly, I have more opportunity to write here than play, that's true.

In the end every situation in this game is based on a wery particular circumstance, no? There is no broad picture whitout the small parts of it.

I know about a tabletop simulator that would allow us to play over the internet. It's free and everything, it's called "Universal Battle" (http://www.universalbattle.com).

Wanna try it out?

from a quick glance, that only appears to use D6s.

Honestly I'm finding all of the Siege stuff extremely off putting. Doubly so because I can't buy them at OTL.

I think I'm going to house rule Brushfire for my group. They will find it more appealing as a game and easier to digest without Siege warfare included. I will have to make house rules on the resources and stuff too I guess to make it work.

One of the main problems is the lack of purpose. The whole siege aspect feels shoehorned into a game that would function better without it. If you could download a free 'Siege Expansion Ruleset' where the stuff could be brought in as part of specific missions then I think a few people would try it out for a change of pace. Overall I just want to put down a load of terrain, hang with a buddy and make our little anthropomorphic soldiers fight.

Maybe that's just my opinion. If so I can, as stated, just houserule the game and let folks choose from one of my warbands when we want to skirmish. I'd probably have to houserule 'no exemplars' too since they would be 100% not optional. I could of course just pre balance my warbands but that means I wouldn't be driven to buying any more stuff which could quickly render the game stale for me. All in that's a fair bit of work I'd have to do just to find a willing opponent when there are other games I could just buy and play. I'd probably give it a go because I love the novelty of Brushfire but I don't know if I'd see it through and that would sadly relegate Brushfire to a cupboard which would be horrible.


Hmmm, that may come across a little rough but if it does I'm really just being honest, no harm meant. I want to play Brushfire. I just don't want to play by myself. Nor do I want the game to go stale. Nor do I want to rewrite the rules for my group. And I do want to be a OTL patron.

Am I the only person or part of tiny percentage of people that feel this way?

If you think it would function better without it.. then you should be easily able to ignore it.

You Do Not Need To Take Siege Weapons Or Fortifications Or Exemplars In An Army, and they are designed in a way that if your Opponent Likes those things, you're not screwed because you didn't take them.

Unlike say 40k, where you can easily be screwed over by taking an infantry heavy list while your opponent takes nothing by armor and flyers.

Another equivalent to what your saying appears is this: I don't like Axony, so I'm going to house rule that no one in my group can play Axony.

Not at all, that's a logical fallacy. It's the equivalent of, "I don't like the effect Axony has on the game and neither does any of my group so I'll write them out to make the game more enjoyable for everyone involved."

If it has no effect on the rest of the game if I don't use these things against an opponent who is then what purpose do they serve? I certainly would have resources left over so how can I not be at a disadvantage?

That's like saying, "We will take identical armies but I'll have all this extra stuff to kill you with and defend myself with and we will be completely equally matched."

Universal Batlle supports all kinds of dices from six to twenty side and even direction dice.

I also agree with Casey's Law here. I will have to have a lot of house rule. We rule with "only released models" now for various reasons. And one will have a lot of unused resource with the new edition if you don't take exemplars or siege machines.

I think that's the main point here. How many Brushfire players feel like that? If it's the majority then you'll gain more fans and profit by adapting to the general consensus. If we are just an outspoken majority then we will bend to the game you make or leave.

Outspoken majority is not what you think it means

minority*

Haha, good spot.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
These aren't much as questions as feedback from the rulebook.

I think this is an extremely important point. The purpose of reading beta rules and providing feedback on what isn't clear is not to ask questions and have them clarified here only. It's to have them clarified in the rules themselves so that they are clear to others.

If it's not getting across to people that units that are fearsome are not immune to fear, for example, you put in parantheses (this does not make them immune to fear). Just as an example- maybe that's already been addressed, I really have no idea.

But I am saying that because the point should be to see what people are having trouble with and improve it. I understood Much better how to play Brushfire after TempleCon, but I'm hoping that in the new edition, a forum or in-person chat with the creators will not be required to make things clear enough to play.

Hope that makes sense and is helpful. As WhiteRoo said, people posting in this thread are not just going to be asking questions for their own sake- they're providing feedback on what isn't clear so that those things can be improved. Therefore, WhiteRoo's list of points (which I saw you replied to individually Cyp, and that's great) shouldn't be taken as questions to be responded to here only, but feedback to put into rules text revisions to make things more fully explained and clearer, where they are causing confusion for others.

Even if they're technically able to be understood, it never hurts to explain things twice, or to spell something out that is a common stumbling block- for example, that a fearsome unit is not immune to fear . Again just as an example from the previous ruleset, not sure if it's been cleared up already in the beta ruleset... but I really hope the beta is Truly a beta that will be continue to be reworked and scrubbed until it's really as clear and fully explained as possible. Not, something that is good enough but still causing a lot of questions. Now's the time to make things crystal clear so that they cause as few questions as possible later (I want to say absolutely none, but we know that can't happen )

We do appricate the feedback, and are taking it in consideration. However, we do also need to 'see you work', tell us what makes you come about the conclusions/issues.

Why would you assume that causing Fearsome make you Immune to Fearsome? Would causing Damage make you Immune to Damage? There is no ability in the game were by simply having it you are also immune to it, and citing that 'OtherGame X works this way..' isn't a good reason.

But if you said "Does having Fearsome grant immunity, because on page X it says 'This' and that would imply it does?" we'd be able to locate the source of the issue, and fix/clarify it.

Just like Video Game Betas, the more you put into your bug reports the more we can get out of it.

Have you gotten a chance to read through the rewritten core rules RiTides? You were pretty good about pointing out issues with 1.2 back when you started out, we went and used a chunk of that thread (along with other peoples comments) for the rewriting process.

Okay so Alf pm'd me a question and I think the answer is of benefit to this thread at the very least for record keeping so I said I'd reply here.

Alfndrate wrote:Siege Stuff
I guess I didn't quite get your point, but what is so off putting about the siege stuff if I may ask?

The reasons my group of friends and I have found the siege stuff off putting are as follows(in no particular order):
- OTL doesn't produce the models but they are a large component of any army list.
- It makes the game much more expensive.
- It doesn't fit with combat in this scale, particularly with the quantity of pieces required.
- Using seperate resources from FD means it can't be replaced with more troops which ties you into playing siege combat.
- Having to enlist crew separately means siege equipment starts to leech FD resources which hurts the actual infantry combat further and pushes for higher level gaming to make up for it.
- It complicates the game to the point where it's just about siege warfare, the focus is entirely off of anthropomorphic combat. It would be a very exciting expansion book but it's a distraction from the core of the game.

That somes it up pretty wholly, I might have missed something or not been clear. Anyone who agrees is free to add to what I've said if I haven't summed it up well. I'd be very interested in an expansion that covered it and I'd probably pick it up for a laugh somewhere down the line btw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree with everything RiTides said there.

I'd also like to say that,

Cyporiean wrote:'OtherGame X works this way..' isn't a good reason.

this is actually a very good reason. Perception is based on experience. If a large number of people are automatically jumping to a conclusion then that needs to be clarified or it'll keep happening. This has to be taken into account with every single product, it's the reason shampoo packaging looks a certain way or why a character in your favourite book has that name. Otherwise your setting the consumer up for a fall and in turn setting yourself up for a fall.

Just my two cents.

I think that a the feedback we're getting has been good in 80% of the cases. There are a few things that make me scratch my head, which is okay, it's been a long weekend and without tone and inflection behind the words on the page, I can only take them how I imagine they're being said.

With that said, I was giving Cy some feedback earlier today, based upon my list building. I haven't had a chance to play with 2nd ed yet, so if you go back a page you'll see that I have a 200 resource list with basically 100 to 150 gold left. I made the suggestion to her that perhaps Chugoku gets an ability similar to Fatherlanding and w/e Civitas has, but instead of converting resource a and b into resource c, they can use gold to hire other Chugokan Color Guard at like 10 gold with standard equipment, and their specific Great Empire Rule. It's something we're certainly discussing, but My reasoning was that a lot of my gold and lumber was used up in 1st Edition by upgrading to pikes, heaters, etc... In 2nd Ed, I get a free poleaxe or crossbow, so at most I spend 5lr per Chugokan Color Guard to give them a heater, which tends to leave me with a bunch of gold. Now I don't mind having left over resources when I'm done with a list, but that's just me, and some people like spending every last point they can (nothing wrong with that either). I was simply thinking of a way that I could spend my points if I wanted to, or not lol.

That's sort of what we're looking at for feedback. You came across "issue x, and feel that it could be resolved by resolution y, so in the end we get outcome xy in the book.

Casey's argument in the competitive play thread suggested making Siege Weapons more expensive, because he felt they didn't have as much of a place on the battlefield as other guys. A fair point, and we discussed it, and we felt that they were in 1st edition and weren't game breaking, they were the same cost as they are now, and Brushfire is a historical parody game, and like Cy said... Siege Weapons played a large part in historicals,

Can this change as we approach the end of Q1 2014? Yeah, but we need people to go out and play, "see you work" as Cy put it.


Edit: Casey, if I remember correctly, we're trying to acquire a 28mm Ballista model
But with as many historical models as there are out there, it's not hard to find a trebuchet, cannon, etc... in scale with the game. And much like Flames of War, you can't copyright historical stuff, so people can have more product out there and keep prices down.

Edit the Second: You do bring up several points, but no need to go down the, "well I think this and you think this road" we've been traveling down. I've got fish to grill! But I am glad to get a concise, clear response from you on the situation

Several Good points, but they can also be easily countered.. but I'm not going to get back into that.

I will say that Brushfire is a 'Historical Parody Wargame' and has always been marketed as such, the Anthropomorphic visual style is because we're tired of 'Humans VS Orks VS Elves' in TTG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Casey's Law wrote:

I'd also like to say that,

Cyporiean wrote:'OtherGame X works this way..' isn't a good reason.

this is actually a very good reason.

But it isn't.

Or have I missed a bunch of posts in the Warmachine subsection that answers rules questions by using Warhammer FAQs?

Fair play to you guys. I don't want to get into a conversation with endless counter arguements either, haha!

I hope everything I said was taken positively as the last thing I want to do is upset anyone or belittle any of your cool work. I certainly wouldn't want this to effect our interactions. The bottom line is you guys have a cool game and although it doesn't suit my tastes exactly it may just be my twisted point of view.

As I say I can alter the game to get my group to play and failing that I'll just keep my hand in as much as I can. I still have a few warbands to collect afterall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Casey's Law wrote:

I'd also like to say that,

Cyporiean wrote:'OtherGame X works this way..' isn't a good reason.

this is actually a very good reason...

But it isn't.

Or have I missed a bunch of posts in the Warmachine subsection that answers rules questions by using Warhammer FAQs?

Come on, Emily! You know that isn't what I said.

Made Up Example:
80% of people think Fearsome units are immune to Fearsome because they share a perspective based on similar experiences.
It's your duty to clarify that so that they don't make the mistake. You can't expect 80% of your customers to email you asking for clarification or continue to play it wrong.

As RiTides said, if there is an issue being raised it has to be addressed in the rules not clarified via you.


I've made my point very clear here. I'd rather not keep back and frothing it if you don't understand what I'm saying if that's okay.

Yeah, I think my point was it's feedback for you to take or not- the playtesters, if they choose to volunteer for such, don't need to justify it. If it's confusing, and enough people say so, it's worth clarifying! My main thought on version 1 of the rules is it just needed More. More text, diagrams, examples.

Fearsome not making one immune to fear- all I know is everybody I've seen (myself, Gymnogyps, WhiteRoo, and I think even Catyrpelius) made this mistake the first time. Why Not clarify? The more explicit and fully fleshed out every single rule can be, the better imo, but especially the confusing ones.

An example from 40k in this edition is mixed armor. Drives people nuts understanding it. If you know something is tripping up all your playtesters, all I'm saying is don't rebut it (however valid!) but "fix" it! I.e., write a clause saying "fear causing units are not immune to fear". PP does this especially for warlock/warcaster entries, but also for other units, in a little box: "Note you cannot snack on a model removed from play by this ability".

I understand what your saying, but I don't want every issue brought up to be brought up because X Game does it this way. Especially when there is nothing in Brushfire to suggest it should work like X Game.

Like if there was a unit that had some text that said 'This unit has fearsome, but is not immune to it' that would give a reason for the issue coming up.

Infinity and 40k have Armor Saves, but no one is asking where the Armor Saves are listed in Brushfire.. and I feel it would be more confusing for us to say that 'Brushfire doesn't have Armor Saves' in the rules when they don't have anything to do with the system, along with being a waste of space to list and catalog everything that Brushfire does differently.

As I said, we're listening to feedback and making changes to the rules based on that feedback.

Otherthen Whiteroo (sorry to call you out on it Roo), lets get a count of hands of folks that assumed that Fearsome granted Immune to Fearsome

The reason why I write here is because I care about the game.

I was tried to only point out things that I find not good enough or seems wierd to me and not try to come up with ideas about fixing them. If you say you would like to hear the ideas, I'll write them down.

I just listed it . Gymnogyps, myself, and I think Catyrpelius! I'm not saying to make a note of it due to 40k, I'm saying for it's own sake. And I meant it more as an example- in case others also get confused by things from WhiteRoo's list (this one just stood out to me because it had tripped us up in our games, too).

Well, Warhammer Fantasy has fear mechanic and fear causing units are immune to fear. The mechanic is so common between games and most of the time it is true.

There is a reasoning behind it too: If you are a hamster barbarian red from blood(not your own), slain countless solders(actually twenty something but you don't even care to count) wielding two axes and just in the middle of ripping some heads off, are you gonna turn and run because that mouse over there has that wierd flag?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Well, Warhammer Fantasy has fear mechanic and fear causing units are immune to fear. The mechanic is so common between games and most of the time it is true.

There is a reasoning behind it too: If you are a hamster barbarian red from blood(not your own), slain countless solders(actually twenty something but you don't even care to count) wielding two axes and just in the middle of ripping some heads off, are you gonna turn and run because that mouse over there has that wierd flag?

Perhaps that Hamster warrior is from a rather superstitious tribe, that believes flags marked with that symbol bring bad omens and diseases. There are plenty of reasons why a model that causes fear might be immune to fear.

While I didn't think fear causing models were immune to fear, I could see how someone coming from almost any other game would be tripped up by that. Though the important thing to remember in all games is what is written in the book. It's fine that people get tripped up (it happens to me all the time in games), but if you're unsure, you check the rulebook or make a quick house rule, and then after the game you check it out in the rulebook to make sure

 WhiteRoo wrote:
There is a reasoning behind it too: If you are a hamster barbarian red from blood(not your own), slain countless solders(actually twenty something but you don't even care to count) wielding two axes and just in the middle of ripping some heads off, are you gonna turn and run because that mouse over there has that wierd flag?

It could be a very scary mouse. But thats why you gotta make the Fearsome Test.

What if instead of that mouse, there was a massive beetle towering over the warzone and mashing your comrades into the dirt? There is always a bigger fish.


And RiTides, you may have just listed it.. but Catyr and Gym haven't posted about it in this thread. In fact, I don't think Gym has posted anything about 2.0 :p

So thats 2 Votes

Then what would make the big bug to loose it's nerves? Maybe the mouse with the flag?(Saying that the big bug is actually an Elite unit is not fair here)

But I believe that's not a point. The point is, the rulebook does not answer this question for us.

And believe me. I may not be new to wargames, I have played some not-so-solid RPGs and went tooth and nails with someone over an unclear rule for weeks. Just figuratively of course.