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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Earth Dragon wrote:
Not the hired hands, but Wyatt Earp was seen with a techy shield and rifle and one sidekick is a more generic droid charactered featured on the kickstarter main page.

Has me dying to see more.

I'm looking at the KS page on my phone, and I don't see anything labeled wyatt earp, or the sidekick you're speaking of... Since you know what they are, can you post an image in this thread? or point me to a post in this thread that has them?

Wyatt Earps concept art is shown on the updates page. The generic droid he's talking about is the one shown on the main page on the lawman scroll.

I don't remember other models having shields, why does Wyatt have one?

Because he's the wild west Captain America. Duh

@Alfn

Here you go, you know how I like to post images. hehe

Edit: Oops didnt see them great big pictures ><

Wyatt Earps special rule:
Wyatt Earp and UR-30 Robots will be able to create a shield wall that will give all the models a +2 to their armor.
It will also provide cover and a +2 armor to any models within 2" of the back arch of the models using shield wall.

The lawmen appear to have rules that make them kings of the showdown. Their best 6 will match up better then anyone elses best 6. So I expect higher then average point cost across the board, and an emphasis on defense/protection.

This is what has me really interested in theme above the fact lawmen are just plain cool.

 Madmick wrote:
@Alfn

Here you go, you know how I like to post images. hehe

Edit: Oops didnt see them great big pictures ><

Wyatt Earps special rule:
Wyatt Earp and UR-30 Robots will be able to create a shield wall that will give all the models a +2 to their armor.
It will also provide cover and a +2 armor to any models within 2" of the back arch of the models using shield wall.

So the "toughest and deadliest gunman of his day" is hiding behind a shield?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Earth Dragon wrote:
The lawmen appear to have rules that make them kings of the showdown. Their best 6 will match up better then anyone elses best 6. So I expect higher then average point cost across the board, and an emphasis on defense/protection.

This is what has me really interested in theme above the fact lawmen are just plain cool.

I'm not really all that impressed with the lawmen, the deputy just seems like a robot with pistols.. , and we've all seen enough sci-fi films to know how Robots with rules protocols tend to turn out >_>

Do the underbosses have shields too? Or does he have a shield because the other lawmen are metal?

@Alfn,
I think he has a shield due to his hi IQ level and bullet proof vests were not invented then.

History is always written by the victors, as they say, so if hiding behind a shield allowed you to be the last man standing.
I would tell everyone that I was the rootenist tootenist in the west.

I am a bit bias on the shield though, as I love them. Was a protection spec warrior in WoW for this fact.
And a holy priest, but I don't want to talk about my dress wearing tendencies, lol

Have to say that the robo cop looks pretty sweet to me. I love painting metal all aged.
So, having robots in the desert could be a nice chance for some really rustic looking droids

There has been very little talk about the rules, so I wanted to give a review of what I've digested and have tested.

OVERALL
Overall this looks to be a beer & pretzels, dice-rolling skirmish game. The core mechanics don't allow it to scale well, and has a high degree of randomization, giving it less room for tactical depth. Thematically it injects flavor through the language of the game, but not so much the mechanics.

ALPHA RULES
People are going to jump all over this saying, "how can you tell, this is just the Alpha rules?" (sorry "Charlie" is dumb and incorrect in its usage). The thing is, these elements need to be in the core mechanics of the game, which is what's being presented, otherwise the game becomes a series of amendments or the core has to be redone.

BASIC MECHANICS
The basic mechanics will be easy for most to grasp, especially if they've had experience with Warmachine or 40k. Right now it highly favors long-ranged shooting (sorry melee-oriented Warrior Nations posses, you're hosed for now). It also highly favors anything that gives you extra action points for extra shots. I'm not as concerned about these, since I feel they can still be fixed. What concerns me the most is the armor/damage mechanic. Armor saves are highly random, which really sucks out tactical decisions. A peon (even without armor) can very easily survive most of the shots that hit it. At the same time a boss can very easily die to a small volley. The dice heavily dictate the battle.

SCALABILITY
Despite claims, the game doesn't scale well. The main reason for this is the life mechanic. Every peon has life points. So if you have 50 guys, you need to track the life of all of them, and make sure you keep all of it straight. It quickly becomes a spreadsheet managing game.

THEME
This is the biggest one for me. Throughout the book they do a good job with injecting theme using language. But I feel they really missed a great opportunity in making an interesting game, because the setting has a lot of flavor. Thematic elements need to really be integrated into the core rules, but instead it's just another shooter-puncher. There is an attempt at this, by giving models special rules, but all they really do is give you bonuses to shooting, punching, moving. Gameplay doesn't speak "wild west" to me.

WHY ARE RULES IMPORTANT?
Sure, the miniatures by themselves are cool, but without a good and interesting rule system I don't see much for sustained growth. I've found myself wanting to jump in on the kickstarter full-bore at first, to pairing down to a couple of factions, to now just wanting to get the few models that I think are really cool for display.

carboncopy wrote:
There has been very little talk about the rules, so I wanted to give a review of what I've digested and have tested.

*snip*

WHY ARE RULES IMPORTANT?
Sure, the miniatures by themselves are cool, but without a good and interesting rule system I don't see much for sustained growth. I've found myself wanting to jump in on the kickstarter full-bore at first, to pairing down to a couple of factions, to now just wanting to get the few models that I think are really cool for display.

Thank you, this is something that I've been looking for since I entered this thread. Hearing how the rules pan out doesn't sit well with me. My time is valuable enough as it is, and I don't want to play a game that is going to be overly complex without being too much fun.

@Alfndrate

The rules are actually fairly simple. When you scale up, they still don't become complex. At that point the issue is tediousness.

I think it's fun for just rolling some dice and shooting the breeze. If you are looking for tactical depth though, it'll probably be disappointing.

The rules are called Charlie rules because at the end of the KS, they will present the community with the PDF Beta rule set.

@Carbon, did you play with your troops in units in bigger games?
Just curious as I am sure I saw somewhere that the damage would be slightly different in unit bast games (large battles).
I think it was to the tune of removing a guy every time there is enough damage to the unit to kill 1 bloke.
Not 100% on this, but it was something along those lines.

Dice are going to play a large part in this game I can tell. Is it a huge issue? not really sure tbh.
Look at 40K and the droves of people who throw buckets of dice each turn.
I do think that it does have elements of WM/H, GW and infinity and I will look forward to my first game when I get chance.

We also are not sure about HSV's yet, so perhaps transports and other units may come out?

I would think when you suggest a shooting game, you play with a board set-up like Infinity with a decent amount of terrain,
as this will be the key to the enjoyment imho. Especially as there is a lot of terrain on this KS from OM and MAS.

 Madmick wrote:
The rules are called Charlie rules because at the end of the KS, they will present the community with the PDF Beta rule set.

>_< Except that pre-beta rules are Alpha rules, because they're the first rules... That's why I was confused and questioning it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carboncopy wrote:
@Alfndrate

The rules are actually fairly simple. When you scale up, they still don't become complex. At that point the issue is tediousness.

I think it's fun for just rolling some dice and shooting the breeze. If you are looking for tactical depth though, it'll probably be disappointing.

If I have to look up charts and have random effects, it's entering the realm of too complex.

@Alfn,
Sorry my bad then. I thought the rules prior to coming out were the Alpha rules. ><

I am not sure how much involvement Alessio has had yet in these rules, but I know he will have at least 2 sitting on them, as he is mentioned as having a look at them already IIRC.

 Alfndrate wrote:

carboncopy wrote:
There has been very little talk about the rules, so I wanted to give a review of what I've digested and have tested.

*snip*

WHY ARE RULES IMPORTANT?
Sure, the miniatures by themselves are cool, but without a good and interesting rule system I don't see much for sustained growth. I've found myself wanting to jump in on the kickstarter full-bore at first, to pairing down to a couple of factions, to now just wanting to get the few models that I think are really cool for display.

Thank you, this is something that I've been looking for since I entered this thread. Hearing how the rules pan out doesn't sit well with me. My time is valuable enough as it is, and I don't want to play a game that is going to be overly complex without being too much fun.

The problem I have with your comments is you have yet to say ANYTHING positive, yet you feign interest. You've put a negative spin on any post. Are you actually interested in the game? Your posts would say any but being interested.

We dont all have to be Mike. I'm not a fan of every last portion, I'm just questing your motives of why you bother being apart of the discussion when nothing you say gives evidence that you are a potential consumer. You ensure everything negative is highlighted and every positive is countered.

What is some of the stuff you like?

 Madmick wrote:
@Alfn,
Sorry my bad then. I thought the rules prior to coming out were the Alpha rules. ><

I am not sure how much involvement Alessio has had yet in these rules, but I know he will have at least 2 sitting on them, as he is mentioned as having a look at them already IIRC.

River Horses's website says that the RH team is editing and producing the rules, but I'm sure in the end they're nothing more than paid consultation that Outlaw Miniatures paid for. So in the end, it's OM's call...

 Madmick wrote:
The rules are called Charlie rules because at the end of the KS, they will present the community with the PDF Beta rule set.

I think they miss-named it Charlie because of "Alpha Bravo Charlie", but not only is it referencing the wrong thing, but the wrong direction.

 Madmick wrote:

@Carbon, did you play with your troops in units in bigger games?
Just curious as I am sure I saw somewhere that the damage would be slightly different in unit bast games (large battles).
I think it was to the tune of removing a guy every time there is enough damage to the unit to kill 1 bloke.
Not 100% on this, but it was something along those lines.

Nope, those rules aren't in there. I can foresee them adding that, but it adds a host of other issues which need more rule amendments, such as who takes the hit, who can take the hit, mixed weapons/armor units, etc.

 Madmick wrote:

I would think when you suggest a shooting game, you play with a board set-up like Infinity with a decent amount of terrain,
as this will be the key to the enjoyment imho. Especially as there is a lot of terrain on this KS from OM and MAS.

Sure terrain helps, but then your melee-centric army relies on it. The "On the lookout" rule heavily negates terrain and kind of breaks thing, much like the old overwatch rule used to in 40k. It's fixable though.

Changing the game completely to scale it up sounds like an awful idea. They game should either be designed to scale well, or not. Neither is a bad thing. Just pick.

I'm also surprised there are no character cards for this game. Anytime you have to keep track of multiple wound tracks, I think it helps. Malifaux, WM/H, Relic Knights, HellDorado....all games where each model has multiple wounds. All have stat cards where you can track them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think comparing WWX to Inifity is the wrong thing to do. WWX isn't trying to be like Infinity, and thats okay. But in terms of tactical options, it really isn't even close, and again, that's not a bad thing.

 cincydooley wrote:
Changing the game completely to scale it up sounds like an awful idea. They game should either be designed to scale well, or not. Neither is a bad thing. Just pick.

I'm also surprised there are no character cards for this game. Anytime you have to keep track of multiple wound tracks, I think it helps. Malifaux, WM/H, Relic Knights, HellDorado....all games where each model has multiple wounds. All have stat cards where you can track them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think comparing WWX to Inifity is the wrong thing to do. WWX isn't trying to be like Infinity, and thats okay. But in terms of tactical options, it really isn't even close, and again, that's not a bad thing.

The various Pledge level images that they mention that you get x number of stat cards.

Agreed, when you try to straddle the fence and do both, you end up with a mediocre game.

They should stick to a skirmish level and go full-bore with it. It's more thematic and flavorful, and that's what the settings strong points are.

I'm sure though it's a marketing decision. You don't push as many models with a skirmish level game, and it's hard for people to jump into army-level games because of the investment. Warmachine is running into that issue currently. They're trying to scale upward, but the game isn't as fun at that level, and so a majority of players play smaller games.

@Carbon,
I think those extra rules will be added during Beta in order for people to test run them also. I am hoping so anyway.

@Cincydooly,
When making bigger games, I think that it will be pretty similar, just with a small unit rather than 1x bloke.

There are Character cards for the game, just not released as of yet. Really looking forward to them though.
hey come with the mini's. Not sure if a card deck will be released for each faction, or total game.
I would also like to see a starter game set up after the launch in Aug/Sept.

I was comparing it to infinity in such a way as to associate some of the abilities, like taking extra cover or going prone.
Of course Infinity is a huge beast of independent actions and I am not sure any game could completely pass as being so involved tbh.
But with a mix of easy rules and simple actions, I think it could have a very good pace to it with thinking involved also.
Especially as you take it in turns to move 1-3 different troops in a single turn. Then the other person does the same. until all units have been activated.

EDIT: I am mainly interested in the skirmish level also. so much more flavour, but I will try and see it from all angles, as I will perhaps have a big army also. We will see

The podcast said there were character cards for every guy in the box Cincy that you could mark for damage. Unless I'm crossing gaming slang terms because of my hiatus.

I've only play tested 350 pt games, and with the bare bones option. One thing I can say is that teams do seem to be well built to compliment each other. Some of the warrior nation guys can shoot through cover with their bows, so while they favor melee, you'll be hard press to just hunker down and gun down the approaching hoard. They still be able to get you with their ranged guys while the others move to flank.

Scaling just seems it will be wads of HH and vehicles as opposed to singular, so I have one major thought....blood bowl. In Blood Bowl, certain teams do well early but loose their luster as other teams get more skills. Other teams have great stats but lack of skills early, so they perform better late. Other teams just have pricey rosters that dont come together until you can afford their beef after a few games.

What's my point? I woulnt be surprised to see certain factions perform better or worse depending on the scale. Outlaw said it was a "skirmish first" game, so that's where the balance focus will be, but I could see at least a faction or two lagging behind at all the different point levels. They could prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

If they're marketing the game at both Skirmish and army sized levels, they should make sure that it's balanced and streamlined at both levels.

Here's my $1250 list (it would probably cost that much in real money too ). See if you can beat it:

Dr. Carpathian (145)
x55 Animated Gunman (1100)
----------------
$1245

 Alfndrate wrote:
If they're marketing the game at both Skirmish and army sized levels, they should make sure that it's balanced and streamlined at both levels.

Agreed. Yet I've yet to play a game with significant differences between factions (and this is actual differences not just weapon and pallet swaps but troops still operate the same) where it's 100%, and when scale is involved, normally every group has small holes. And if you plug them, they become unbalanced in other areas.

It always humors me to, whether video game or tabletop game, that the guys playing overpowered teams will always claim it's balanced and then gripe when teams are adjusted to compete as if it is now not balanced. Ah, the coming glories of a game in it's infancy.

Earth Dragon wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
If they're marketing the game at both Skirmish and army sized levels, they should make sure that it's balanced and streamlined at both levels.

Agreed. Yet I've yet to play a game with significant differences between factions (and this is actual differences not just weapon and pallet swaps but troops still operate the same) where it's 100%, and when scale is involved, normally every group has small holes. And if you plug them, they become unbalanced in other areas.

It always humors me to, whether video game or tabletop game, that the guys playing overpowered teams will always claim it's balanced and then gripe when teams are adjusted to compete as if it is now not balanced. Ah, the coming glories of a game in it's infancy.

Okay, but you've said you've never played a game beyond the skirmish level right? So how can you be sure that the differences you're not seeing won't show up in higher dollar games?

I'm saying they probably will have some issues and here's why I think that. Unless they give all the LSVs and HSVs the same stats, which they shouldn't IMO, you're going to have those "holes" for every team. The sweet spots where teams are easily able to fit in this or that, but another team won't be able to justify something else they'd really need to counter.

If you know who your opponent is, USUALLY you can plan ahead, and this game looks like it's priced reasonably enough to afford options at even higher levels after it hits market for $200 or so. So playing a series with buddies should afford decent competition. And I do feel the army lists are shaping up to afford those options. Yet in a tournament where you may be stuck playing whoever and you have a set force, I can see issues inevitably there.

So without playing some large scale games, which I'm holding off until the HH lists are more fleshed out, I feel they actually will have to work through some problems. But we will see. I'm at least happy with small scale for now.

 Madmick wrote:

@Cincydooly,
When making bigger games, I think that it will be pretty similar, just with a small unit rather than 1x bloke.

So...what is the point then? Simply to have more models on the board? That seems silly to me.

There are Character cards for the game, just not released as of yet. Really looking forward to them though.
hey come with the mini's. Not sure if a card deck will be released for each faction, or total game.
I would also like to see a starter game set up after the launch in Aug/Sept.

Okay, cool. I haven't listened to any podcasts, so I must have missed that. That's really good to hear.

I was comparing it to infinity in such a way as to associate some of the abilities, like taking extra cover or going prone.
Of course Infinity is a huge beast of independent actions and I am not sure any game could completely pass as being so involved tbh.
But with a mix of easy rules and simple actions, I think it could have a very good pace to it with thinking involved also.
Especially as you take it in turns to move 1-3 different troops in a single turn. Then the other person does the same. until all units have been activated.

EDIT: I am mainly interested in the skirmish level also. so much more flavour, but I will try and see it from all angles, as I will perhaps have a big army also. We will see

Honestly, those "abilities" are more akin to 40k than Infinity. Again, the cover system here is really basic, and isn't even as fleshed out as the one in 40k. Infinity takes actions and abilities up a considerable level.

IMO, it makes sense to keep it at a skirmish level with a lower point level sweet spot? IMO, the lower the sweet spot and people will be more likely to buy multiple factions for varied playstyles. I know picking up a new army, for me at least, is far less daunting in a game like Infinity, or Malifaux, or Freebooter's Fate, than it is for 40k or Fantasy.

I think that the point to make it a scaleable game, is to give people a choice.
Some people prefer having more troops as it feels more epic I guess. I am not in that category though.
Like you, I want a skirmish game and I would strongly agree that Infinity is awesome as it is easy to get into and it has great models
It is also nice that you can add more rules to infinity the more you get used to it. like a smooth transition from
the quick start rules to all the rules.

I am really looking forward to seeing the cards. I am hoping they a bit bigger than WM/H ones though as they always look to busy imho.
Ca't remember the guy on the Infinity forum that made his own Infinity cards, but they looked Awesome!!

Cincy wrote: I know picking up a new army, for me at least, is far less daunting in a game like Infinity, or Malifaux, or Freebooter's Fate, than it is for 40k or Fantasy

Oh man you aren't kidding. I don't see how people can do more then a couple armies in those GW games.

The one thing that may help balance that I didn't think of was Mercs. When you have that "anybody can use these" pool, they immediately close the gap of imbalance whilst letting factions maintain uniqueness. Unless of course they are foolishly overpriced, but that is one of those things that's easily adjustable.

I'd also be curious to see if allies came into play at some point. I know that was a mixed opinion subject amongst many when WHFB did that.

I have no delusions this thing will be perfect from the gate. Just glad to be in from the ground level.

Madmick wrote:I think that the point to make it a scaleable game, is to give people a choice.
Some people prefer having more troops as it feels more epic I guess. I am not in that category though

Except none of us know if it's a scalable game. We are told it could be, but no one seems to have tested the game at those levels. The rules for larger games could suck.

Earth Dragon wrote:The one thing that may help balance that I didn't think of was Mercs. When you have that "anybody can use these" pool, they immediately close the gap of imbalance whilst letting factions maintain uniqueness. Unless of course they are foolishly overpriced, but that is one of those things that's easily adjustable.

So if I want a balanced force at larger points I have to bring in out of faction people? Why can't I have a balanced faction at all levels?

Just glad to be in from the ground level.

That sounds a little pyramid-schemy... >_>