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.

I ask this before I forget it again:

How a squad takes a shock test if some units in that squad have "immune to shock"?

How about Fire? Some units target squads with fire.

(also the book doesn't mention this as far as I know)


Other thing. How do you guys roll close combat attacks? I found it quite laborious to roll every versus per unit but I might use the wrong method.

I usually -as the attacker- take one dice per weapon with different colors if the weapons are different and say this is for this weapon and that is for that, while the defender takes one dice and we roll them. Then we see what hits and what not.

I found this method the most efficient but when a redirect comes around, it can be arguable which attack is going to roll over. The attacker tries to roll over as many extra damage as possible while the defender would like if it's destroyed unit would bring down the most damaging attack with itself (no cleave attack), so the minimal damage rolls over.

But if we want to account this, then the defender would have to roll one defense and then the attacker would have to roll their weapons one by one, naming what it going to use next.

Playing 15 member horde squads this takes a long time and makes it easy to make an error.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thinking about this, here is a situation:

Two squads fight in close combat and every target-able model is part of the defending squad.

One attacking unit(with multiple attacks) earns a roll over and have available target, that is an auto-hit since roll overs do not invoke evade rolls.

While if that model chooses to attack two defending models -I think one can still do that- both target models can make evade rolls.
Is that right?

Can you deliberately choose to take a hit? I don't know if that can has any sane use(the old Hedge Knight comes to mind), but can you?

With immunity to Shock, models in a squad that are not immune must still make the roll. The player has a choice of letting the immune models roll with the others to ensure the remain a squad. If the roll is failed and the immune models went with immunity, the become a separate squad.

For Fire, the individual models take the Fire tests, nit the squad as a whole.

On the different weapons and attack rollover I will put in a section noting that the attacker picks which attacks to apply first. (Beyond Criticals still being last).

I just found this:

Reach - Extends Charge distance by +2”, May make an attack with this weapon through Models in B2B, against another Model within 2”. For the purposes of Charging, Reach allows you to charge into friendly Models, or Models in another Squad if they are in B2B with a member of the Target Squad.

This doesn't mention that the model this model attacks trough has to have B2B with the target this model wants to choose. It only says that the target has to be at 2".

So a model with reach can attack an enemy model that is in it's 2" range and does not need to have B2B (or unbroken B2B chain) with it's target?

I'm not sure if this is correct.

Does Extended Reach has a maximum range as Reach has 2"? Does it allow the model to charge a friendly model that is not B2B with the enemy but in B2B with a friendly model that is B2B with an enemy model.

We'll look into rewording/simplifying the reach rules, the intent is not to allow models to attack models out of b2b.

Also, does the model that I want to attack trough with reach attack has to be friendly?

No, the rule is just pointing out that the intervening model CAN be friendly, it doesnt have to be.

I have some thoughts about reach I want to share.

About the counter play. Against reach or extended reach it seems like a good idea to move your squads in a way that in the end of the move they are not right next to each other, so the opponent at least is not going to use your B2B placements to direct it's attacks.

So the question comes up how far actually is B2B, since B2B can't be as much a rule as a suggestion in the first place. I mean there always will be situations when you want to put your models in b2b, but some ornament on the model or some join on the table surface will prevent you from doing so. (putting 15 rat raider in b2b with their pikes in front and their tails on the back is not always possible) So you have to clarify that if those 2 models are meant to be half a centimeter apart or not. And we know how will that play out.

Here is my suggestion. I don't know how good it is:

Make Reach as a reach weapon does not need b2b but have a range of 2", It's attack counts as melee, but it is blocked as a ranged weapon.(So there is some new counter play to hide behind models on bigger bases, also some new opportunities to attack trough less than 2 inch thick terrain pieces with it.)

Units doesn't get +2" charge range for using reach weapons but don't have to close on b2b during a charge, just end up in weapon range. (hence they can charge a squad even if there are some models in between and they are still able to charge models from 2" further than normal). Maybe add that when you target a charge with reach weapon you can ignore friendly models while determining line of sight.

Also make the Counterattack Charge Reaction to allow the counter-attackers to close some distance. So counterattacking a pike squad would be still possible. This would also allow the rest of the charged squad to counterstrike in case the first line dies so Counterattack becomes easier to perform.

Maybe have Reach 1" range for this while Extended Reach has 2",

I don't know how much this would modify the game balance but reach would be easier to understand and follow during a game.

The stars are aligning and it looks like I can finally devote my Saturday to Brushfire, and I'll even have some friends to play against.

So, question about army building:

My group likes tournament rules, so the question is how much forward you have to define your army list? Is it fair to say putting aside some resource and saying this is for stuff for my commander and also not choosing the talents beforehand, and when you sit down to play, you quickly buy some items and distribute your hero points based on who you are facing? Is it fair to do this before every match?

It is clear that some talents are more useful in one kind of missions than others. Like in Duels, most likely the passive trees will be useful and maybe the Hyperion fire is just not worth it.

So should you build an army to be able to face anything or basically you just build for the next match?

In most wargames, especially in a tourney setting, you need to decide on everything in your army before seeing your opponent's army/list. I almost always build all-comers lists for this reason, rather than tailoring to a specific army, although obviously if you're having trouble against a certain matchup, or seeing a certain type of build more often, you would gear your list to defeat that.

 RiTides wrote:
In most wargames, especially in a tourney setting, you need to decide on everything in your army before seeing your opponent's army/list. I almost always build all-comers lists for this reason, rather than tailoring to a specific army, although obviously if you're having trouble against a certain matchup, or seeing a certain type of build more often, you would gear your list to defeat that.

I concur.

It would also be up to the tourney organizer how list building would be handled for their event.

 RiTides wrote:
In most wargames, especially in a tourney setting, you need to decide on everything in your army before seeing your opponent's army/list. I almost always build all-comers lists for this reason, rather than tailoring to a specific army, although obviously if you're having trouble against a certain matchup, or seeing a certain type of build more often, you would gear your list to defeat that.

Yup, though I've been tossing around doing a Malifaux-esque building style. In a tournament setting, you declare your faction before you even know who you're playing, and sometimes even your master. Then once you have your table placement, your opponent, and your strategy, you build your list. It works for Malifaux because there is no wargear, you just buy models... I would love if you guys could test this for me, and tell me how it goes

I think it'll be easier in 2nd ed with basic troopers having less wargear options to buy (since you have to choose an option, like Red Wu getting Crossbows or Pole-axes, with the option of taking heaters).

I think that's a little bit hard to do with the current setup. Managing 3 (or 4) resources and building an army in reasonable time is only possible if either the resource limit is low or you are an expert of building that army.

But if the unit cards would been made with this in mind, I can see it working.

Like there should be a deck of equipments, fortifications and siege machines, and a card for every unit/model not for every squad/type. so you can stack the cards to align their top right corners (where the resources are written) and you can just add your cost up quick and easy.

Alternatively, cards that represents full squads of units (like 15 Rat Raiders - 75 FD) for easier counting.

Having the banners and horns out as cards would be useful anyway I think.

Also, you might consider to divide all costs with 5, to further simplify the process. (I think there are things for 1 resource, but just 2 or 3 maybe)

Other skirmish games are making the cards with blank white spaces, so you can put them in sleeves and mark whatever you have to with markers. I think this is a great idea.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I think that's a little bit hard to do with the current setup. Managing 3 (or 4) resources and building an army in reasonable time is only possible if either the resource limit is low or you are an expert of building that army.

But if the unit cards would been made with this in mind, I can see it working.

Like there should be a deck of equipments, fortifications and siege machines, and a card for every unit/model not for every squad/type. so you can stack the cards to align their top right corners (where the resources are written) and you can just add your cost up quick and easy.

Alternatively, cards that represents full squads of units (like 15 Rat Raiders - 75 FD) for easier counting.

Having the banners and horns out as cards would be useful anyway I think.

Also, you might consider to divide all costs with 5, to further simplify the process. (I think there are things for 1 resource, but just 2 or 3 maybe)

Other skirmish games are making the cards with blank white spaces, so you can put them in sleeves and mark whatever you have to with markers. I think this is a great idea.

I honestly don't think it's going to be as much of a problem as you think it is. Especially since the majority of gamers only own what they need and won't have that large of a pool to pull from.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I think that's a little bit hard to do with the current setup. Managing 3 (or 4) resources and building an army in reasonable time is only possible if either the resource limit is low or you are an expert of building that army.

Managing 3 resources isn't hard, and like Caty said, most people only own what they need, and unlike other games there aren't massive amounts of options. This is also why I'm asking people to test this for me, instead of just hammering it out with thoughts I need solid, playtestable feedback.

Alternatively, cards that represents full squads of units (like 15 Rat Raiders - 75 FD) for easier counting.

But squads are activated and changed on the fly, and what if my list doesn't have the points for 75fd worth of rats? What if I only have room for 60fd of rats?

Other skirmish games are making the cards with blank white spaces, so you can put them in sleeves and mark whatever you have to with markers. I think this is a great idea.

I'm pretty hip to skirmish games, what skirmish game are you talking about?

Hordes has this damage circle thing and Relic Knights also uses it.

I have the constant problem of having only what I use. You see I own what I own, rather what I need, since many units what I need is not out yet. So I'm kinda bounded to the models I own, except I can't. You see my friend who plays with tokens isn't bounded to anything. Every model of his army will be a paper chip and he can mix and match his fraction without any restrictions. As a result I, who has some models, have to do the same, or else I only going to loose.

So I am building from the entire unit list since I don't even know yet what I will need. Hence, building an army in 5 minutes or so is hard for us.

Also, beginners have to be able to build their armies in a short time too. No?

Yeah, maybe that is not a good idea, but there is a strange disconnect between the models and the cards. You see the cards could be very useful during the army building, but the resource lists the resource for one unequipped model, however the card is going to represent several of them, maybe with different equipment. You put down your card that says 5/0/0 for a rat raider and that is supposed to represent 60/0/0 points of models.

I'm not familiar with Malifaux but I suspect you don't need a separate army list to play. The cards of the chosen units will act as an army list. No?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Hordes has this damage circle thing and Relic Knights also uses it.

Okay, I must have misread by white spaces to mark all over them... not all hordes models have life spirals, just the warbeasts, the warlocks have hitboxes as to multi wound models.

I have the constant problem of having only what I use. You see I own what I own, rather what I need, since many units what I need is not out yet. So I'm kinda bounded to the models I own, except I can't. You see my friend who plays with tokens isn't bounded to anything. Every model of his army will be a paper chip and he can mix and match his fraction without any restrictions. As a result I, who has some models, have to do the same, or else I only going to loose.

That is a personal play issue. Nothing says you have to build your list right there at the table, but having that option is what we're trying to go for. When in a tournament, or organized play setting, you're going to have to play with models you own because things like papercraft and what not won't be allowed. Try it under those conditions. And most people have 10 minutes in tournaments like this to take care of those things. Because at the end of the day you'll have the models you own at the event, and you'll have the ability to tailor your list to the faction you're playing and the objective of the game. Last Thursday I played in a Malifaux Tournament, but I had decided on my list a month or so before, the first round I was placed up against probably 1 of the only masters in the game that would be a hard counter to my list. And yet, I played through the game knowing that it would be a hard battle. At the end of the day, I managed to win 8VP to 5VP, but if I had known who I might be fighting, I would have picked a different master. It still doesn't take that long to build a list. We're not playing 40k, there isn't tons and tons of wargear options. Your Rat Raiders are 5fd, and have the option (in second edition, which is what we're discussing here in this thread), and they must take an option of wargear that doesn't cost them anything. You have a Horde Infantry, so they ignore the same equipment rule, so you mix and match. And I'm not even sure what you're arguing for. Your rat raiders, and every Vandalands unit but Shrew Hussars have no buyable equipment in 2nd edition.

So I am building from the entire unit list since I don't even know yet what I will need. Hence, building an army in 5 minutes or so is hard for us.

Don't tailor to your opponent's list, tailor to his army and the objective of the game.

I'm not familiar with Malifaux but I suspect you don't need a separate army list to play. The cards of the chosen units will act as an army list. No?

Malifaux is a Skirmish game where each model on the board has a card because they don't have units, but Brushfire's card system isn't so different from games like Warmachine or Hordes that you can't easily work it out. It's all simple math at the end of the day, I mean I taught 9 year olds how to play this game over the weekend.

I use the Vandalands units as examples because I know those units. In the same time It meant to be an example. It could be anything. Like Veiled Assassins that have a few upgrades. Now imagine you have one card for them and you want to put in 10 of them in two squads having different equipment.

Also I don't see it to be impossible to build a list on the fly and I'm planning to try it at the weekend, but I think it can be far more simpler.

But that means the cards has to replace the army list. No?

I'm more a fan of set lists- I really dislike list tailoring to opponents, which is what "come up with a list on the fly" results in (imo).

I know you asked people to try it out instead of talking theory, but I'll throw my 2 cents in now, as I won't have enough models or play time to really give it a go in the near future.

First, I must say I am not to keen on the Malifaux system. It gives an slight advantage to the player with more disposable incomes or long time collector, letting him build from a larger collection. In the case of Brushfire, it's even worse, as the engagement size is far bigger, asking for more cash to have that diversity, And that is before even looking at mercenaries.

Second, adding up a Malifaux crew is a trivial thing compared to building a Brushfire list. Models cost from 4 to 10 points, and add up to 25-50 points in general. With Brushfire, the base points are the same, but army size is double to triple the point pool, and you have 3 types of resources to pick from instead of a single one. I know it's not calculus or any advanced maths, but it's a far bigger hassle to do between rounds. Would a TO have to check every list before the round begin to check for errors? At 150 resources, it's beginning to be some large numbers, and might be prone to errors in the heat of a tournament.

Third, that's a personal preference, but I far more prefer a well rounded approach to list building, then building separate lists for each scenario. It makes for a challenge in play, instead of a challenge in painting/getting enough model to build a perfect list for each engagement type.

 Tonio wrote:

Third, that's a personal preference, but I far more prefer a well rounded approach to list building, then building separate lists for each scenario. It makes for a challenge in play, instead of a challenge in painting/getting enough model to build a perfect list for each engagement type.

I agree as well.

Coming to your match with a preset army list (or two as is the case in some Warhams/Warmahordes tourneys) is my personal preference.

Of course, if you want to buy enough of every model to run any possible list at any given time...

WhiteRoo wrote:I use the Vandalands units as examples because I know those units. In the same time It meant to be an example. It could be anything. Like Veiled Assassins that have a few upgrades. Now imagine you have one card for them and you want to put in 10 of them in two squads having different equipment.

You get 1 card per squad box, a squad box comes with 5 veiled assassins, you now have 10 models for 2 squads, and 2 cards.

Also I don't see it to be impossible to build a list on the fly and I'm planning to try it at the weekend, but I think it can be far more simpler.

But that means the cards has to replace the army list. No?

Thank you for saying you'll try it, the reason why I'm asking for actual feedback is because you, me, anyone can sit here and argue our point until we're blue in the face, but without trying it, you won't know if you like it, and what you do and do not like about it.

Tonio wrote:First, I must say I am not to keen on the Malifaux system. It gives an slight advantage to the player with more disposable incomes or long time collector, letting him build from a larger collection. In the case of Brushfire, it's even worse, as the engagement size is far bigger, asking for more cash to have that diversity, And that is before even looking at mercenaries.

I used to agree with that, but I used to not have a massive collection of Malifaux figs (though my gremlins were quite large), and the crew I was better with was the crew that I had the fewest models for (Rasputina). Because I had only just enough for 1 type of list, I had to get good with running what I had for her.

Second, adding up a Malifaux crew is a trivial thing compared to building a Brushfire list. Models cost from 4 to 10 points, and add up to 25-50 points in general. With Brushfire, the base points are the same, but army size is double to triple the point pool, and you have 3 types of resources to pick from instead of a single one. I know it's not calculus or any advanced maths, but it's a far bigger hassle to do between rounds. Would a TO have to check every list before the round begin to check for errors? At 150 resources, it's beginning to be some large numbers, and might be prone to errors in the heat of a tournament.

This is part of the reason why I'm asking for people to test this. With the tournament packet, each person will have 10 to 15 minutes between rounds to use the loo, get some water, and finalize their lists. The other thing that could be done is to have x points for 1 list, and a x divided by 5 side board of extra models. So if you have a 100 point list, you can have 20 points of sideboard models to switch in and out.

Third, that's a personal preference, but I far more prefer a well rounded approach to list building, then building separate lists for each scenario. It makes for a challenge in play, instead of a challenge in painting/getting enough model to build a perfect list for each engagement type.

I prefer a balanced list, but I also would like people to not get royally boned by the objective. Granted they could do what I do in other games, and play basically to 1 playstyle and pick up objectives later. My Trollbloods are kill, eat, poop, my Pandora crew is designed to force as many Wp duels as possible, my Aquitar is designed to have as many rifles (Lots of Mongeese) and a massive hammer unit of Badgers. If I can start beating you with what my force is designed around, then I can pick up the objectives easier. But then again, this is just different design philosophies.


Thanks for you input guys

I actually find it interesting to build your army per game. Maybe because I have a TCG background. It has the magic of variety and the format has much better error handling because if you screw up your army(which being a beginner is all about) you are not stuck with it for five or so matches.

But yeah, it's about having those models.

I would actually argue that list building in Malifaux is much more complicated and time consuming then list building in Brushfire. In Malifaux 95% of models interact in some way with other models, groups of models, enemies and so on. Basically any model can have an effect on any other model. In Brushfire there are realitvly few models that effect your entire army and most of those are unique Heros and Exemplars.

In a Malifaux tournament you pick a faction going into the tournament. At the beginning of each round your given the scenario and the faction your opponent has chosen. Then both you and your opponant in secret each build a crew. 10 minutes later you both reveal your crews to each other.

People seem to think that this type of list building favors the person who owns the most models, and to a very small extent this is true. However since you don't know exactly which models your opponents going to use you can't really tailor a list specifically to counter his... You can build a list to counter what you think he's going to run or you can do the much more common thing and build a general list to counter the terrain, encounter and faction.

Looking specifically at Brushfire the biggest way to tailor your army against an opponent is to change out Horns, Banners, Heros and Exemplars. These are the things that have the most significant impact on your army and their the easiest thing to change.

Next time you play plan it out like this... I have 10 Melee Infantry, 10 Ranged Infantry and 5 Cavalary. Outside of that I have X amount of food, wood and gold to spend. Try and plan out how you'd defeat an army from each nation with the same core of infantry and cavalry but different Heros, Exemplars, Horns and Banners.

It's also important to keep in mind that winning a game of Brushfire isn't so much about tabeling your opponent as it is about keeping him off balance and completing his objectives.

Update is coming soon.

Features changes to Reach and the CCG, along with the 2nd Ed Quickstart Rules and Mercs Doc.

The mercs doc won't feature any new units yet, it just updates it to the V2 rules.

I easily follow your points. What I was mentionning in my 2nd one was mostly the maths involved, not the thinking you have to do to build your list.

We see errors upon errors in WM/H lists at tournaments, where points are far easier to add up, and people have access to multiple tools to build their list in advance. Brushfire's maths go to higher numbers, in three separate resources types, that you have to juggle with and balance. My points is that's going to take time, and is really error prone.

I don't want to call anyone dumb, but you have probably all seen tournaments attendees that could have problem adding up stuff up to 100-150 resources in 3 different columns... Will the tournament document include a verification system during each round ?

Agreed... with 3 resource values for each unit, Brushfire doesn't lend itself to list-creation between rounds. Doesn't mean you can't try it out, of course, but it's not something I'd be interested in doing.

So you're not gonna help me test it?

Update is out, I think I forgot to change the version number on the first page..

New 'Reach' Rules, the Mercs Doc, and the 2nd Edition Quickstart Rules.

Just finished today's game.

It's really time consuming to build armies, at least for us. Half an hour for a 25 resource army. Also, when you get defeated on the first game, you are not facing the same army on the secound and you can't try a new tactic against it.

Confusing things(thing the book didn't answered for me):

A Scyzantine Siege Tortoise may make a move phase and operate it's siege weapon. Does this mean it can rush and operate it's siege weapon, or only can move? I think it can, except it's ridicilous.

Also, can you fire a cannon when it's b2b with a low wall? And can you fire your Siege Tortoise Cannon while being b2b with a low wall?

The description of the Axony special cannon ammo, the Axony Howitzer mentions "step 3" of operating a cannon which doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Some questions about low walls and hedges. It says, this terrain blocks line of sight except for units b2b with it. The last sentence is confusing: " A Model in B2B with the Low Wall counts as being in B2B with any models within 2” that are also in B2B with the Low Wall." Is this means that units on the opposite side of a wall are count as being b2b? Can you charge units right behind a low wall then? Propably not, because a low wall blocks line of sight, but in the same time you can end up in b2b with the enemy models.

Fire seems... really powerful. It ignores all armor, so a 2 VY unit hit by fire is propably dead. Especially since it's not a rare thing now. Anyone can buy Hyperion fire.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

A Scyzantine Siege Tortoise may make a move phase and operate it's siege weapon. Does this mean it can rush and operate it's siege weapon, or only can move? I think it can, except it's ridicilous.

Move Phase is Walking or Rushing, so yes, it can move 9" and fire the Siege Weapon with 0 RS and 0 ES.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

Also, can you fire a cannon when it's b2b with a low wall? And can you fire your Siege Tortoise Cannon while being b2b with a low wall?

With a Low Wall, yes. Just like any other Ranged Weapon.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

The description of the Axony special cannon ammo, the Axony Howitzer mentions "step 3" of operating a cannon which doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Its Step 2 now (The cannon ball rolling after hitting), that will get fixed.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

Some questions about low walls and hedges. It says, this terrain blocks line of sight except for units b2b with it. The last sentence is confusing: " A Model in B2B with the Low Wall counts as being in B2B with any models within 2” that are also in B2B with the Low Wall." Is this means that units on the opposite side of a wall are count as being b2b? Can you charge units right behind a low wall then? Propably not, because a low wall blocks line of sight, but in the same time you can end up in b2b with the enemy models.

Low Walls should not Block LoS, this will be corrected. The second part of that rule is meant for charging a unit on the other side of the wall.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

Fire seems... really powerful. It ignores all armor, so a 2 VY unit hit by fire is propably dead. Especially since it's not a rare thing now. Anyone can buy Hyperion fire.

Fire is dangerous.