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.

Let's just tought-experiment then. Maybe something good will come up. Worst-case scenario the forum will look busy.

With two resources, you would buy all your troops and then try to share the secound resource between shields, armors, horns, banners. exemplars and so on.

Of course this works with three resource now, but because your have two equipment resources, you are much more restricted. Either of those can run out first locking down all equipment that costs both, then you have to remove all equipment you can't buy so you left with... most of the times, nothing.

For example, I was building Viklanders the other day and I wanted 3 of them. I wanted to upgrade them with Targe, but I can't because I wanted to run them as a squad, but I didn't had 30 lumber left. I had only 25. I had a reasonable amount of gold left, but if I wanted to use them as a squad, I either buy 3 Targes or none.

Also, I was unable to spend the leftover 25 or so gold to anything but use it on Fatherlanding.

I'm not sure you have more options. In this case it was Fatherlanding or nothing. And not many fractions can fatherland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Story is slighty fabricated)

Thanks for the solid reply!

 miskatonicalum wrote:
Nothing is really off the table, but I feel that shifting the resources around really is just a cosmetic solution. Perhaps some things could use a more standardized costs (all offensive stuff is gold, all defensive stuff is lumber).

Cosmetic maybe but many of the worries people are having have nothing to do with gameplay. Most concerns now are about pregame stuff like list building. Personally, although not having had much chance to play, I think the rules look tighter and the gameplay looks like it flows slightly better now. I still think the army building process needs to be defined though and if that's a cosmetic concern it's a vital one.
I have faith that you guys already know pretty well how units balance against each other and such, the process of choosing those troops needs improved though and that's all that's being suggested. With the information you already have on balancing you should be able to make changes without playtesting.
All in, what I'm saying is the gameplay and rules are 95% there but the army building, resources and such need a lot of work. If it was me I know pretty much everything I'd do and I've mentioned some of it recently. The ideas I have now maintain almost everything you've fought for since you have convinced me of their merit.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
But I don't want to discourage Exemplars or Siege stuff. Exemplars give players those psuedo-historical famous characters, providing more character to their army. (From a more cynical/business perspective, it also costs a lot to make a model that people only get one of, if they don't feel they're worth it, they wont take it, and we're not selling the model to cover the costs of producing it in the first place.)

I now agree that siege stuff should keep it's place but the way it's bought could be hugely improved. I understand both sides of the arguement with Exemplars and I think I have a middle ground solution. The problem with Exemplars after my solution is mainly cost, a very important problem. The thing about that is, your always going to have that problem, characters are supposed to be exciting models with exciting skills which make very little money. But the Exemplars are so many in number that you need to up sell them through the game, that's understandable but it's got no longevity. Most people don't want to be shoehorned into taking characters and putting them in that position is going to put them off and your still not going to sell a decent amount of them either way.
Honestly I think you need to pull of the gas with those wow factor miniatures and focus on the troops almost entirely. If the characters look great people will buy them to collect anyway, but your going to make note money and a better game by giving the troops more TLC.
This stuff is an easy fix though and I've already figured out a middle ground between chopping down the Exemplars completely and pushing them on people like they are now. Again I can go into more detail if you're interested.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
Siege/Fort also helps set Brushfire apart from other Skirmish games. Each game has to have its gimmicks beyond just art style. Now, we have a number of different gimmicks, but each of them helps. Pulling some out makes the game feel less whole.

I agree completely, you convinced me the last time we got into this conversation that these flavours had an important place in the game.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
On the idea of making the siege weapons 'smaller' The ballista essentially is just a Scorpio/Polybolos as is. We're just using more iconic terminology. Same goes with the cannon. The Trebuchet is perhaps the only 'big' one, but its just silly, no one in history tossed soldiers in metal balls to attack enemies. In either case, unless mechanics are the issue, and after lots of testing, we've felt the siege weapons are not overpowered. In fact, in 1.X they were underpowered, with the awful deviations and what not.
If mechanics are not the issue, the debate comes down to presentation. Feel free to use small siege weapons from historical armies, ones that are from a smaller scale will do the trick well. Most siege being on a 50mm base in our game provides room to pretty up the base and make it feel like an important feature on the table. With many models being on 40s or 50s as is, 50mm is not a very big siege weapon.

Yeh that makes sense, it's good flavour and I can buy into it. It'd be lovely to see a little fluff to back it up though, just to sell it as intentional.

So what do you think? I'm happy to help reconstruct the process if you decide you want to take this stuff and run with it. I should say again, the only slight conflict my ideas have with yours now is on Exemplars and I have a midway solution to that anyway.

I think one of my biggest concerns with dropping a resource, is TOO much flexibility. Where once you could only take say....4 Cannons with your excess resources, combining the two virtually doubles your capacity to take a single upgrade option and you could take 8 cannons with a single resource. This is part of why we went with the two secondary resources. Both with taking troop types and other options, it encourages variety instead of single-focus armies.

Why don't we look at it from the perspective of not dropping a resource, and more looking at what can be done to 'fill up' lagging resources.

Currently the options to spend GD/LR on are:

Exemplars
Non-Unique Exemplars
Accessories for Heroes/Exemps (and the few troops that can take them)
Siege Weapons and Fortifications
Mercenaries
Weapon/Armor Upgrades (These have been dropped quite a bit since the expansion of Training/Styles for core troops)

Perhaps a standardization of what uses what would make it easier?

Gold Example:
Mercenaries
Siege Weapons
Banners or Horns, but not both
Offensive Upgrades

Lumber Example:
Exemplars
Fortifications
Banners or Horns, but not both
Defensive Upgrades

Neutral Example: These could be purchased with Gold OR Lumber, but each must spend their total cost on one (so something that costs 10 cant split it on 5 GD 5 LR)
Non-Unique Exemplars
All other Accessories other than Banners/Horns

To me, i think just sliding a few things (not all) over to a 'pick a resource' would help create some flexibility, but not to an extreme sense.

Edited to finish a thought.

I don't think you should drop a resource as I detailed earlier. I think my suggestion was even simpler to implement and more elegant for the user without losing anything. I think the post got lost on the last page, I'll quote it here:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Yeh those are all good reasons to make Brushfire the way it is. I wonder if the rulebook would benefit from a short description of what its all about at the beginning? It might make new players see it as intentional parody rather than something that doesn't quite compute for them? Maybe even back up the siege warfare with some fluff? Like give a reason why small units have developed to use a range of troops and bring siege weaponry and fortifications. That could be a nice retrospective foundation to lay it all on.

Also I get that distinct RTS feel, always makes me want to play AoEIII! With all that considered I think Lumber could be best used as solely for buying siege equipment. The simplified system being you need to spend your FD to buy/feed your units, GD to to buy/maintain equipment and LR to build/maintain large items like siege equipment and fortifications. Gold could be used to upgrade both units and siege equipment. This makes army building quick and simple. You choose what units you want and spend your FD, choose what siege stuff you want and spend your LR and then upgrade whatever you want to upgrade with GD. That way no one should have any extra resources lying around and forces will balance easily.

To continue that, FD costs on Exemplars would be high which would curtail their use which a few of us have shown concern about. If entirely necessary a GD cost could be introduced to them as well although I think it would be better to give them optional upgrades for the cost of GD. Mercenaries are interesting as it means you can spend your GD on more troops, who will feed themselves off of their pay, rather than upgrading your existing troops. You wouldn't be able to upgrade them further in case they run off with the shiny new gear so they would come prepacked.

There are certain things that don't seem to fit the mould but I think they could with a little rejigging. The Valkyr for example could go in as faction specific siege equipment which can be bought as an upgrade for the unit that pilots it. Another example could be the Siege Tortoise, buy it for FD, optional siege equipment for LR and upgrade for GD.

It may also be an idea to suggest a more regimented use of Hlvls for people who want to play a more strict ruleset. Say one level per 50 or 100 resources agreed upon. Using the first that'd be 2Hlvls at 100 resources, 10Hlvls at 500 resources. A pretty tight system I think.

I think these suggestions are beneficial to the game without taking anything away from it's flavour. They are relatively easy changes to make and give the system a stronger foundation to work from. It's possible that it's just my opinion but I think they are balanced and thought out changes to make. Interested to here what you think.

The re-balance of the costs are also would be a nice change. Right now you have no idea what upgrades can you buy during army building and because of that you cannot prioritize them either.

This is my experience with my 50 resource matches.

What would be great -for example- if the price of banners and horns would be standardized. Like you can say that you need a set amount of gold and lumber to take any pair of banner and horn.

It would also help if the unit description pages would show what an unit costs fully upgraded if it has any upgrade. You would not have to flip back-and-forth between the standard equipment page and the fraction's part that much while you building your army.

In my opinion, the 3 resource system isn't bad, but the game does not make use of it. It's too unpredictable as it is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are my thoughts about siege stuff.

Siege weapons:
I haven't played any siege weapons so far because the low resource levels we play with, but I have a few concerns regarding taking any in higher levels.
-Siege weapons slow you down: You can move them with half speed, but if you move them you cannot fire them, so if you play six turns, there is not much you can do with them if you plan to be mobile with your forces.
-Siege weapons cannot melee: Your ranged troops have something to join a melee if you decide not to shoot into it. Your siege weapons become useless as the melee units clash.
-Siege weapons are more costly than their listed price: You might buy siege weapons, but they need operators. Two or three units are out per siege weapon.
-Siege weapons are vulnerable and contestable: If your opponent can ambush or just chooses to flank and you left your siege weapons alone with your operators, then you will have a bad time. Your opponent will ambush and flank your siege weapons, take them and shoot you in the back.

In my opinion, siege weapons force you into camping. You will deploy them to lock an area, and you will forced to protect them with half of your units at least because of flanks and ambushes. The other half is not strong enough to go around on the field, so they are also protecting your siege weapons. Then you will wait if your opponent decides to run into your firing zones.

If I see the opponent deploying a trebuchet, I would immediately decide to flank with as many units as I possibly can. meaning there is no game until I can flank.

Fortifications:
The problem with fortifications is one or two of any will not do too much good, the opponent will just go around it. You may spend your leftover resource to two pieces of barricade, but that's two times six by one inches of +1 AR. So if you want to use them effectively, you have to buy into them and take a lot. If you take a lot, your unit upgrades and exemplars will be left out. And then this happens:
You put down your small keep worth of fortifications on your side of the map and in the first turn you arrange your units to use them. Then you are waiting your opponent to get close. But why would your opponent do that? Most likely he left his siege equipment home anyway. You have the advantage on your side of the map, but if you are forced to leave your fortifications, your opponent has the advantage because his units are better equipped.

So the game becomes a taunt-fest as the players try to lure the other into their side of the map.

It's more funny if both players decide to go keep mode.

So fortifications and siege weapons only work if both player is agreed to use them, and that's the attack-defense mission where the attacker gets the 100 points of siege weapons coupon, while the defender gets the 100 points of fortifications one. Why would any of them run any of those in their armies then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, I'm not against siege gameplay, but I don't see it to work right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just had a great idea. (well, I think it's great anyway)

So, the problem with siege weapons and fortifications is that they are part of the scenery. And the scenery is for both players, but someone has to pay for the siege stuff. You has to pay for scenery and all you get is that you can place it. And then your opponent starts to use it against you.

It's not that I would never use a cannon, a wall or any of the siege stuff, it's that I'd rather not pay for something that can be potentially used against me. So why any team would have to pay for scenery in the first place?

The game clearly benefits from the siege stuff, so it has to stay, but it can be turned around to fit!

So the siege stuff has to be part of the scenery and has to come with it. And why would not be any cannon parking around in a battle field, or why would not be walls and barricades all around the place?

So here is my idea:
At the start of the match, both players roll on a table, that looks like this:

1- take a Wall piece and put it into the field.
2- take a Cannon and put it into the field
3- take a Trebuchet and put it into the field
and so on...

And here is the genius part: You can use your leftover resources to:
-For some resource (like currently 5, since you will probably has that much left), roll again on this table.
-For significantly more resource, you do not roll, but choose one result from this table, and place it where you want.

You get one roll free but you can put resource away for this as well. The battlefields will now has siege stuff and if you don't want to pay for it, you don't have to, but if you want to, you can!

 WhiteRoo wrote:
The re-balance of the costs are also would be a nice change. Right now you have no idea what upgrades can you buy during army building and because of that you cannot prioritize them either.

This is my experience with my 50 resource matches.

What would be great -for example- if the price of banners and horns would be standardized. Like you can say that you need a set amount of gold and lumber to take any pair of banner and horn.

It would also help if the unit description pages would show what an unit costs fully upgraded if it has any upgrade. You would not have to flip back-and-forth between the standard equipment page and the fraction's part that much while you building your army.

In my opinion, the 3 resource system isn't bad, but the game does not make use of it. It's too unpredictable as it is now.

What do you mean by "no idea what upgrades you can buy during army building"? All of a models' upgrades are listed on their card and with the cost of them. If you're flipping back and forth through the book, you're being inefficient about it. I never use my book for list building anymore, I pick up the card and a calculator and make my list right there at the table.

The standardized horn and banner idea isn't bad, but each banner and horn have a different price because they are different levels of effective and situational, but it's certainly something we can look at.

The fully upgrade unit idea I will say is a bad idea. Because not everyone is going to upgrade their models in the same fashion. Again flipping back and forth between the equipment page(s) and the faction page can easily be solved by using the stat cards for the models.

Could you please delve a little more clearly and concisely into the unpredictability of the 3 resource system? It doesn't seem unpredictable, you have x resources to spend. These items listed on pages a, b, and c will always cost a certain amount of resources, it's not like you're rolling to determine the cost of something.

Siege weapons:
I haven't played any siege weapons so far because the low resource levels we play with, but I have a few concerns regarding taking any in higher levels.
-Siege weapons slow you down: You can move them with half speed, but if you move them you cannot fire them, so if you play six turns, there is not much you can do with them if you plan to be mobile with your forces.
-Siege weapons cannot melee: Your ranged troops have something to join a melee if you decide not to shoot into it. Your siege weapons become useless as the melee units clash.
-Siege weapons are more costly than their listed price: You might buy siege weapons, but they need operators. Two or three units are out per siege weapon.
-Siege weapons are vulnerable and contestable: If your opponent can ambush or just chooses to flank and you left your siege weapons alone with your operators, then you will have a bad time. Your opponent will ambush and flank your siege weapons, take them and shoot you in the back.

In my opinion, siege weapons force you into camping. You will deploy them to lock an area, and you will forced to protect them with half of your units at least because of flanks and ambushes. The other half is not strong enough to go around on the field, so they are also protecting your siege weapons. Then you will wait if your opponent decides to run into your firing zones.

If I see the opponent deploying a trebuchet, I would immediately decide to flank with as many units as I possibly can. meaning there is no game until I can flank.

Siege weapons like cannons, trebuchets, and ballista, you have a large range, it's not like you should need to spend your time moving up the board, you move up half speed on turn 1 with a melee or counter melee unit of operators. Then you spend turns 2, 3, 4, w/e firing off the siege weapon, then when you have a unit get close enough to be charged, or get charged (if you're going with a unit that has anti-charge).


The other points about Fortifications is something I'll let someone else deal with, it's not a terrible idea, I just think you're looking at this as, "This has to be so good that I'd be crazy to no take it. If it's not amazing, it's not worth it."

 Alfndrate wrote:


What do you mean by "no idea what upgrades you can buy during army building"? All of a models' upgrades are listed on their card and with the cost of them. If you're flipping back and forth through the book, you're being inefficient about it. I never use my book for list building anymore, I pick up the card and a calculator and make my list right there at the table.

The standardized horn and banner idea isn't bad, but each banner and horn have a different price because they are different levels of effective and situational, but it's certainly something we can look at.

The fully upgrade unit idea I will say is a bad idea. Because not everyone is going to upgrade their models in the same fashion. Again flipping back and forth between the equipment page(s) and the faction page can easily be solved by using the stat cards for the models.

Could you please delve a little more clearly and concisely into the unpredictability of the 3 resource system? It doesn't seem unpredictable, you have x resources to spend. These items listed on pages a, b, and c will always cost a certain amount of resources, it's not like you're rolling to determine the cost of something.

I keep forgetting about the cards. You're right. I personally didn't had the chance to use them so far. I'll print them out.... next time...

 Alfndrate wrote:
Siege weapons like cannons, trebuchets, and ballista, you have a large range, it's not like you should need to spend your time moving up the board, you move up half speed on turn 1 with a melee or counter melee unit of operators. Then you spend turns 2, 3, 4, w/e firing off the siege weapon, then when you have a unit get close enough to be charged, or get charged (if you're going with a unit that has anti-charge).

The other points about Fortifications is something I'll let someone else deal with, it's not a terrible idea, I just think you're looking at this as, "This has to be so good that I'd be crazy to no take it. If it's not amazing, it's not worth it."

It's just an idea. As I said, I did not had any chance to try out any siege stuff, but they are not sold to me. But that's just me.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

I keep forgetting about the cards. You're right. I personally didn't had the chance to use them so far. I'll print them out.... next time...

... So you can't blame me when I'm saying you're doing something inefficiently You're not using all the tools at your disposal.

It's just an idea. As I said, I did not had any chance to try out any siege stuff, but they are not sold to me. But that's just me.

Then please, please, please, please! try using them so you actually have play experience with them instead of just assuming they're not worth it. Play at larger levels, there is a reason why we list base sizes the way we do, why we have templates in the back of the book so you can photocopy them, and hell, even why we have Paperfire...

You know, if I would have the chance to play instead of talking about the game here, I would take it. But It's not that simple. But between the once-per-two-weeks games, I can talk about it here.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
You know, if I would have the chance to play instead of talking about the game here, I would take it. But It's not that simple. But between the once-per-two-weeks games, I can talk about it here.

May I ask why you are unable to play more than once every two weeks, just for curiosity's sake.

I'm working as a programmer 8 hours on workdays and I'm also playing RPG regularly. The other three guys I play Bushfire with are also part of this RPG group. So if everyone is free, then we play RPG.

We also have a tabletop gaming group we go to every Friday, but we can't Brushfire on that. We are there to play together and not all of us likes this game(I have tried my best there).

So finding time to play Brushfire is finding the time the others are free and willing to come together and play, but not everyone - because then we play RPG - and then I just see if actually anyone comes. Last week we had a game planned but everyone decided to go somewhere else.

I'm trying to held a game every week, but so far lt was only working out once per two.

Also it doesn't help that our miniature wargame is a miserable pile of paper disks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually my wargame gear is pretty decent. I have the Streets of Malifaux terraclips set now, two warbands of Brushfire starters and some more models, many other models on compatible bases and lots of shelf-made and a few manufactured terrain pieces.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I'm working as a programmer 8 hours on workdays and I'm also playing RPG regularly. The other three guys I play Bushfire with are also part of this RPG group. So if everyone is free, then we play RPG.

We also have a tabletop gaming group we go to every Friday, but we can't Brushfire on that. We are there to play together and not all of us likes this game(I have tried my best there).

Sounds exactly like my week, even down to the programmer job Hop to it man!

Hop to it? Are you suggesting he should be putting in more effort to play Brushfire?

I may be misunderstanding but I just started feeling extremely, skin crawlingly, akward about this conversation. The tone feels very inappropriate...

It might just be me but it's provoking a strong enough reaction I feel the need to mention it.

I believe the emoticons Alf used are meant to show sarcasm/jesting.

But really... Its a thread for feedback on playtesting, actual playtesting is kinda necessary. Posting complaints about an aspect of the rules that you haven't had any experience with isn't helping.

It'd be like me going into the Infinity section and complaining that TAGs shouldn't be in the rules without ever playing with or against them.

 Casey's Law wrote:
Hop to it? Are you suggesting he should be putting in more effort to play Brushfire?

I may be misunderstanding but I just started feeling extremely, skin crawlingly, awkward about this conversation. The tone feels very inappropriate...

It might just be me but it's provoking a strong enough reaction I feel the need to mention it.

Why would you feel awkward about me asking him to play more Brushfire? By virtue of the thread title everyone should be playing more Brushfire or else we're not really playtesting it are we?

Edit: Ninja'd by Cy.

Okay, it was worth mentioning though. I wasn't even involved and I took it a certain way, I would hate to think Roo felt under attack for trying to help by doing everything he can, much more than most. I wasn't just talking about the one post and emotes aren't a free pass to negate the tone of a message. But anyway, I'm not jumping on anyone, I just don't want anyone to feel attacked. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

Back on topic. Roo has raised some points that really interest me since he has much more play experience under his belt, he is seeing problems that I can't pick up on from reading. I'd like to hear what other players think about them but I think Roo is now the only one still doing any regular research for you. Is anyone else still playing?

I still stand by my point that not everything comes down to play testing too, my concerns mainly focus on pregame activity which doesn't effect gameplay. I'm very interested to hear what Matt's reply is when he next has time to jump on the forum.

If you only want playtesting feedback then fair enough this thread really isn't for me at the moment. If you want to hear the consumers feedback on improving the game then my points have value whether I have time to play or not. That's entirely your call and I'm happy with your decision, if you'd rather only receive direct feedback from gameplay just say. In the end we all vote with our time and wallets anyway, that's the truest feedback you can get and clearly we are voting positively as I assume Brushfire is doing very well.

Just to be clear, that was all written positively, if it comes across otherwise it'll be because it's also written very seriously so there aren't many emotes and stuff.

Pregame Activity, while important, its not as important as things like balance and understanding of unit rules... which require actual playtesting and is what we are actively trying to get feedback on.

When we hear actual feedback on things like 'X's Y ability is too powerful against Unit Z' we can adjust the ability and/or the Resource Cost, which in turn will affect the pregame stuff.

I don't agree that altering rules will fix or even effect my concerns. Examples would be good, I'm not a very stubborn person, good examples will convince me. Otherwise we can agree to disagree.

Also, you say playtesting is more important and I agree but if people don't enjoy the whole process they won't keep playing as it'll become a chore.

You're sitting on the fence a little as to whether you want feedback other than playtesting. If you don't want our/my input on the non playtesting aspects then just say so otherwise we are wasting our time researching it. Honestly, I'm not researching and developing my concerns and ideas then taking time to clearly communicate them to you solely for my own benefit. I'd hate to continue putting in my time to find out later than there was no intention to make any changes and you just didn't want to tell me to jog on. If the advice isn't what you are looking for you'd be better telling people to drop it before they waste a tonne of time.

We want feedback on everything, but we mainly want it on actual playtesting (IE 150Resources, 5HLVL). We are looking at speeding up list building, but we feel its already pretty quick and easy to do.

As for a Theoryfire VS Brushfire example, the easiest is 'Striking Leap' on the Mouse Lancers. Seeing a model with a 25" Charge Range is a scary thing on paper.. but in practice its really not.

Well I've given a tonne of feedback on non-playtestable stuff and I've said I have more details and ideas if you'd like them. I haven't seen much response to them so I figure you want to get their without outside help or something. That's fine but it would have been nice to know earlier I guess.

As for wanting actual playtesting. People are already playing as much as they can or want to. If you aren't getting the feedback you want then it's a question of why don't people want to play enough to give you more feedback? As far as I can see a lot of people have tried to help and have given up, I'd be interested to know why.

Also, I asked for an example of how changes to gaming rules effects my concerns which are almost solely about events outwith gametime, I'm not sure how that came across as Theoryfire vs Brushfire. But nevermind, no hard feelings but I'm out of steam at this stage. I don't think half of the help people give in this thread is being read and replied to carefully, it's not how I would do things but I'm just one guy.

Seriously though, no hard feelings, I'll continue to hang around to varying extent and stuff I just won't be putting in any time or effort anymore as it's not really wanted. I hope you get the feedback your hoping for.

Questions and feedback after today's match:

Tatamata is... a little bit strong. His sword deals d10DE and D10AP, he has really good stats, an exceptionally good ability, medium armor for 5/10/10.

What does the Jutte do? Reduces incoming attacks by 1 what?

The Assault move looks wierd:
-A squad assaults a wall, but the assault rule talks about models. It says a model may end up in the assault terrain if there is room for it. What happened is I assaulted some ashigarus in a wall with my Warlord who was on blade spin and with Dishonor Guards. So , there was 3 Ashigaru's on the top, two of them is instantly b2b with the Warlord because there was room, so he killed both and the other Rat Raider killed the last one with a shield crit. so now...
-The remaining Rat Raiders where not b2b with the assault terrain, but they where part of the activated squad. At this situation, can they climb the wall as well?
-We see that Assaulting comes with no loss of meele skill or damage or number of attacks despite the assaultig models just free-climbed a wall.

(the assault terrain was a tower... kinda. It was a 3 by 3 inches elevated piece of terrain right next to a 6 by 6 one, so there was plenty of room up there actually)

Actros Nevsky's The Great Hamster should be two ability. One for the attack redirects and one for about gaining the Northern Berserker rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't worry Chasey, they can't stop me for trying to make this game better!

I have the right to overanalize the siege weapons whitout ever trying out one!

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Questions and feedback after today's match:

Tatamata is... a little bit strong. His sword deals d10DE and D10AP, he has really good stats, an exceptionally good ability, medium armor for 5/10/10.

The Blade of Heaven's Thunder is great.. up until you roll 1 on the DE roll.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

What does the Jutte do? Reduces incoming attacks by 1 what?

Every model does a number of attacks, Jutte reduces that by one. So a Hamster Berserker normally does 2 Attacks, he now does one.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

The Assault move looks wierd:
-A squad assaults a wall, but the assault rule talks about models. It says a model may end up in the assault terrain if there is room for it. What happened is I assaulted some ashigarus in a wall with my Warlord who was on blade spin and with Dishonor Guards. So , there was 3 Ashigaru's on the top, two of them is instantly b2b with the Warlord because there was room, so he killed both and the other Rat Raider killed the last one with a shield crit. so now...
-The remaining Rat Raiders where not b2b with the assault terrain, but they where part of the activated squad. At this situation, can they climb the wall as well?
-We see that Assaulting comes with no loss of meele skill or damage or number of attacks despite the assaultig models just free-climbed a wall.

The Rat Raider is still within 3" of his squad buddies? He can activate with them again next turn.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Actros Nevsky's The Great Hamster should be two ability. One for the attack redirects and one for about gaining the Northern Berserker rule.

Splitting Great Hamster is doable.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I have the right to overanalize the siege weapons whitout ever trying out one!

I'm sending the attack hamsters...

My problem with the Blade of Heavenly Thunder is that how strong it can get when it rolls good.

This sword was on d5 d5. Why it get increased?

How Assault is supposed to work? Let's say you have five units assaulting a wall and five on that wall.

Do you do it squad based, or do you do it model based?

I mean, if it's model based, you go... First model attacks one on the wall, kills it, secound attack, kills an onther one. he made room, he goes up. Secound model has room, goes up. So the secound model may attack now?

Because when you assault to make a room and succeed then you technically moved after your meelee phase.

We removed every use of D5s, I hate rounding dice. I'm still not 100% pleased with Tamatama's attack, and I'm looking into a solution.

Assault will be clarified. You perform it like Ranged/Cavalry Charge attacks, on a squad basis.

I'll also look into writing a more elegant rule for Jutte.


Additionally, I would just like to say we are very appreciative of the help everyone has given us and the feedback provided. Much of the comments and complaints brought up over the last week will be seen to, as many of the issues from last week were changed in the last push.

We also welcome any other feed back you wish to give. I would rather hear a dozen things I disagree with just to get the one thing that I feel needs to be fixed, instead of ignoring help when offered.

Additionally, Several of the changes raised affect the game beyond just pre-game. We are taking our time working through a theoretical adjustment to the resources before putting it up in an update. We're being cautious, but we are listening.

I will be interested to see what changes you decide to make and I'm happy to hear that you are listening to all of the consumer feedback.

I get what Tamatama does. He is supposed to be an assassin kind of guy who surely kills someone important in the enemy team and then die right after that, because he is in the a middle of some angry enemy units when his Ganji stops working.

And he is really interesting that way. On bigger matches one exemplar or hero is not that big of a loss, but in a 50 point match he can hurt too much. You only going to have a hero and an exemplar top, and one is out for 5/10/10, while your only counterplay is that you hope he will roll a really bad damage.

This is my personal opinion, I have just lost a match because of him, so I might be overreacting.

I think he would be okay as it is if you can limit him somehow on this small resource limit games.

I think something like "You can only enlist TamaTama if the resource limit is at least X" or "If you enlist at least two other Wanderer"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A question about line of sight:

Let's say there is a Castle Tower. 5 by 5 inch assault terrain. Over it's northern edge, there is one model standing on it. There is an enemy model b2b with the southern wall next to the tower.
Is the two models has line of sight in this case?

And about walls, gates and towers:

All wall, wall-gate and tower models are made with battlements around their edges. What is this battlement in the context of the game? Is it low wall, or is it just cover? Or it should be ignored?

I'd like to avoid Force Org restrictions, but we'll figure out something.

Models on Assault Terrain do not treat it as providing cover or blocking line of sight.

Any benefit from standing on Assault terrain is given in the description of the fortification. Currently Gates provide no benefit, I will look into adjusting it.

I honestly have not caught up with reading all the debate back and forth, but I enjoy the 3 resource system. Unit upgrades do seem to get expensive fast, but I have no problem with how the system lets OTL balance exemplars, seige equipment, and elite army options. In fact I would love to see more exemplars and units that skewed towards either gold or lumber instead of balancing the two.

Okay, thanks. So elevated positions themselves do not block line of sight.