Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:
Page 26.

"If a model succeeds their Reserve roll, they must deploy. The player cannot decide to hold the model in reserve."

But this still not forces you to make Reserve roll for a particular group, it just says once you did, you cannot back out.

Then this will be further clarified.

Beginning on Turn 2, Players make TS rolls to determine if Squads held in reserve can deploy.

Becomes:

Beginning on Turn 2, Players must make TS rolls to determine if Squads held in reserve can deploy.

But it still means you can undercut your Glorious Victory by rolling well on your resource rolls, no?

Oh I see what you mean. We'll see about tweaking it.

What if we were to change it to "The Attacker moves the objective to the table edge before their Reserves arrive automatically on the field." or by a set turn number (I think a set turn number would be the best).

"Once the Attacker has control of the objective, the Defender never gains control again."

I would also like to point out that the "table edge" as the win condition can only work if the table size is fixed.

Also if I reading this right, you can only ever move the objective 5 inches per turn, and on a 4 by 4 table, it starts somewhat 23-24 inches away from the closest table edges in aerial distance.

Meaning, the attacker needs five turns at minimum to move it down from the table, if the table is empty, and it has two turns to reach it, as seven turns all you have.

I don't know if it is possible to move the objective down from the table at all if there is any terrain or enemies.

The suggested table size at the beginning of the missions section suggests a table size of 2 x 4, making a distance of only 12" to a table edge, which takes 3 turns.

I was going threw some stuff from the last con I went to, and found I note I made to my self. When demoing brushfire I got asked alot of questions. I got alot of the useual stuff like "Witch faction has animal [insert here]" But their were two that seemed to keep crouping up I figured I would ask.

-Will Dominion of North Axony/South Sea Axony Holdings become playable factions/Represented in the Axony Faction? Being in Canada, their was alot of interest in North Axony Dominion. I was also told that their is a lack of Beavers! lol

-I told them that if I remembered correctly Republic of Armarillo was the Equivalent of the republic of Texas. I was asked if these guys might be a playable faction faction within the FSV? (Sort of like how Chugoku has 5 playable subfactions with-in it) Cowboy Armadillos was surprisingly a very popular concept. lol

 Lockark wrote:

-Will Dominion of North Axony/South Sea Axony Holdings become playable factions/Represented in the Axony Faction? Being in Canada, their was alot of interest in North Axony Dominion. I was also told that their is a lack of Beavers! lol

Like Australia, we're working on finding the best means of bringing them in. Axony does have a Beaver character, Sean, as part of the Experts.

 Lockark wrote:

-I told them that if I remembered correctly Republic of Armarillo was the Equivalent of the republic of Texas. I was asked if these guys might be a playable faction faction within the FSV? (Sort of like how Chugoku has 5 playable subfactions with-in it) Cowboy Armadillos was surprisingly a very popular concept. lol

Armarillo Armadillos will likely be a part of FSV's army list.

Oh I never clued in sean was going to be a beaver. I kept thinking he was suppose to be a Cababara for some reason.

Maby consider dog breeds that come from Canada and Australia also for Axony Troop choices? Like Labrador Retrievers and Australian terriers for example? With then a native animal to thows areas to represent the natives of thows area who now find them selves now under axony rule.

I have a few suggestions for the cards.

Their back side should also feature the name of the unit, so it would be way easier to find a card.

As a reminder for cavalry rules:
-MS value for heavy cavalry should be bold or something
-RS value for light cavalry should be also bold (or something)
to indicate that these values doesn't change by Rushing

-ES value for heavy and light cavalry should be in italic (or something ) to indicate that this value doesn't goes down to zero by rushing.

I was flipping trough the books and here are some suggestions:

If a special weapon is so special that it only appears on one unit, there is no point putting it's description into the fraction armory. Like Amamimoto's Oar. There is enough space in Amamimoto's page to hold that information.

I suggest to make Armor Penetration a stat of units as it would be way easier to follow. I know this probably doesn't makes sense logically as weapons pierce armor, but if you look at all units that have upgrade equipment(choose one equipment units and Heroes aside), you can notice this:
-Throughout upgrade, only one unit's AP changes. If a unit gains weapons with AP as one of it's upgrade, it usually has one with AP already.(The Civitan Marine can be upgraded with pistol, but only comes with a sword making him the only exception)
-If all weapons would loose their AP values and all units would gain Melee AP and Ranged AP stats based on what their weapons lost, nothing would change. From that, you would found that a unit either has no ranged weapon or their ranged and melee AP is equal(I'm researching this last bit currently).

Units that can be equipped multiple ways are different of course, but those units basically are 2 or 3 units with no upgrade equipment anyways.
Heroes may gain weapons with AP, but they may gain +1 AP on level X instead.

I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

(I can follow the current AP rules, but I see this opportunity to make the game more straightforward.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other. In some unit pages it says "Standard Equipment", in other pages it's' just simply "Equipment"

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

Ya lost me on that one Whiteroo, I had to read you post a handful of times to figure out what you were saying. Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that instead of the Armor Penetration value being on the weapon, you want it to be added to the model's statline as a Ranged AP and a Melee AP right?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

Ya lost me on that one Whiteroo, I had to read you post a handful of times to figure out what you were saying. Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that instead of the Armor Penetration value being on the weapon, you want it to be added to the model's statline as a Ranged AP and a Melee AP right?

Yes.

Also I'm suggesting that one AP value for both melee and ranged attacks would be enough.

Both of your first comments come down to standardization. It would get confusing if some special weapons are just on the model entry and others are in the armory. In either case, they are listed on the back of the model's card with their information.

I feel enough models change equipment, resulting in different AP values, that it should remain on the weapon. You still have to refer to the weapon to see how much damage is dealt anyway.

Off the top of my head, fusiliers changing stances, many of the heroes, Assassins upgrading to pistols, Rat Raiders using poleaxes, Kernish terriers, etc.

Making exceptions where for some models their AP increases from certain things, or certain special weapon descriptions are listed in different places, just leads to confusion.

Ill go through and make sure all the entries say Standard Equipment instead of 'Equipment'

I went trough both books and look after different AP values on melee and ranged, and I found 21 units including heroes and stance changers.

Many of these comes from having/gaining/upgrading-to Rifle.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I believe it would be way easier to follow AP like this.

Ya lost me on that one Whiteroo, I had to read you post a handful of times to figure out what you were saying. Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that instead of the Armor Penetration value being on the weapon, you want it to be added to the model's statline as a Ranged AP and a Melee AP right?

Yes.

Also I'm suggesting that one AP value for both melee and ranged attacks would be enough.

Ya, I'm going to agree with misk on this one. The AP should remain on the weapon and not on the model. It's an interesting suggestion, but the way I see it, the reason why a Dagger has AP1 is not because the person wielding the dagger as enough strength to shove that dagger into a model's kidney(s) through armor, but it's because the dagger was designed and implemented to get up under the slits in armor. The strength of the person wielding it didn't matter so much as the dagger's design. The same goes when looking at arrows. A broadhead arrow pierces armor the way it does because of the way it's designed. Two archers with the same strength, but using a field arrow vs. a broadhead will yield different results because of the design of the weapon, not the person wielding it.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Ya, I'm going to agree with misk on this one. The AP should remain on the weapon and not on the model. It's an interesting suggestion, but the way I see it, the reason why a Dagger has AP1 is not because the person wielding the dagger as enough strength to shove that dagger into a model's kidney(s) through armor, but it's because the dagger was designed and implemented to get up under the slits in armor. The strength of the person wielding it didn't matter so much as the dagger's design. The same goes when looking at arrows. A broadhead arrow pierces armor the way it does because of the way it's designed. Two archers with the same strength, but using a field arrow vs. a broadhead will yield different results because of the design of the weapon, not the person wielding it.

I get that. What I'm saying is that it's redundant as a weapon value. AP being on weapons is just overcomplicates things without having any advantage(currently). You have to look up the AP value on weapon base instead of unit base.

Here is the change I suggest:
-Remove all AP values from all weapons, and make all units gain AP as their stats, based what got removed from their weapons. That is going to be either 0 or 1, and rarely 2 or 3.
-Make the Rifle, Sniper Rifle, Long Rifle and so on gain the next ability: Unit's AP value becomes 1 while using this weapon.
-Make Heroes gain AP as they would gain that equipment with extra AP.
-Make Stance Shifters gain/loose AP with their stances where it's necessary.

-Make the Pike using Kernish terrier gain: +1AP in melee.
-Make the Veiled Assasin gain: +1 AP if upgraded with Pistol.

This would not change the game at all, but would make AP way more easier to follow. It could be a big number in the back side of the card instead you have to look for it for every weapon in every attack.

I believer your changes are over complicating simply flipping the card over to see that the weapon has X AP value on it.

What was once 'look at weapon's AP' is not 6 different rule adjustments for no perceivable gain.

 WhiteRoo wrote:
I get that. What I'm saying is that it's redundant as a weapon value. AP being on weapons is just overcomplicates things without having any advantage(currently). You have to look up the AP value on weapon base instead of unit base.

Which is on the back of the card. If you're flipping through the rulebook to find these things, you're overcomplicating things on your own. I completely understand that the 2nd ed cards aren't provided with the models, but that's because we're in beta still. When we start releasing models with the 2nd ed cards, then it's a matter of flipping over the cads. Though as someone in the beta, you should have access to all of the 2nd ed cards already


Edit: What advantage is given by having it on the model's statline? Because I don't see an advantage to your proposed changes.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Edit: What advantage is given by having it on the model's statline? Because I don't see an advantage to your proposed changes.

AP is a shared value. It is already not the weapon's own that it's listed with.

You look for the highest on an unit's weapons during it's attack set, and say that is the unit's AP
Checking all attacking unit's AP you are looking for the highest most common.
And occasionally overrule this with the Exemplar, Adjutant or Hero's AP.

It is a massive pain in the... to follow this. My change would make it trivial.

All those things still occur if it is on the model.

You still have to check each individual model in the squad, in Hordes with mixed weapons, you have to check the special rule listed for each model to determine any changes; and an Exemp/Hero/Adj still overrides.

The difference is whether you're looking at a stat next to the damage of a weapon, which you already need to do; or check for special rules + a stat on the front of the card, and THEN check the damage on the weapon anyway.

 miskatonicalum wrote:
All those things still occur if it is on the model.

You still have to check each individual model in the squad, in Hordes with mixed weapons, you have to check the special rule listed for each model to determine any changes; and an Exemp/Hero/Adj still overrides.

The difference is whether you're looking at a stat next to the damage of a weapon, which you already need to do; or check for special rules + a stat on the front of the card, and THEN check the damage on the weapon anyway.

Why would be it in the front? There is room at the back, with the weapons.

Yeah, you would have to check it, but the checking would be easier.

Imagine the difference checking the ranged AP of the Daimyo and it's two attendant's, then checking the melee AP next, while with my change the two would not just be the same by definition, but it would be easy to tell by just glancing to the cards.

And it would be nowhere near as weird as Doyle's Bartitsu Master ability.

So, you're still flipping to the back of the card to check the AP, but you're still referring to the front of the card for any special rules that may adjust AP, like Stances/Styles on Fusiliers, and then checking Special rules on rifles or Pistols, to see the same thing, so now instead of AP being in 1 place for a Melee weapon, and 1 place for a Ranged weapon, both of which you would still have to refer to to see damage, range, other special rules related to the weapon. You're now looking in three places, per card.


What does Doyle's multiple attacks have to do with AP? That you have to refer to the ES of the target model? sure, that's one model that has to refer to a bunch of other cards, not every model having to refer to a bunch of different spots to determine the value of one stat.

 WhiteRoo wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Edit: What advantage is given by having it on the model's statline? Because I don't see an advantage to your proposed changes.

AP is a shared value. It is already not the weapon's own that it's listed with.

You look for the highest on an unit's weapons during it's attack set, and say that is the unit's AP
Checking all attacking unit's AP you are looking for the highest most common.
And occasionally overrule this with the Exemplar, Adjutant or Hero's AP.

It is a massive pain in the... to follow this. My change would make it trivial.

Most units have the same weapon, so you're not looking at different weapons during the attack set, hordes units are different and thus have to worry about a little extra work on their part. So a unit will have the same AP regardless unless you have an attached model with a higher AP than the squad.

I also have suggestion for the cards:

I believe it would be more simple if the weapons would be in the front side and just the name of the abilities, having the glossary of the mentioned abilities in the back. This was you only have to flip the card if you want to use one of it's ability, and want to double-check it, and not in every turn when you want to attack.

For example:

------Front:--------

Skyhawk Gunship:

(statline, portrait)

Type: Specialist, Light Cavalry
Base: 120mm
Speed: 10
Special Abilities:
Flight, Ambush, Mechanical, Airsloop, Aerial Barrage,Full Burn

Standard Equipment:
Flame Cannon x2, 5” Range, Large Template, 1 DE, Fire, Ignores, Body Armor
Armor Plating
4 AR, 2 AR Shield

------Back:-------

Skyhawk Gunship:

(Unit Cost)

Airsloop - The Skyhawk is a Garrison for up to
5 Models. Sky Marines Garrisoned on a Skyhawk
may use Assault Assistance Pack as part of their
Activation when they leave the Garrison.
Aerial Barrage - While Models are Garrisoned
in the Skyhawk, its Flame Cannons have a 15”
Range.
Full Burn - The Skyhawk may Rush 25”, but
cannot make attacks with the Flame Cannons on
the same Activation. The Skyhawk retains it ES
when performing Full Burn.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Most units have the same weapon, so you're not looking at different weapons during the attack set, hordes units are different and thus have to worry about a little extra work on their part. So a unit will have the same AP regardless unless you have an attached model with a higher AP than the squad.

Exactly. the AP value is important and doesn't changing like at all. But it's handled as you would have to recalculate it in every turn. Actually, armor is somewhat the same, but it's at least falls into two category that you would have to check separately anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is what I found about AP today:

The next units have different AP values in range and melee:

Warlord(gains Tail Blade, makes it's melee and ranged attack on different AP)
Kernish Terrier(Pike stance - Pike has 1 AP while the Javelin has none)

The next units have different ranged/melee AP because they have Rifle.
Sean, Bull Regular, Otter Ashigaru, Pride Lioness, Veldt Hound, Trapper, Aquiçois Bazaine, Mongoose Legionnaire, Weasel Fusilier, Sardan Commando, Choris al-Iguan, Adwaita Engineer, Gecko Rider,

The Next units change their AP while level-up or upgrade. However once they are reach the upgrade/level, their AP in melee and Ranged is the same:
Imperial Duke(gains Pistol), Veiled Assassin(gains Pistol), Daimyo(gains Pike),Zabaran Chieftain(gains Sharpened Horn), Tactician General(gains Pistol), Conquistador(gains Pistol), Caliph of the Sands(gains Pistol), Vizier(gains Scepter), Hedge Knight(gains Lance).

 WhiteRoo wrote:
Exactly. the AP value is important and doesn't changing like at all. But it's handled as you would have to recalculate it in every turn. Actually, armor is somewhat the same, but it's at least falls into two category that you would have to check separately anyway.

You don't have to recalculate it every turn. If my unit has AP 1 on this turn, it'll most likely have AP1 on the next turn. The only time this changes is when my highest AP dies.

And yes there are things that have different AP under different circumstances, because the WEAPONS ARE DIFFERENT, please go back and see the example of the weapons being different and not the person being different.

Also as to your stat card changes, this was something I had thought about, and it would match other game systems, and after putting all my stat cards down on the table, looking at them, and then flipping them over, your changes would really only work with cards that have little to no upgrades but have a few special rules. If you look at the stat card for the Tanuki Samurai, his equipment takes up almost the entirety of the back of the card, and yet his special rules are only about half of that box on the front.

Edit: Much like the last time, What advantage is there to putting equipment on the front and special rules on the back? if you can provide good reasons as to why this should be done, it'll be easier to discuss it using positives, because 2 out of 3 (Cy, Misk, and least of all myself) of us think that the cards are fine atm, and the third I haven't talked to.

Edit the second: the bold is not to come across mean or anything like that but because I want to make sure that the question I'm asking is easily identifiable.

I think the cards are fine. Putting the names on the back is a pretty good idea.

Not sure what the confusion about AP is at all.

BTW hi! Been busy.

The current Tanuki Samurai's equipment list doesn't even takes half the card.

I don't have a really-really good reason to swap the sides of the cards, except these:
In the case of the Tanuki samurai, you going to need the description of the special abilities once a mach top, while you show it to your opponent who don't know the Tanuki Samurai, while you going to need the weapon stats in every attack.

Also, numbers sequences are harder to learn, so those should be prioritised as you don't need to learn the ability word-by-word, but you need the exact number while performing an attack.

Basically, weapon stats are more frequently used and harder to learn while most of the abilities seldom come into play in the first place.

Weapon ability descriptions like extended reach could also go to the back.

Stance using units really should have one card per stance. Siege weapons should also have cards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

You don't have to recalculate it every turn. If my unit has AP 1 on this turn, it'll most likely have AP1 on the next turn. The only time this changes is when my highest AP dies.

And yes there are things that have different AP under different circumstances, because the WEAPONS ARE DIFFERENT, please go back and see the example of the weapons being different and not the person being different.

This two line is where the devil hides. In the first you are basically saying that a unit's AP will not change often. Actually it's never changing. So once you calculated the AP value, you can highlight it in the unit's card or something for ease of use. (currently, it takes two color of highilght, one for melee and one for ranged, but that's not the point)

In the secound line you are saying that weapons are different, and I understand that. However AP may come from the weapons, in the end it is the stat of the unit that wields it.
For example: A lv1 Civitan Capitaine has a Sword and a Pistol. In melee, he has 1 AP both in his sword and Pistol - or rather on neither of those, he has it on his attack - because AP is the highest most common AP value of the attacking squad, meaning him only and his weapons. The sword has 0 while the Pistol has 1, the Capitaine's AP is 1. It's already the Capitaine's stat it's just a calculated one - or rather, a hidden one.

What I'm saying is that I think this doesn't make any sense to have it like this. You could say that the Capitaine has 1 AP as his stat instead of having this useless logic behind a squad/unit's AP.

What I'm also saying that doing this would not have a big inpact on the game in terms of combat power, but it would simplify a lot in the game. you no longer would have to think about how much AP an unit has, you would just check a single number in it's card.

Actually not weapons are different. weapon combinations are. This is how the rules work.

Giving AP to the units from the weapons would open up more balancing possibilities as a unit may gain or loose an AP regardless of it's weapons.

Also, this bugs me for a while now: Why Speed is not part of the stat line?

 WhiteRoo wrote:
In the case of the Tanuki samurai, you going to need the description of the special abilities once a mach top, while you show it to your opponent who don't know the Tanuki Samurai, while you going to need the weapon stats in every attack.

You should know what every weapon does after a few games, and even if you don't it takes a half second to look at what the model is equipped with (either look at the model or the list) and you then say, "Oh hey, he's got a greatsword, his stuff is x, y, and z."

Basically, weapon stats are more frequently used and harder to learn while most of the abilities seldom come into play in the first place.

Weapon ability descriptions like extended reach could also go to the back.

Stance using units really should have one card per stance. Siege weapons should also have cards.

Flipping the card is a moot effort, once you learn that a rifle on a Fusilier does the same damage and has the same rules as a rifle on an Otter, it doesn't matter how frequently you use them.

Weapon ability descriptions have the description name so we don't have to put them on the back. It saves space on the card, and it prevents us from having to type out 50 words as opposed to 2 words.

And stance units don't need extra cards, it just takes up space, creates clutter, and doesn't really help you if you lose the card. Sure you can print more, but keeping them on 1 card means that you don't have to spend your time searching for your Pike Otters, instead you just find your Otter card...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WhiteRoo wrote:
What I'm saying is that I think this doesn't make any sense to have it like this. You could say that the Capitaine has 1 AP as his stat instead of having this useless logic behind a squad/unit's AP.

What I'm also saying that doing this would not have a big inpact on the game in terms of combat power, but it would simplify a lot in the game. you no longer would have to think about how much AP an unit has, you would just check a single number in it's card.

It's already a single number that you have to check. "I'm shooting at this guy with rifles, what's my AP?" It's 1.

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