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.

Is a battle report thread for this kind of content out of the question? I may be alone here, but I think it will take away from actual rules discussion.

This scenario was designed to teach the rules so I think talking about it here is a good idea -- precisely to generate rules discussion. For example, can one of you refresh me on Life Is Cheap?

Generally speaking, however, it is certainly okay for people to start batrep threads -- just like for any other game.

As to this scenario:

I concluded that I had to capitalize on initiative and pour fire into the valks. My first mistake was not spending all my command points on my first turn to do so. Given that command points refresh every turn and only permanently go down as a result of loosing mecha (i.e., models), the rules really really really want you to use all your command points every turn.

Command points are very strong. My main advantage over judgedoug's valks was not really greater numbers but rather the nexus between that and a greater number of command points. The valks, however, make up for it with rapid fire on their GU-11s but the UEDF player does have some challenging choices when it comes to optimizing rapid fire with command points, as judgedoug mentioned.

Other than having more command points, my other advantage over the valks was leap. Leap gives regults a 10 inch overall move, 5 inches of which basically ignores terrain. Since I consistently had the initiative (my only good rolls the whole game), I was able to get right up on the valks to maximize the number of weapons I could shoot and the chance of them hitting. Along those lines, I also wanted to encourage judgedoug to keep his valks in battloid mode because they are easier to hit that way. The downside, however, is they are better shots. Someone should do the math on the cost/benefits of the variable modes.

In the end, my regults were totally ineffective but I think that really was more a problem with me rolling incredibly low the entire game (other than initiative) rather than anything wrong with the rules.

How many command points did you have vs the UEDF?

They seemed pretty even to me due to life is cheap taking them away from regults.

What scenario was it?

The scenario was "First Contact."

As I understand it, you get 1 CP per mecha. So I had six to judgedoug's two.

We did not use Life is Cheap -- I don't have the rules handy, could you explain it?

Life is cheap basically is this
Units do not generate command points or victory points
Units can fire on friendly units with Life is Cheap even if they are in Hand to Hand.
Life is Cheap for Regults means that the Glaug can respawn them if using the Zen Faction rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So Regults by themselves in normal games do not generate command points.

Keep in mind that it also says that for this scenario Regults DO NOT have Life is Cheap

I still think that's idiotic.

1 or 2 I could understand, to teach players how to use them.

6 Battlepods generate 6 CP, 12 Battlepods generate 0.

O.o

 Forar wrote:
6 Battlepods generate 6 CP, 12 Battlepods generate 0.

How do you mean? Is there even a unit of six regults?

What Mike and you said above.

For the 6 pods vs 2 VTs scenario, the pods generate full CP when normally (without an Officer's Pod or something else) they don't generate gak.

That's weird to me. If CP are supposed to be a valuable resource, shouldn't letting the Z player get *infinitely more than they should have* be a balance issue?

For 'real play' perhaps not, but shouldn't the small scale 'learning the game' experiences reflect the actual rules?

Hence why I think it's sensible to give the Z player a couple to play with, but giving them 3 times the number the RDF player has is strange.

Yeah you lost me there as well.

I do think it is weird that the introductory mission has you playing regults in a manner that ignores the rules you are going to use in every other game though.

 Swabby wrote:
I do think it is weird that the introductory mission has you playing regults in a manner that ignores the rules you are going to use in every other game though.

Exactly this.

Oooh, new title upgrade.

Huh, apparently I'm on the Bridge again.

Ah, yes, perhaps that's what was lingering in my mind when we set up the first scenario, so I never referenced it. However, he could have Focus Fired on my Valkyries and probably taken one out more efficiently than his poor luck was able to do by itself

Focus Fire - A mecha with Focus Fire may fire one additional weapon system for FREE (no Command Points) provided it did not move during the Movement Step that turn.

I'm not sure what the hubbub is about not including advanced rules playing playing introductory scenarios? This is how, for example, Squad Leader is learned, and that is pretty much universally acclaimed. Additionally the first scenario says not to use terrain, as it's a learning game, but I wanted to get out all my unpainted Gamecraft buildings

Life is cheap isn't an advanced rule, it is absolutely essential to how regults work in the normal unmodified game.

It would be like playing a demo in warmachine where all of the sudden one side didn't have a warcaster and the jacks produced focus on their own instead. Why would you do this?

Many games have learning scenarios and quick start rules that alter the base game rules a bit to fit the scenario. This is no different.

What I did propose and was kinda shot down on but others still need to review it, was to give players in Skirmish level games 1 Command Point per 3 Pods with Life is Cheap and 1 for every 4 Infantry with Life is Cheap.

The reason is that Zentraedi squadrons and how they are set up rely heavily on the Command Pods, and since they have the Faction ability to bring pods back that makes sense.

When you have a skirmish game and ignore Faction abilities it no longer applies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Focused Fire is a great boon for Pods once they are within 12 inches they can sit put. It allows them to fire an extra Weapon system increasing their damage by 50% and the main guns also have the accurate trait so the Pods will also get the +1 bonus if the unit did not move and he fires the main guns.

"Many games have learning scenarios and quick start rules that alter the base game rules a bit to fit the scenario. This is no different."

Can you name some that change the way a unit works this drastically in the demo game?

Keep in mind this is a teaching scenario.

Here's what I learned about command points from First Contact:

- spend all of them every turn
- all other things being equal, it is good to have more than your opponent
- use them to get extra attacks or attempt to get extra movement, steal/defend initiative, dodge

I think it is key for both the UEDF and Zent player to learn these points during play. Suspending Life Is Cheap allows for that.

Also -- the objective is to destroy all your opponents forces. Is that possible using Life Is Cheap?

Is this seriously something to complain about? The first scenario also says not to use terrain. Obviously, that's so you don't have to learn the rules for terrain yet. Life is Cheap is a fairly complex special rule. Additionally, the Zentraedi player is not allowed to choose their units.

Great, the Introductory scenarios, which are designed for you to come to grip with the core rules a single step at a time, does not include the most complicated special rule (firing into close combat, dividing damage, etc).

 Swabby wrote:
Can you name some that change the way a unit works this drastically in the demo game?

Yes, Warhammer 40k demo games all universally use a 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, and 4+ armor save. The idea being that you learn the core mechanics of a system before you cover yourself in special rules.
Warlord Games Bolt Action - which I am a Sarge for - also eliminates fiddly extra rules for demo games such as the national benefits (so the Germans do not get the NCO replacement and MG42 upgrades and the US forces do not get the move-and-fire bonuses for their M1's and BAR).

Again, the entire Squad Leader rulebook is developed one rule concept at a time with a scenario using that core concept. This is from 1977 and that style is still in use today, as it is one of the easiest ways to teach a game to new players. 200,000 copies sold as of the mid 80's obviously meant they did something right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Also -- the objective is to destroy all your opponents forces. Is that possible using Life Is Cheap?

Technially, units with Life is Cheap generate no VP so the scenario could be argued to be unwinnable. An unwinnable scenario is obviously preferable to playing a learning game with abbreviated rules.

 Swabby wrote:
"Many games have learning scenarios and quick start rules that alter the base game rules a bit to fit the scenario. This is no different."

Can you name some that change the way a unit works this drastically in the demo game?

Battletech, Alpha Strike, Babylon 5 Wars, Fleet Action, I think some full thrust ones also but that has been a while, I could track down a few more if it helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Keep in mind this is a teaching scenario.

Here's what I learned about command points from First Contact:

- spend all of them every turn
- all other things being equal, it is good to have more than your opponent
- use them to get extra attacks or attempt to get extra movement, steal/defend initiative, dodge

I think it is key for both the UEDF and Zent player to learn these points during play. Suspending Life Is Cheap allows for that.

Also -- the objective is to destroy all your opponents forces. Is that possible using Life Is Cheap?

Good Points all, I would only add that in larger games don't go haywire building Command Point heavy forces. You'll wind up wasting points that could have been used on other units.

Yes it is possible using life is cheap. In my opinion what they should have done is suspended the faction ability, added a glaug to the zentradi side and one more valkyrie to the uedf side.

That way both sides are producing a similar amount of command points and the zentradi player could use life is cheap to get used to it.

 Swabby wrote:
Yes it is possible using life is cheap. In my opinion what they should have done is suspended the faction ability, added a glaug to the zentradi side and one more valkyrie to the uedf side.

That way both sides are producing a similar amount of command points and the zentradi player could use life is cheap to get used to it.

You know it's the first of ... four... introductory scenarios, which gradually add more units and terrain and victory conditions as well as scenario special rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I think it is key for both the UEDF and Zent player to learn these points during play. Suspending Life Is Cheap allows for that.

I think playing that scenario with no CP's for the Regults would have been nowhere near as fun, especially as it allowed you to actually get hits on my Valks. I could definitely see it leaving a poor taste in our mouths if the only thing that happened was the Regults stood around barely doing anything while I killed them all in two turns. What would you have learned? "Regults suck!"

1st, no one is complaining.

2nd, if the object is to teach someone core mechanics you should design your scenario to do that without setting up potential for confusion later on.

The 40k example doesn't hold up for me because it simply makes the math simpler while the core mechanics are still the same. Command points are an extremely important part of playing this game and zentradi players should get a taste of how the faction actually plays in an introduction game.

The introductory scenario is not a VP game and judgedogs VP argument has no bearing on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you include a glaug they would still have more command points to play with than the UEDF player and it would give them a taste of how their faction actually works.

Both the 40k example and the BA example are surprisingly relevant because they remove faction specific advantages and disadvantages - exactly what ignoring "Life is Cheap" does. For the 40k example, both a Space Marine and a Cultist needing a 4+/4+/4+ means they have no benefit for being a space marine and no detriment for being a lowly cultist. The BA removal of national traits also does the same - the Germans have a huge advantage normally with extra machine gun shots and the Americans have a huge advantage with firing on the move (usually meaning their advancing shots over long range at units in hard cover will hit 1/6 of the time, instead of every other nation only hitting 1/36 of the time). By removing these special rules (and Life is Cheap is a special rule, as it's in the aptly named Special Abilities section, where it takes care to note that "these special abilities provide exceptions to the rules"), it allows new players to learn the very core mechanics of a system - for 40k, roll to hit/wound/armorsave; for BA, basic orders; for Robotech, activation/movement/combat.

Having played scenario 1, it excelled at it's intended task of allowing us to have memorized the very core mechanics of activation, movement and movement types, valkyrie transformation, gunnery vs piloting checks, and missiles. Just enough rules to reference once or twice and have them memorized.

Moving on to Scenario 2, aptly named "Onward"...

 judgedoug wrote:
I think playing that scenario with no CP's for the Regults would have been nowhere near as fun

As the Zent player in that game, I completely agree -- considering we also did not use focus fire. I think the more important issue is that I learned a lot about command points that I would not have if we had used Life Is Cheap. There is a huge difference between reading a rule in a book and actually trying to deal with it on the table. For example, I conceptually understand Life Is Cheap but I will have to play it to really understand the implications.

I had three goals for this game:

- learn core principles
- have fun
- finally use these awesome minis

As far as I am concerned, I achieved all three.

For those who prefer to use Life Is Cheap from square one -- go ahead, no one can stop you. As judgedoug mentioned, we used terrain. That's beyond what First Contact is written to teach about but oh well. We play wargames every week. A game without terrain is not as fun to us.

Did you guys both not read the part about the glaug giving the zentradi player command points?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Judgedoug do the units in the dark vengeance starter missions lose all their special rules?

 Swabby wrote:
Did you guys both not read the part about the glaug giving the zentradi player command points?

That's irrelevant.

The point of First Contact is not to teach faction rules/tactics. The object is to teach the basic vocabulary of the game. What is initiative? What is an activation? What is a Command Point?

I get that you aren't satisfied with First Contact as written. Neither were we -- we preferred to use lots of terrain rather than none. No one stopped us. No one will stop you from playing the scenario so that you get the most out of it from your perspective.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I think playing that scenario with no CP's for the Regults would have been nowhere near as fun

As the Zent player in that game, I completely agree

Yep. Totally irrelevant. A glaug would have given the CPs and helped the beginning player understand the faction (and avoid players miscounting regults as cp later)

There is a huge difference between reading a rule in a book and actually trying to deal with it on the table. For example, I conceptually understand Life Is Cheap but I will have to play it to really understand the implications.

Which is why it should be played from the begining. In my opinion.

Seems like a big argument about the one thing in the rule book that matters least....
The introductory scenario didn't confuse ANY of my friends. We all knew it was just a "get acquainted" with core mechanics mission.
I enjoyed both times we played it, but since the Regults won both games with crossfire and focus attacks, I will have to remember in future games to not let them surround me!

Get aquainted with units you will never use this way again!

Its just stupid and unecessary.

Crossfire is essential for regults considering their totally poor gunnery stat. More important than focus fire in my mind.

 Swabby wrote:
Also Judgedoug do the units in the dark vengeance starter missions lose all their special rules?

The units in First Contact did not lose all their special rules. This is actually an interesting point -- we noticed that the weapon special rules were very easy to understand and use. Now, we obviously spent a lot of time with the rulebook before playing as evidenced by this thread but it had been a while after all.

I think the main reason for leaving out Life Is Cheap is not to make sure the Zent player can use CP (although I found it personally enlightening). As you say, the glaug grants CP. But think of it this way, each player in First Contact only has one type of mecha. That makes learning the basics very easy.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I think playing that scenario with no CP's for the Regults would have been nowhere near as fun

As the Zent player in that game, I completely agree -- considering we also did not use focus fire. I think the more important issue is that I learned a lot about command points that I would not have if we had used Life Is Cheap. There is a huge difference between reading a rule in a book and actually trying to deal with it on the table. For example, I conceptually understand Life Is Cheap but I will have to play it to really understand the implications.

I had three goals for this game:

- learn core principles
- have fun
- finally use these awesome minis

As far as I am concerned, I achieved all three.

For those who prefer to use Life Is Cheap from square one -- go ahead, no one can stop you. As judgedoug mentioned, we used terrain. That's beyond what First Contact is written to teach about but oh well. We play wargames every week. A game without terrain is not as fun to us.

How do you think it would have played out if say the Regults had half as many command points at 3 instead of 6?

It depends on how they are played. If a player uses crossfire and close formation it could still end badly for the 2 valks, even with no cp.