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.

As I said, it's not that the Z player gets CP to work with and learn to use.

It's that it seems strange to give them three times how many the RDF player gets.

Why does one side adhere to 'how the rules work' and the other is all 'oh well, roll with it'?

By that standard, why not have both sides get 6? Or 4? Or hell, 2, so for that they're on the same standing. That way both sides have a resource to manage.

Just something I found weird during demo reports as well. And while it's clearly not unwinnable for the RDF, I've always wondered if that wasn't at least part of why it seemed the Zentraedi forces seemed to win those demo games more often.

I suppose the idea is that the VT's unload missiles into the Z's and balance the numbers closer to 4 to 2 or something (assuming those CP don't help them survive too well).

It's not the end of the world, it is just the introduction, but the introduction flat out ignoring a rather important rule is kind of at the heart of the (non) issue we're so pleasantly discussing.

I guess it's just the scaling.

If you double the figures (1 Z squad of 12 pods and 1 RDF squad of 4 Valks), the VT's get 6 CP and the Pods get 0.

The fact that the Z player would probably take an Officer in there isn't the point. It's that it's a strange way to introduce players to a mechanic, and makes me wonder just how important we are supposed to take away that these are or aren't. I thought they were super important, so just throwing 6 at the Z side sort of flies in the face of that. It's a weird little game design/snag that I can't quite wrap my mind around.

Maybe it'll make more sense when I can get a game in of my own.

I just think it isn't well thought out. I am willing to bet the first contact theme held more weight than the rules inclusions/exclusions here.

And in the end who really cares. It just seems an odd way to go to me.

@Forar: Generally speaking, you get 1 CP per mecha. A valk is unquestionably better than a single regult, by a vast margin. Giving each player the same amount of CP does nothing to balance the First Contact scenario. Moreover, I don't think we can really assume balance is the goal of that scenario.

 Forar wrote:
it's a strange way to introduce players to a mechanic

Not really, no -- it's a very good way to introduce the concept of CP because it shows how vastly inferior mecha like regults can be supplemented by CP to threaten valks. In fact, I would say that the value of CP was my main take away from First Contact (considering I know the basic vocab of wargaming from other games).

So getting 6 CP isn't a big deal?

Funny. I thought they were super powerful/useful.

 Forar wrote:
So getting 6 CP isn't a big deal?

I think you are arguing with yourself.

Here's what I have been saying:

 Manchu wrote:
Command points are very strong.

 Manchu wrote:
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

 Manchu wrote:
vastly inferior mecha like regults can be supplemented by CP to threaten valks

 Manchu wrote:
I would say that the value of CP was my main take away from First Contact

Giving 6 of them to the Zentraedi seems like a huge thing, and yet when that's pointed out people are all "oh, but it's not that big a deal and totally still a fair fight!"

So which is it, because it seems like a mutually exclusive mechanic. Either they're super good and getting 6 (when normally they don't generate any) is awesome, or they're not that good and it's not a big deal.

I mean, a core squad card is 12 pods. That generates 0 CP on its own. And costs 70 points. In theory, that should be a fair fight (with an upgrade or cheap character) against an 80 point VT squad.

If not, then I'm concerned how this game will scale. Clearly there's supposed to be a force building emphasis (on all sides) of making sure enough CP generating figures are included, at the cost of extra 'warm bodies', but they're a force multiplier. So I have a hard time believing that it's not a big deal to hand out a big force multiplier to the Z side for no good reason. Again, by that standard, why not give the RDF side 6 as well and let both of them play with a nice little pile apiece?

I mean, is 1 X-Wing versus 2 TIE's a perfectly balanced fight? Not necessarily, but the Imperials don't get double actions in that game to make up for it either.

I believe any concerns are entirely unfounded as the sole purpose for the introductory scenario is for the players to learn the core rules.

From my point of view, it is an overwhelming success because now I have an easy grasp of activation, movement, and combat.

So, anyway.

Going back to a point I brought up earlier, I found myself not quite grasping the utility of the Volley rule until actual application. It really makes you think about how you would split up your missiles versus the single target bonus of making the volley Inescapable. Mike, and others who have been playing, have you found yourself using a mix of the two available options or do you have a preference for one over the other?

 judgedoug wrote:
I believe any concerns are entirely unfounded as the sole purpose for the introductory scenario is for the players to learn the core rules.

In that regard, yes.

However, this game was also advertised with a smaller scale Skirmish variant as well.

Am I to take it that the skirmish level fights (support and special cards only) is just flat out unbalanced as well?

Yeah, I'd split them up into 2 groups of 3 and wreak Havoc. You get +1 for Close Formation, +1 for Flanking and one group will get another +1 for Rear. Then you can use Accurate.....

Spending CP can really help. A lot of the things you can do with CP involves attempting to do something -- spending a CP to attempt to steal initiative, move farther, or dodge. You spend the CP to roll a die; it's not automatic. But you can spend a CP to automatically fire an additional weapon system. Of course, you have to be in range for that to matter. But when you are in range and you have initiative, that's another shot and if you hit another couple of points of damage.

A regult will go down in one hit from a GU-11. And the GU-11 has rapid fire. It is therefore very important to bring as many weapons to bear on a valk before it gets to shoot back. The First Contact scenario was very effective at teaching me this lesson because losing a regult is not only losing a weapons platform but also losing a CP on the next turn (because the scenario does not use Life is Cheap).

I have no idea what you are trying to argue, Forar. This has nothing to do with "scaling" whatsover because First Contact does not use Life Is Cheap. This also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with balance as it is a very basic introductory scenario.

 Forar wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I believe any concerns are entirely unfounded as the sole purpose for the introductory scenario is for the players to learn the core rules.

In that regard, yes.

However, this game was also advertised with a smaller scale Skirmish variant as well.

Am I to take it that the skirmish level fights (support and special cards only) is just flat out unbalanced as well?

Well, when you get yours try it and share your 2 cents.

 Mike1975 wrote:
You get +1 for Close Formation, +1 for Flanking and one group will get another +1 for Rear. Then you can use Accurate.....

Yeah we completely missed all of this. But that is why we are playing the intro scenarios and then discussing it here.

 Mike1975 wrote:
Well, when you get yours try it and share your 2 cents.

Will do!

In January or whenever it is that it finally gets here and I have time to build a dozen figures.

 Forar wrote:
Am I to take it that the skirmish level fights (support and special cards only) is just flat out unbalanced as well?

It's hard to see where you could have gotten that impression from anything posted here.

 Manchu wrote:
Spending CP can really help. A lot of the things you can do with CP involves attempting to do something -- spending a CP to attempt to steal initiative, move farther, or dodge. You spend the CP to roll a die; it's not automatic. But you can spend a CP to automatically fire an additional weapon system. Of course, you have to be in range for that to matter. But when you are in range and you have initiative, that's another shot and if you hit another couple of points of damage.

A regult will go down in one hit from a GU-11. And the GU-11 has rapid fire. It is therefore very important to bring as many weapons to bear on a valk before it gets to shoot back. The First Contact scenario was very effective at teaching me this lesson because losing a regult is not only losing a weapons platform but also losing a CP on the next turn.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue, Forar. This has nothing to do with "scaling" whatsover because First Contact does not use Life Is Cheap. This also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with balance as it is a very basic introductory scenario.

Manchu, as a side Note Forar bought the game mostly for the idea of skirmish games and the skirmish rules, to be fair, are not what some thought they would be. Many imagined a distinct and more advanced rules set with more details for smaller fights and not just the main game scaled down to smaller forces.

 Mike1975 wrote:
Many imagined a distinct and more advanced rules set with more details for smaller fights and not just the main game scaled down to smaller forces.

What "many imagined" and why is the subject of a different thread. The rulebook is out. This thread is about the game we have, not the one someone may have imagined or what may have been falsely advertised.

Agreed

Mike, kindly don't put words into my mouth. I have never said anything of the sort.

 Mike1975 wrote:
Yeah, I'd split them up into 2 groups of 3 and wreak Havoc. You get +1 for Close Formation, +1 for Flanking and one group will get another +1 for Rear. Then you can use Accurate.....

Valkyries have Volley 4 so would you do the same for 4 shots? I also completely missed these bonuses. So do you prefer splitting always and never using Inescapable? I can imagine it'd be pretty useful to take out a high value target such as a Glaug, NG, or QR.

I was pretty sure it was you but if not I apologize, the sentiment still stands for others. They wanted to buy JUST for skirmish games and were unhappy that the result is not what they imagined.

 judgedoug wrote:
It really makes you think about how you would split up your missiles versus the single target bonus of making the volley Inescapable.

I don't see a lot of use in shooting four missiles at a single regult just so it can't try to dodge. That's something you save for a glaug.

Inescapable is not OP or anything. It just prevents the target from spending a CP to attempt to dodge. The real reason to shoot all four missiles at something is to make sure it dies.

Let me clarify,

I'd split the squad of 6 Regults up into 2 groups of 3 and wreak Havoc. You get +1 for Close Formation as long as 2 or more are within 2 inches of each other, +1 for Flanking if you get one group to the side/rear 180 degree arc and one of the two groups will get another +1 for Rear. Then you can use Accurate.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also UEDF uses volleys of 4 missiles
The Zentraedi 6 or 8 for the FPA.

I think we should play First Contact again TBH.

Switch sides next time and see what happens....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the UEDF fires first the Regults can use command points to dodge and roll and reduce damage or shield each other if in Close Formation. So if one Regult is hit by a GU-11 and is in Close Formation a nearby regult can absorb half the damage taking 3 each without spending command points. Then Roll with each Regult and half the damage so that each one will only take a single point of damage since you round down to a minimum of 1. So one shot and 2 Command Points later you have 2 Regults that have each only taken a single point of damage and can fire back. If he Rapid Fires and uses his command points up, he can't dodge when you counterattack.

If the Zen move and shoot first go all offense and see if you can make the UEDF player burn his command points trying to dodge. Then you know he can't Rapid Fire back at you.

LOL I'd like another chance with all of those bonuses we missed.

 Mike1975 wrote:
I was pretty sure it was you but if not I apologize, the sentiment still stands for others. They wanted to buy JUST for skirmish games and were unhappy that the result is not what they imagined.

Nope. That was probably me. And you mistook my meaning too. It wasn't JUST for skirmish. It was wanting it to be usable at Skirmish. But it's all a moot point on that subject, I doubt I'll ever find out for myself.

Sounds like the introductory scenario spent too much time teaching you guys about how regults get CP and not enough time about all the bonuses that actually make the difference!

 Swabby wrote:
Sounds like the introductory scenario spent too much time teaching you guys about how regults get CP and not enough time about all the bonuses that actually make the difference!

Wow. So you've always understood all the rules on every intro game you've played. That's awesome!

Mike... The whole idea of an introductory scenario is to teach you the game.

What I got from this one is that regults produce CP (which they do not following their special rule which is exempted for this scenario) and that it doesn't actually lead the player into using modifiers, which are a massive part of the game.

Take from that what you will, but that is what it is. I didn't say a single word about knowing all the rules in all the games I have played, you did.

Jeez, what is your problem? We forgot a few rules because it had been a long time since we discussed them here on Dakka and because we were so excited to get a chance to play.