Mantic Fanatics
August 19, 2019, 11:02:46 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: First photo's of the Corporation sculpts are shown. See them in the Corporation subforum.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Edits, Errors, Clarifications and Suggestions for Warpath 1st Ed Rules

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Edits, Errors, Clarifications and Suggestions for Warpath 1st Ed Rules  (Read 397 times)
Llew
Administrator
Mantic
*****

Mantic Points: +115/-1
Offline Offline

Current Army: Dwarves, Undead, Elves. Orcs soon I'm sure.
Posts: 375



View Profile
« on: November 11, 2011, 10:50:17 pm »

This should be fairly self-explanatory.

First one so far:

Page 4, Diagram B, under item 2. 
Change "...at least 1" from another model in the unit" to "...no more than 1" from another model in the unit."

Page 4, Diagram C. 
Make the same change mentioned for Diagram B.

Page 5, Para 3. 
Clarify, "...move the first model..."  How is the first model decided?  Is this any model chosen by the owner of the Charging unit, or is it the closest unit?  Or is there some other criteria for what makes a model the first model?

Change, "This follows the rules for a normal Run move (other than difficult terrain not slowing them down) and..." to "This follow the rules for a normal At the Double move (except difficult terrain will not slow them down) and..."

Change, "...spread your models as evenly amongst the ... " to "...spread your models as evenly as possible amongst the..."

Change, "...simply place as close as..." to "...simply place them as close as..."

Page 5, Para 5.

Change, "...just make sure your models are only in base contact with models other than the ones belonging to the unit they have charged." to "...just make sure your models are not in base contact with enemy models belonging to units they have not charged."  Alternatively, "...just make sure your models are only in base contact with models in their own unit, or with enemy models belonging to the unit they have charged."

Page 6, Cover.
Suggestion. This area still seems to need a rework.  I'd be much more in favor of using the Leader for determining which enemy units are in cover, rather than having to check every shooter.  And, technically, shooting across a patch of mud would provide cover for the target unit.  That seems odd.

Page 7, Para 1.
Change, "Any dice that rolls a..." to "Any die that rolls a ..."

Page 9, Overruns, Para 2.
Clarification.  You could conceivably get some pretty significant extra movement, depending on where the unit you're attempting to over run is.  This section seems to need some serious attention to refine it.  (It's fine for friendly games, but in a tournament it would be a mess.)

Page 10, Shooting Against Armor, Para 3.
Suggestion.  Would it be simpler to just determine where the leader of the firing unit is for determining which Arc it's hitting?  It's somewhat exploitable through positioning your unit leader, but at the same time, there are enough other controls on unit positioning that you probably can't game this overmuch.  It would reduce arguments based on situations where a unit straddles the line.

Page 10, Obvious Targets, Para 2.
Suggestion. Again, wouldn't it be simpler to just judge from the Leader for cover?  (Cover rules seem like an excellent way to bog the game down as they stand.)

Page 10, Melee Against Armor
Clarification.  Why does Crushing Strength not have any allowance for penetrating armor if the attacks are from the side or rear? 

Page 11, Ordinance, Melee, Para 3.
Add, "An Ordinance unit that cannot Advance after surviving a melee (like one deployed in difficult terrain) is destroyed instead."

Page 11, Heroes and Monsters, Para 2.
Clarification.  Why on earth do opponents get a +1 to hit single heroes or monsters on the field?  Are they all that massive?  Shouldn't "Obvious Target" be a special ability that applies to certain heroes or monsters, rather than to all of them?  I know that often they'll have Individual, but it seems cleaner to choose things to either be an Obvious Target, and Individual, or possibly be in a middle ground where neither applies.

Page 12, Transports, Dismounting, Para 1, Sentence 1
Change the reference to "Advance" to be "Manoeuver" instead for consistency.

Page 12, Special Rules, Fast.
Clarification.  Why on earth would you automatically make Fast vehicles Nimble as well?  Why wouldn't you keep these two abilities separate?  Dragsters are Fast.  They are not Nimble.

Page 13, Inspiring
Change, "This rule does not work on Armoured units." to say, "Armored units cannot benefit from nearby Inspiring units."  (Otherwise someone with a rules-lawyeristic bent could argue that when they Destroy your unit with an attack from their Armoured unit, they don't have to re-roll.)

Page 13, Lumbering, Flavor Text
Change, "build" to "built".

Page 13, Steadfast
Clarification. Does this ability even need to exist anymore?  The Nerve table is gone and it seems like you could just leave the Supressed line off a given unit's profile.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 01:04:39 am by Llew » Report Spam   Logged

No good deed goes unpunished.

scarletsquig
Mantic
**

Mantic Points: +713/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 336



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2011, 12:38:30 am »

Forgefather Army List, page 2, Fire Wyrm.

Change "instead than the listed price." to "instead of the listed price."

Page 7, BFGs

Change "Ballistic Firepower Guarantor" to "Ballistic Firepower Generator".. or even, better, remove it altogether and replace it with "Heavy Weapons".

At the moment, it's a bad in-joke, supported by a bad alternate name which has then been spelt wrong.

Page 13, Jump Troops.

Replace "but still cannot land on top of them", with "but cannot land on top of them".. the "still" word doesn't make sense when applied to difficult terrain since normal units can in fact finish their move on top of difficult terrain.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 04:43:48 am by scarletsquig » Report Spam   Logged
Llew
Administrator
Mantic
*****

Mantic Points: +115/-1
Offline Offline

Current Army: Dwarves, Undead, Elves. Orcs soon I'm sure.
Posts: 375



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2011, 12:22:51 pm »

and picking up where I got tired last night...


Page 13, Stealthy, Para 1.
Change "...more than 12" from an enemy unit." to "...more than 12" from all enemy units."

Clarification.  Why can't you drop the part about having to be outside of their deployment area?  If they decided to turtle up in 1 corner, why shouldn't your Stealthy unit be able to start in their zone?  Is there really a balance issue here?  It seems like the 12" distance requirement should normally make this a non-issue.

Page 14, Armour Special Rules, Open Top, Para 4.
Clarification.   "The drawback for all these bonuses is that Open Top vehicles have a considerably lower Def value, as the enemy shooting can cut down the crew and hit other vital components from the inside."  The entire paragraph doesn't seem to have any rules within it, although I think it's supposed to.

Maybe change it to say, "Open Top vehicles typically have a considerably lower Def value than other vehicles. The enemy can still target a unit in an Open Top vehicle."

If that's the case, then a note about cover should be applied, such as, "A unit inside an Open Top vehicle counts as having Hard Cover against all shooting attacks targeted at it."

Page 15, Time Games, Be Nice!, Para 2.
Suggestion: Remove this entire paragraph.  How can you correctly handle Regrouping moves after melee if the enemy unit is left on the table top?  You can't.  Units need to be removed during the turn they were destroyed.

Page 16, Game Scenarios, 3) Terrain - Alien Worlds, Para 1.
Change "...if the is quite a lot..." to "...if there is quite a lot..."

Page 16, Game Scenarios, 5) Engagement Brief, Scorched Earth, Para 1.
Possibly add some clarification about what to do if there is no legal place for an objective marker to be placed.  Something like, "If you cannot place an objective marker more than 12" from all other objective markers and outside of both players' deployment zones, then placement of markers ends."
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 12:44:57 pm by Llew » Report Spam   Logged

No good deed goes unpunished.
Llew
Administrator
Mantic
*****

Mantic Points: +115/-1
Offline Offline

Current Army: Dwarves, Undead, Elves. Orcs soon I'm sure.
Posts: 375



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2011, 03:36:10 pm »

A new one just pointed out by Hellebore on Warseer.


Page 7, Melee, Hitting, Modifiers, -1 fragged.

This rule no longer works.  It wasn't changed to account for the new Nerve system.

Change.  "The attacking unit has an amount of damage markers equal to or higher than its Nerve value." to read, "The attacking unit has an amount of damage markers equal to or higher than it's Destroyed value minus 10.  (i.e. If the attacking unit has a Destroyed value of 21, it is fragged if it has 11 or more damage markers.)"
Report Spam   Logged

No good deed goes unpunished.
Baragash
Ma
**

Mantic Points: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Current Army: KoW Undead & Dwarves
Posts: 111


Lord of the Pit


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2011, 04:06:16 pm »

I don't think that's the answer, at least not in the long term. Conceivably a unit could be created with a D value of 10 or less and become auto-fragged or require an exception written.

Also, whilst the adjustment might work at the moment mechanically, as fragged was originally set at the D value, it seems unlikely that the adjustment matches the author's intent.
Report Spam   Logged

Llew
Administrator
Mantic
*****

Mantic Points: +115/-1
Offline Offline

Current Army: Dwarves, Undead, Elves. Orcs soon I'm sure.
Posts: 375



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2011, 05:02:27 pm »

No...mathmatically a unit *can* be created with a D value of less than 10, but this is incredibly unlikely, given how the rules work.

This would be the equivalent of giving a unit a negative Nerve score under the old system.  Theoretically possible, but so foolish as to be implausible.

Fragged originally started out by applying once they took damage equal to their Nerve score.  The Destroyed-10 duplicates this number value.  How does that not fit the designer's original intent?
Report Spam   Logged

No good deed goes unpunished.
Baragash
Ma
**

Mantic Points: +7/-0
Offline Offline

Current Army: KoW Undead & Dwarves
Posts: 111


Lord of the Pit


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2011, 05:06:39 pm »

Because of the -10.

The Beta Nerve value is the 1st Ed Destroyed value, so having the -10 makes it "mathematically" the same, it doesn't make it "mechanically" the same. The -10 moves it from "everyone's screwed" to a kind of "half strength".
Report Spam   Logged

Llew
Administrator
Mantic
*****

Mantic Points: +115/-1
Offline Offline

Current Army: Dwarves, Undead, Elves. Orcs soon I'm sure.
Posts: 375



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2011, 06:06:27 am »

Destroyed - 10 is much closer than half value.

For instance, in beta when the rule was introduced, let's look at Forgefather Steel Warriors.

Nerve was 3, 5 and 9 for a  Team, Section and Platoon respectively.  So this was the damage needed to Frag them.

It *appears* that when it came time to put out the first edition, larger units didn't feel durable enough, so they upped how much it took to kill them.  (Was this to compensate for the Fragged rule?  Who knows?)  So the scores for destruction went to 13, 16 and 23.

If we figure at half value, then they get 7, 8 and 12.  (Gain of +4, +3 and +3.)  (Unless you want to go with non-standard rounding, in which case you need to specify that in the rules which is a teeny, tiny bit more complex, but it is something else to have to remember in a game.  Then you'd have 6,8 and 11 for a gain of +3, +3 and +2.)

Destroyed -10 gives 3, 6 and 13.  (Gain of 0, +1 and +4).  (This requires the Fragged rule changing to note that the value is Destroyed score -10, which is something else to remember for the game.)

Your method bulks up the durability of lower-value units pretty significantly.  My method seems to stay in line with the idea that larger units are more durable, which has been one of the design conceits of the KoW/Warpath system.  (Smaller units give you flexibility, larger units survive better and hit harder.)

I think my solution is marginally simpler, and fits in with the overall game design better, but I might be a tad biased.  What is your reasoning for thinking that smaller units should be toughened up?

I've at least shot information over to Mantic that Fragged doesn't work anymore, since it was never adapted to the new Nerve.  We'll have to wait and see what Alessio comes up with to resolve it.  It'll be interesting to see where he wants it to fit in terms of design and how he handles it.
Report Spam   Logged

No good deed goes unpunished.
mattjgilbert
Mantic F
****

Mantic Points: +22/-0
Offline Offline

Current Army: Working on Mantic undead at the moment
Posts: 444



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2011, 11:45:10 am »

Why not just add the 3rd fragged value to the nerve stat? Then you don't have to work out -10 (or whatever) all the time and can just look at the statline.
Report Spam   Logged
Llew
Administrator
Mantic
*****

Mantic Points: +115/-1
Offline Offline

Current Army: Dwarves, Undead, Elves. Orcs soon I'm sure.
Posts: 375



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2011, 03:46:46 pm »

It's certainly possible, and it then gives another way to tweak units.  However, Alessio seems reluctant to add stats unless he absolutely must.

It would be cleaner, but they'd have to redo all the profile layouts.
Report Spam   Logged

No good deed goes unpunished.
Darsc Zacal
Keeper of Rumours
Administrator
Mantic Fa
*****

Mantic Points: +1010/-0
Offline Offline

Current Army: Elf(mostly painted), Dwarf(being painted), Undead(not painted). Orcs on preorder.
Posts: 524



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2011, 12:09:06 am »

I think you guys need a break from the numbers discussion.

If Mantic wants to compete with 40K, they need to come out with figures like this.


Report Spam   Logged

Sometimes, stealing candy from babies is the only way to find good candy.
Llew
Administrator
Mantic
*****

Mantic Points: +115/-1
Offline Offline

Current Army: Dwarves, Undead, Elves. Orcs soon I'm sure.
Posts: 375



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2011, 04:43:43 am »

The figures you posted are more interesting than the ones I did.
Report Spam   Logged

No good deed goes unpunished.
scarletsquig
Mantic
**

Mantic Points: +713/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 336



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2011, 05:03:35 am »

@Darsc - Real attention to detail would be "that's not a Falcon, that's a Wave Serpent! (specifically the forgeworld upgrade variant that was released before it got a plastic kit)".
Report Spam   Logged
Darsc Zacal
Keeper of Rumours
Administrator
Mantic Fa
*****

Mantic Points: +1010/-0
Offline Offline

Current Army: Elf(mostly painted), Dwarf(being painted), Undead(not painted). Orcs on preorder.
Posts: 524



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2011, 05:25:58 am »

@Llew - All I can say is those figs have got me excited... To find someone to play with... Err... Game with, I mean. Embarrassed

@Scarletsquig - You've been spending too much time on Warseer in 40K General again. Wink
Report Spam   Logged

Sometimes, stealing candy from babies is the only way to find good candy.
gaarew
Evil Overlord
Administrator
Mantic Fan
*****

Mantic Points: +1019/-2
Offline Offline

Current Army: All of them...
Posts: 698


Big Evil Bastard


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2011, 05:57:07 am »

I wouldn't mind painting those...   Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged

Studio gaarew; Gaming armies, by gamers, for gamers.

You take yourself very seriously for a grown man playing with toy soldiers...

BMAAWOM I - Orcs - 0/42 complete.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy