I picked up a copy of the new rules on Saturday afternoon and probably won't get a game using the V2 rules for a couple of weeks. I have had a first read of the rule book and I like what I see. I also think the price FFG put it out for is more than reasonable. Anyway on to the crunch questions. For those that have played the new rules? Do you think it will turn the fortunes of Tannhauser around and attract new players. With the demise of Star Wars minis there has to be some plastic crack addicts floating about needing a fix. Lastly how would people who have played using the new rules rate these rules vs the old ones from a gameplay perspective.

I like it. Plays faster. More streamlined. Less to remember and lookup. Your characters usualy live long enough to actualy do something besides hide. It could catch on if FFG gets a steady stram of good releases out over the next year or so. If they keep dragging it out it may die before it takes hold.

We need more maps!

I'll let you know once either I finish or someone else makes some good reference cards and I can actually play the game with more than two models per side.

And a big thumbs down to FFG for not including those themselves.

StormKnight said:

FFG did the ball with this one a little. Maybe they could produce some downloadable reference sheets although I do like the sum cards produced on another thread on here.

It could catch on if FFG gets a steady stram of good releases out over the next year or so. If they keep dragging it out it may die before it takes hold.We need more maps!

QFT.

Reference cards was one of my wish for the "Revised Edition". While I'm happy to see that they were able to update the game without adding components it's clear that extra game componentns like card or overwatch tokens would have been a blast.

On the topic of the revised edition, I like the new rules but I have not been able to actually play them so I'll give my final review later on.

I played three times now and I have to say that I really like the new rules.
The game lasts a little longer now as it is not that deadly anymore especially if both sides use their CPs wisely and often. Most hits will only inflict one or two damage after shock rolls and shaking off wounds so the guys usually live longer. It already happened quite often that heros were in one room for several rounds without beeing able to kill each other which would have happened in the past as soon as one has initiative.

The equipment tokens are far more interesting now and give some hard choices on what to select.

The only real downside I saw so far is the fact that without minimum ranges HtH combat (what Reich is focussing on) has become quite obsolete especially if a melee attack can be countered by lets say the heavy gun of barry. This does not seem right. Imho the rules need to be adapted in a way that HtH combat attacks can only be countered by HtH and not ranged attacks, which would make sense in the end too.

Those are my few cents...

diseased said:

I'd be cool with pistols being allowed to counter HtH, but forbidding bigger weapons. I agree it's a bit silly that Barry can counter an HtH attack with that big, heavy cannon he carries around. As an added bonus, that would give people another reason to consider the command packs, which typically only give the character in question a little gun and a couple medals. I keep hearing about how the advantage of the medals doesn't make up for the loss of bigger guns, particularly I think Tala and MacNeal have been cited for this - being Union the HtH advantage would be significant for them..

I'd be cool with pistols being allowed to counter HtH, but forbidding bigger weapons.

Maybe a good rule would be that automatic weapons can't attack adjacent targets.

Wait a minute, why does that sound familiar?

This sounds familiar as it was one of the most interesting rules in Tannhäuser making up for some tough choices. Although I think the used min. Ranges should have been reduced for one circle.

I liked it.

A succesful melee attack should disarm (on the floor) the defender forcing them to counterattack with a backup weapon or melee. My 2 cents. Don't mess with ranges they are fine and easy to remember.

IMHO, a melee attack is up in your face. The opposing character should only be able to counter attack with a melee weapon or none at all.

The Sundance Kid said:

If a melee attacker is up in your face, I don't see why a pistol shot to the gut is any harder than a knife to the gut of your attacker. Bigger guns get pushed aside more easily, a pistol isn't that much bigger than a combat knife. That's my perspective anyway.

Steve-O said:

Actually if we want to quible over how the real world works. Soldier's who have advanced hand to hand training are taught to use all parts of their service rifle as a hand to hand weapon, the length and weight of a rifle (especilly a wood stocked model) provided for a far superior area of control when compaired to any knife (approx. 22 feet as opposed to 11 feet). This holds true weather you have bullets or not.

But games hardly ever take such things into account.

I don't think that it is about quibbling but more about balance.

I like the ideas that pistols shall be allowed in HtH Counter but no automatic or heavy weapons. This doesn't seem right, as any automatic weapon is superior to a knife if it is at least for the extra die but mostly for additional benefits.

To represent the fact of fighting with a rifle we could also think about letting counterattack with automatic weapons but without using the guns special ability and only rolling 3 dice (just for a difference to the knife as otherwise it would be always superior to wield an automatic weapon) and restricting heavy weapons that counterattacks in HtH are not allowed. The big guns are fare too unwieldy.

First off......... I perceive 'Tannhauser's' violence to be cinematic and not 'real' - after all I don't want to live in a world in which there exists the 'Doom' gun or 'Battle armoured nuns'*

My judgement on all Tannhauser rules is coloured by the above. - But on to the game!!

Are the 2.0 rules an improvement? I don't think I'll know until I have more than a single 'solitaire' run through (it was pretty eye opening though!)** under my belt.

I loved the original rule set because to me it had a weird combination of skirmish game, RPG and Chess - much of this caused by the minimum range rule, plus the high lethality, of the weapons... and of course the PFS. Version 2.0, on a preliminary look, has moved away from the strategy type game (chess, reversi etc.) to a -more- light skirmish RPG feel. This is not necessarily a bad thing but does have it's down sides.......................such as..

...with no range restrictions there has to be some reason for h-t-h weapons and pistols - so the new rules allow h-t-h to attack through doors when other weapons cannot, and pistols to backup weapons which cannot be placed in 'overwatch'.......(such as 'occult' and 'heavy' types)

...the lower lethality leads to the game feeling more like an RPG experience..... In RPG terms, if you have a character in which you have invested some time....................... by choosing their equipment pack etc............. you don't want them to die on their first encounter with the enemy!

... realism issues; such as those that have been discussed earlier in this thread with regard to the reality of hand to hand (h-t-h) combat etc.

But given the above misgivings (concerns?), all in all, I am happy with the attention this 'pulp fantasy' setting continues to receive ....... I'm a real sucker for it ... and I hope it does incredibly well!

Regards

Nhoj

* I'm all for 'nuns with guns' btw;-)

** On the first turn Ramirez managed to kill Von H and Yula!!!!

I agree that the HtH has been seroiusly nerfed in V2. As somme said, a ruling on counterattack would be a good start.