So every time i play, it bothers me that the Automatic/Heavy weapons have their strengths (min. 5 dice) and no weaknesses, while Hand-to-Hand weapons sometimes can be just as strong but always have a weakness (range - getting up close), and Pistols are just there, being a 'better-than-nothing' option with no inherent strengths or weaknesses (unless it's a 'super pistol' like MacNeal's or Hoax's).

So in thinking of a way to give each weapon type a situation where it shines and a situation where it doesn't, i'm implementing the following house rules.

I think this gives a needed weakness to automatic weapons, gives a needed strength to hand-to-hand weapons, and also makes pistols more attractive by being the most versatile, allowing them to be used in the most situations. The goals:

- Characters with Automatics really need to keep their distance to be effective, and are especially vulnerable up close if they have a Heavy weapon and/or don't have a pistol or hand-to-hand weapon as well.

- Characters with exceptional melee weapons still really want to get adjacent and are still vulnerable making that happen, especially with no ranged weapon as back-up. BUT against a character with no hand-to-hand weapon or pistol they have a dangerous advantage in close-combat.

- Characters with only a pistol as a weapon are OK in both ranged attacks & close-combat BUT do not have the range vulnerabilities Automatics & Hand-to-Hands have. Their strength is versatility and these characters are typically supporting characters or not combat-orientated first & foremost anyway.

TERMS
Ranged Attack – An attack made against a target 2 circles away or more.
Close-Combat Attack – An attack made against an adjacent character.

MINIMUM FIRING RANGE

Weapons with the Automatic and/or Heavy traits cannot make a Ranged Attack against an adjacent character - the target must be at least 2 circles away (on the same path) when using a Automatic/Heavy Weapon as a Ranged Attack . No other weapons have a minimum range, unless stated specifically in their rules.

Hound Dog : Hound Dog may attack an adjacent character with its Automatic weapon.

USING AUTOMATICS AS MELEE WEAPONS

As a last resort, an Automatic weapon can be used as a Hand-to-Hand weapon to bludgeon an adjacent enemy in Close-Combat . When doing so, the Automatic weapon:

• has only the Hand-to-Hand weapon trait for that attack only,
• all normal abilities of the weapon are ignored,
• and the default dice pool for the attack is 3 .

Automatic weapons with the Heavy trait may not be used in this way to attack adjacent characters.

Hound Dog : Hound Dog’s Automatic weapon may not be used as a Hand-to-Hand weapon.

ENGAGING IN CLOSE-COMBAT

If a character attacks an adjacent enemy, both characters are considered to be Engaged in Close-Combat with each other . . Place a Close-Combat Token next to the characters involved to indicate this.

• A character Engaged in Close-Combat may not attack a non-adjacent character.
• A character Engaged in Close-Combat must successfully Escape Close-Combat before moving as normal.
• Once two characters are Engaged in Close-Combat , they remain engaged until one of the characters successfully Escapes or one is killed (or some other ability forcefully moves one away

ESCAPING CLOSE-COMBAT

To Escape Close-Combat , a character must successfully Bull Rush.

• If the character attempting to Escape succeeds the Bull Rush test, it may move as normal and continue its turn. It can either move away from or through the enemy character and uses its full complement of movement points.
• If the character attempting to Escape fails , it may not move for the rest of the turn and the enemy may immediately take a free Close-Combat attack with an eligible weapon. The character who failed the Escape may then attack in Close-Combat if no attack was made yet that activation.
• A character may attempt to Escape Close-Combat only once per activation .
• If a character is Engaged in Close-Combat with 2 or more enemy characters at the same time, it must successfully Bull Rush each enemy character in order to move.
• Characters with the Sneak ability automatically succeed at Escaping and do not need to Bull Rush .

BULL RUSHING

When a character fails a Bull Rush , the enemy character may launch a free Close-Combat attack with an eligible weapon against the opponent. Since the characters are adjacent, this free attack would Engage the two characters in Close-Combat .

*** I do not have: Hoss, Asteros, Natalya, Japanese ppls and have no experience playing them - so there may be issues with them...

If you're interested in re-balancing automatics / pistols / hand-to-hand weapons, try it out!

Any comments/opinions welcomed of course

I dont agree that automatic and heavy need to be nerfed, they are the main power of the Union, its like removing the mental stuff from Reich. Makes no sense at all, i do believe that Heavy is more powerful but it already have a good balance when you cant use a overwatch attack with it, so im good with it. And minimum ranges = too much advantege for the melee because of the pathfinding system, a melee just need to sit in a corner, because since the ranged guy cant come and shoot him, hes safe, and thats ridiculous. I dont see any problems shooting someone with an automatic up close, in fact i think it deas more damage since you are going to be missing a lot less bullets. But again im ok with the current rules.

The new thing you introduced that im interested is the Engage stuff, many games have that kind of mechanic but i dont believe that someone who want to leave must pass a bull rush, maybe he can just suffer the free melee attack as D&D 3.0/3.5 attack of opportunity and move away, or he could forfeit his action phase to do a move only and don`t get the free melee attack meaning hes being cautions about moving away, just like D&D.

I will sure try the Engage stuff next game if my opponent want to try it out. But more like D&D not your version.

Regards,

Gilberto.

right - if you do not see (disregarding special abilities) automatic weapons a tad overpowered, melee weapons with no advantage, and pistols redundant in application, there would be no need to do anything different

But if you do , and implement min range, yes, if say Yula is sitting next to the Mechanics Secondary Objective in Castle Ksiaz, Barry with his Flash Machine Gun wouldn't be able to get a shot off at her sitting there . SO, to mitigate this, I can think of several options:

• Don't let her get there (in a safe hideout circle) in the first place
• Arm Barry with a pack that contains a Pistol or Knife if you're concerned with enemy melee characters doing this
• Use threat of grenades to lure out
• Use other characters with Pistol or Melee options to wound the turtling melee character.
• Also, while that one character is holed up there, your opponent has essentially removed 1 character from the board as long as she remains there. Not an issue for some modes, but for others I don't think it's a wise sacrifice.

It requires you to open up your inventory to otherwise rarely-used weapons and to be more cautious of movement and grenade usage.

I like the idea of the D&D style of escaping close-combat - its definitely less risky. i got my idea from AT-43 and iirc, it wasn't easy to escape close combat and i liked how it felt, which is why i went on a stamina-based method. With Stamina its a risk to flee - succeed and launch a powerful ranged attack ( or more powerful than your close-combat one ) or fail and get hit by your opponent catching you while trying to escape. Kind of opposite approaches for escaping close-combat, but being engaged in close-combat brings something missing from melee attacks i think

A very good idea, realistic and clear, but:

there are too dice rolls, the game would be reduce and it wolud become a skirmish... mmmm... mmmm

The boards are mostly close ambients, but they allow different tactics (ranged/colse combat)... mmm mmm mmm

I carry to say that it's a smart idea to improve the rules... I would prefer there isn't any free attack against a character that fails bull rush to free himself from close-combat, and I'd like a character could be able to shoot a different anemy also when he's engaged in close-combat...

mmm...

mmm...

I don't konw, there are too different regulations... I'll try them maybe next friday.

I'm afraid Union is too disadvantaged, but it needs to try before other predictions.

In any case: good work Artemus Maximus!

from what i've seen with this, Union hasn't been hindered if they're not careless with their movement. for example:

last 2 games played were quick deathmatches, 42nd Special Ops (MacNeal/Barry/Alpha) vs. Blutsturm Division (Eva/Yula/Schock), all with standard issue combat packs.

On the Castle Kziaz map, Union naturally had a tougher time with their big guns and tight corridors, but took the match ultimately because of their Frak guns simply rolled too many hits to block. Although the lone survivor was the Alpha Commando with 1 wound left

On the Catacombs map the game was clearly on the Union's side - the longer paths allowed them to whittle the Blutsturm agents' health down by the time close combat started that they were not as effective. Blutsturm were decimated 3-0 (despite my best attempts at forcing close-combat locks )

Although it should be noted that in both games, MacNeal rolled a 7-hit attack, outright killing the target at full health. Conversely, Yula was able to kill 2 targets in close-combat after destroying their weapons. Were very much cat & mouse games - blutsturm trying to get up close and 42nd positioning so they keep distance to use their guns. my opponent kept MacNeal & Alpha close to each other so if one engaged, the other could fire at the blutsturm agent, which was hard to overcome. Barry with his knife surprisingly held his own and even killed Eva with it...that was cool considering Barry's knife hadn't been used since 1st ed rules were in place So very likely dice rolls favored one side over the other. Union definitely needs to think more about which circle their characters end movement on in tight maps, or bring more pistols/H2H weapons to the game. Playing 42nd v Blutsturm again in Castle, I'd have MacNeal take Boxing and Alpha take the bayonette.

carlos - ya, sometimes there was maybe a little bit too much dice-rolling?

consider: MacNeal in close-combat w/ Yula situation. MacNeal can use Flak gun for 3 dice to attack in Close-combat, yula has her kreuger and the close combat badge. This happened:

Yula attacks in close-combat, luckily doesnt destroy the gun. 1 hit.

MacNeal counterattacks. 0 hits. no one escapes close combat or is killed.

MacNeal activates. He tries to escape. Fails, Yula attacks for free. 2 hits. MacNeal forced to hit Yula with his gun; Yula first responds with Close Combat Badge 'overwatch' attack, 0 hits, then MacNeal rolls. Yula then counterattacks. 1 hit.

Yula had 3 full-power rolls before MacNeal had his first one in this extreme example. Lots of dice rolling on the other hand, if MacNeal wouldve attacked instead of trying to escape it wouldve been 2 attacks before his, and 1 against any other melee character. Maybe the free attack should be like a counterattack, using lowest combat values? AND/OR, if you try to escape, no Bull Rush test, but opponent gets a free attack - if wounded no escape. If not wounded, you escape...hmmm

i've noticed that a strong melee character can easily lock a weaker melee character in close-combat, but in most cases, its risky to stay in with other enemies nearby as the close-combat wil most of the time drop health for both characters. Strong melee characters like the 1-on-1 and of course 2-on-1, but its tougher for melee to go 2-on-1 than for shooters to go 2-on-1 because of required adjacency, so that seems to leave shooters with the advantage still. Also I need to play more with this and test with asteros, & japanese guys (who may very well make this overpowered).

also thinking about: if a character wounds enemy in close-combat, he may escape combat for free

whether you add min range or some sort of engagement rule, i think it adds a certain 'danger' needed for H2H weapons and goes a long way as far as tactics when H2H weapons are involved

The main thing we do with melee (HtH) weapons is this:

Units can only use melee weapons (or 2 dice fists) to attack adjacent units that are off path. It has actually come up more often than you'd think.

A fun thing we're doing with my Tannhauser RPG for daggers (just as a thought to buff the knives) is this ability:

When attacking with a dagger, each natural 10 you roll adds a bleeding token to the unit (before their shock roll). Units with bleeding tokens roll 1 fewer die on their shock rolls. Bleeding tokens are removed from characters at the refresh tokens step in the same way as smoke tokens are from circles.

Melee is more cinematic than guns imo, so I tend to make them have more of the natural 10 effects.

love the bleeding rule! a Tann RPG would be AWESOME

=) We're still testing it out, week two is this weekend. I'll try to get a thread on our progress and what system I'm trying to put together.

I agree that the current version of the rules is too much favoring ranged weapon and especially Automatic/Heavy ones. While I can understand the decision FFG made to decomplexify the game rules, I think they where too heavy handed in some areas.

while I like the idea of a min firing range for Automatic weapons and the ability to use them as improvised Melee weapons however the rules for close-combat engagement and escaping it are not in the "mood" of the game imho. In addition it create a situation where making a melee attack is in fact very dangerous as you can't play as a harrier. For example with a Stosstruppen in the current rules I can move toward an enemy character, hit him, and move again to safety. With your rules, my Stosstruppen is locked with the character he just attacked and must make a bull rush to move away.

I tryed yesterday nigth domination mode (Union vs Reich using Castle map):

Minimun range 2 circles from characters with an automatic weapon;

3 dice for melee attack of automatic weapons without "heavy" trait;

I have to say it's a very good solution, very very good and funny, and I think I will continue to appy it.

considering the comments posted here, i've tested some more and evolved the OP rules.

Keeping in mind that the purpose of this is to create a risky or less desirable situation for automatic-slinging characters that contrasts with the risky or less desirable situation already present for melee characters; melee characters don't want to find themselves at the end of a hallway with a Flash Gun aimed at them ... the 'rebalancing' i want is that ranged attack characters should have a situation against melee characters that they don't want to find themselves in as well. Melee weapons generally speaking are not that powerful to warrant Automatics not having a disadvantage ever against them imho. Making Pistols useable in both situations gives them some needed purpose i think, and their average dice pool fits this idea well. Mental weapons have to be considered individually i think because they vary so much.

two main issues i've found with what i proposed originally:

(1) minimum range of 1 prevents gunslinger from running right up next to someone then firing (sometimes required d/t the paths, as pointed out by Otar). The purpose for minimum range for me was to prevent a Flash Gun from being used in close-combat - which is one part of the advantage Automatics have over H2H weapons - H2H don't have a situation where they have the upper hand. But if not engaged in close-combat, I agree that if said gunslinger is taking initiative and moving up next to someone, he has time to fire and the space in between really is enough, proportionally.

So to address the min. range issue - Automatics and Heavies should be able to be used anytime when in LOS, EXCEPT when in close-combat because there is not enough space & time to aim & fire when you have someone on top of you slashing with a knife, imo.

So I'm SCRAPPING the "Minimum Firing Range" rule for autos & heavies, as the Close-Combat Engagement rule alone is sufficient because it is essentially making them not usable when adjacent, but only when in a close-quarters knife fight. Or whip fight

So Barry can run up next to a Stoss and fire - but if he didn't bring his knife or pistol, he'd really not want to stay there if he didn't kill the Stoss, as he'd be in a risky and less desirable situation. In contrast to the situation Melee characters are often faced with (w/o House-ruling): they often are in a risky or less desirable situation trying to get close to an enemy

(2) melee 'lock-up': it was admittedly too easy for this to happen and too hard to get out of. Also, too many dice were rolled when trying to escape. This made melee-centric characters TOO powerful once this situation arose. Plus I, like others, don't like the hack-it-out stand-still situation with this game.

So to fix, I think escaping should be a quick and easy thing to pull off (at least most of the time), but at the same time i think it should have its consequences/risks...the D&D method Otar mentioned does that. I see escaping as a test of agility i guess and wanted to use the dynamic values inherent in the game to make it less of a sure thing in some cases. Bull Rush method i suggested i agree now is too much (more heavy handed than Automatics and Heavies are in the first place i think)...maybe a Movement (agility) test (not a duel), need 2 successes to pass: PASS -> escape, can move and continue turn as normal. FAIL -> opponent can H2H counterattack for free, then escaping character can move, maybe can't attack that turn? dice rolling amt would not be increased that much compared to just attacking...

Also, i don't like automatics being able to fire at a non-adjacent character when in close-combat - it reduces the effect of close-combat that neutralizes the gun temporarily and gives H2H weapons the edge they need (no pun intended . it also seems silly TO ME that if 2 guys are trading blows face-to-face and then one lowers his guard to open fire against someone else, there is no consequence. There could be some kind of penalty, but really this can just be mitigated by simply having the gun-weilding character who wants to attack someone try to move away from the close-combat to open fire. again, makes more sense TO ME.

I'm going to play a few games today and going to test the 'D&D method' and the Movement Test method and analyze.

Thanks for everyone's input - i really appreciate it!