Hi. Now that the book has been available for a while I'd like to know if someone has found any serious errata in the book, or some rule that looks like it's going to be changed very soon. I'd like to buy it but it's the first edition of the game and I don't know if it's solid or not.

Thanks.

The game has a solid rules set. The book just has a few typos.

More than a few typos, actually - there are several threads here about changes that they need to make. But, the basic game is very good, since most of the necessary errata is more-or-less logical to resolve. For friendly, non-tournament games, it's really good. Plays quick, fun, challenging, and units with great potential and personality. Go ahead and get the first edition; I personally will be flabbergasted if we see a second edition before 2014.

Warboss Krag said:

What kind of changes? Rules that are not clear or that are wrong? If it's the former it's not really a problem with this great and active community, but if it's the latter it'd be more serious.

Azrell said:

Agree at the core there is a good set of rules here, however the proofreading leaves a lot to be desired, typos and misleading statements or omissions, however its nothing that an errata or FAQ would not solve.

Tarus said:

Off the top of my head:

Clarification is needed on how airdropping vehicles with Carry Capacity works.

The two Allies heroes with Jump move 6" slower than every Allies squad with Jump, despite the heroes being the same speed in Tactics.

Units having different numbers of UGLs or Panzerfausts than the models are depicted with.

Clarification that you can take a Hero outside the Platoon structure without making them the leader of a platoon.

In the "rules that should be changed" department:

First turn is too powerful.

A lot of units are overcosted/underpowered.

Abilities that allow the ignoring of rules(Burst, Jump, Ignore Suppression) aren't valued appropriately. Burst especially.

Tarus said:

Tarus said:

Simple things for the most part like typos some characters movements are denoted as 6" where the squads that are their counter parts are 12", I think one hero has her wounds recorded wrong, some squads who are modeled with more or less of a certain weapon have obvious typos in how many they actually have in their stat lines…. actually I think that is all of them right there to be fair.

RogueRegault said:

nope that on is clear actually it is perfectly legal to have a unit embarked on a transport and air drop the transport the squad inside acts as normal ( it is a working tactic to use this strategy and doesn't break the game in anyways at all)

The two Allies heroes with Jump move 6" slower than every Allies squad with Jump, despite the heroes being the same speed in Tactics.

Units having different numbers of UGLs or Panzerfausts than the models are depicted with.

I am not sure the Panzerfausts are recorded wrong at all just the UGLS on the one squad of allies, other then that yeah the movement of the two heroes is probably wrong.

Clarification that you can take a Hero outside the Platoon structure without making them the leader of a platoon.

No that is clear you are allowed as many heroes as the point structure your playing at I don't believe anywhere it says they are part of a platoon structure.

In the "rules that should be changed" department:

First turn is too powerful.

A lot of units are overcosted/underpowered.

Abilities that allow the ignoring of rules(Burst, Jump, Ignore Suppression) aren't valued appropriately. Burst especially.

I disagree with everything except the statement of first turn. First turn is really powerful and sometimes I think too powerful, but at the same time who goes first is not a static throughout the game so I go back and forth on how bad it REALLY is.

Otherwise I think units pointed at where they are is perfectly fine and the weapons working as they do are fine, especially rules that ignore armor and or cover otherwise in some of these games you would be pumping out a ridiculous amount of fire just to kill a unit and it would horrible slow down how fast the games go. I like that the games are overall very bloody and brutal for both sides. I have played several dozen games now and in everyone even though I lost a lot of people usually my enemy has lost a lot as well and it comes down to simple trying to grab at that last item with one of 2 units left on the board.

I have not found in my games as huge of an advantage to getting initiative as I thought.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, going second makes it easier to regroup in the command phase and suppress your enemy without them being able to regroup.

Also, if you're playing Break the Lines or Key Positions or something similar to that, going second on that final turn can be a huge advantage.

Going second also usually means you have more orders for the Command Phase, which can come in really handy.

I think there are two ways to fix this issue.

1. Most pratical, the person that has initive goes 2nd in the command phase. This gives the 2nd player a better chance to prevent total ownage.

2. I think this would be way better and more tactical, the game uses alternating activation. This is most game has proven to balance out who goes first and makes the game way more tactical. The way the game is now, going all one person then the other, doesn't take advantage of the reaction ship to the fullest extent that it could.

Firstly, in the interest of complete disclosure, locally we haven't seen the going first have a huge impact on games. It's one of the many elements of this game that folks look at around here, say "wow, not sure how THAT will work!" and then it works fine.

Also I'm in the 'this is a great game with some minor issues that friends can VERY easily overcome on their own' camp. When there is competitive play, I have no doubt there will be an errata as part of that package, for those looking for more hard-core, competitive play.

That having been said, several local folks have spoken about the alternating activation idea. Many of the most popular games around here use that, including Malifaux and all the Spartan Games. However, i believe if you think about it, alternating activations completely destroys the whole Command Phase element of this game, and seriously weakens the Response element . . . two things I think most of us who really LIKE the game thing are interesting and innovative (to a certain extent anyway). So unless you want to fundamentally change a game that I think most people who've been playing have been enjoying as is, I don't think that's an option.

However, having the person who lost initiative go first is interesting . . . not least because that's how I thought it was supposed to go the first two games I played . . .

Zombiejoe to be fair in the games we have played currently going first has been advantageous mostly due to our point size and use of Snipers. At 150 pts the Snipers are stupid good, especially Angela + Sniper Squad if you go first with them its going to cause some hurt. That being said we are also playing heavy Infantry at those low point values and I think against Mech armies your going to find going first to be slightly less advantageous. There are also ways to counter Snipers either leave the scenario at 0pts in Conditions or push deployment to 3 so the supports cant come on tell turn 3. These are things neither of us has really had a problem with as we try not to let people push us into those situations.

Hey don't get wrong, I got nothing against the game as it is now. I'm commenting on other peoples issues with it. I still think though that the person whose going 2nd in the turn should go first in the Command Phase. But, that's just me. I think that would be more balanced.

1st turn comes with it's own pentaltys. Like, if you choose to go first, then you got to decide more on how to spend your actions. You have worry about leaving a point open to reactions or not. Where as 2nd player doesn't since he'll be losing those markers when the turn ends. So going first give you more bang possibly but it also means that you might not get any reactions at all, leaving you very vunerable. I think the game now as is , is pretty good.

Warboss Krag said:

Agree on buy it now. Second Edition will be a ways off. However, every quarter/season according to one of the game's designers, we'll get a new campaign book. I expect errata to be included in those on a regular basis.

As for those complaining first turn is too powerful I've found that to be totally true when the terrain is more sparse, say 10-15% of the table, or when it is poorly placed/utilized. However, when the terrain is 25% of the table (as specified by rule), and it is placed thoughtfully and utilized, Tabling Alpha Strikes are neutralized.

My 2 cents.

with damage output, scenarios and other factors in the game, turn 1 is unlikely to be enough time to absolutely destroy your opponants force in this game.

Destroying your 1 oh so expensive unit however? Sure. Then again if all your eggs are in one basket, of course turn 1 could potentially hurt.

Im finding a lot of people are playing with more then 25% scenery. Atleast locally the 4 tables ive seen (along with a bunch of war table pics on the forum) show far more then 25%.

caecitas said:

I think you would actually be surprised on just how much terrain is 25% like the last few games I have played we do the standard thing where we section off the board into quarters fill one with terrain then move it to the side and start placing it as per game rules and it always looks like we have WAAAAYY more terrain then 1/4 like its surprising how much space 1/4 can fill when you have to stay 4" away from other terrain.

i use the same method that you do. Admitedly a lot of it comes down to judgement by eye of said photos, but at all of the tables ive played we have enforced a 25% rule, yet i would'nt say it results in as much massed scenery as a lot of battle reports show.

Generally speaking war gaming tables come in vastly different flavors, it all depends on how established the table is. Some tables are owned by players who can literally fill a small room with tiny french homes made of plasticard, some people have 3 bakebean tins and a yellow pages.

Remember also some consider the base of terrain to be part of its volume, others do not when it comes to the 25% rule. That boarder around a building of 2'' can make all the difference repeated often enough.

My $0.02-

So since the fliegerfaust has burst, the zwei-44s in my command squad ignore cover too as long as they attack the same target? Good thing Lara can't join the command squad. Or can she?

That would also mean Hellboy/BBQ/Hotdog/Sturmpioniere/Stefan/Ozz-117/ and allied heavy walker ignore cover when attacking same unit at flamethrower with all of their other weapons? Hellboys becOme mighty powerful.

Psykostevo said:

Even if someone picks off the Hellboy's flamethrowers, they all have grenades, so they will always ignore cover.

And yes, Lara can join the heavy command squad.

Of course, your cover-ignoring weapon has to be within range… most of them are only range 6, and I think the only cover-ignoring range weapons with ranger grater than 12 are sniper rifles.

Alright, I'm convinced. I ordered the book. Thank you for your answers.

As for having a lot of terrain and obstacles: I'm used to that to play Infinity (another great game I recommend), so it won't be an issue.

The shot guns won't ignore cover without the flamer. The CC attacks will go after the shooting, CC always ignores cover regardless of grenades.

Psykostevo said:

The shot guns can ignore cover because of the grenades. You can't do CC in the same attack as non-CC weapons.