Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: House rules

  1. #1

    House rules

    Well we came up with a couple house rules becuas the rules as written dont seem to make logic or lack some balance.

    First a free action cannont generate another free action so when you move and get your free fight event if your rolled 100 times you would not generate a new free action. This prevents the chains that doesnt make sense unless the intent was for the tazmanian devil to come tearing across the battlefield.

    Second to prevent the first turn your dead and to give more flow for the game you use the first stat of teh command rating for the number of models activated so instead of activating 6 models the plague would activate 3. This seems to keep teh games form being one-sided and make for more flow between the games and thus a better balance.

  2. #2
    I definitely agree with both.
    The move-fight-free fight/move thing really isn't explained well

    Likewise I think the number of models which can be activated at once is too high. Enforcers can activate basically their entire force at once. I'm really not sure why there is a split command value in this game at all

  3. #3
    Senior Member Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    310
    Blog Entries
    7
    I've house-ruled away the penalty for models in cover who are being blazed away at. I understand the logic of it representing soldiers more likely to dive into and stay in cover when under fire, I do, and if Blaze Away had no potential to cause actual damage that'd be fine. But it does, and I don't think it's fair to penalise models for being in cover against something that can kill them.
    Oh no my sandwiches

  4. #4
    Senior Member Fean_arnailes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Jyväskylä, Finland
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    I've house-ruled away the penalty for models in cover who are being blazed away at. I understand the logic of it representing soldiers more likely to dive into and stay in cover when under fire, I do, and if Blaze Away had no potential to cause actual damage that'd be fine. But it does, and I don't think it's fair to penalise models for being in cover against something that can kill them.
    If a model is already pinned or suppressed there is +1 modifier to survival roll in BZ, to counter this effect on damaging BZ. So it's already been addressed in the rules.
    "Deadzone: X-COM" community project:
    Google Docs document, i.e. the rules
    The topic, i.e. brainstorming
    Feel free to contribute!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    310
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Fean_arnailes View Post
    If a model is already pinned or suppressed there is +1 modifier to survival roll in BZ, to counter this effect on damaging BZ. So it's already been addressed in the rules.
    Curse my skim-reading tendencies! Where can I find it?
    Oh no my sandwiches

  6. #6
    Senior Member Fean_arnailes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Jyväskylä, Finland
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodoth View Post
    Well we came up with a couple house rules becuas the rules as written dont seem to make logic or lack some balance.
    Excuse me for my rudeness, but your writing is the thing that doesn't make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kodoth View Post
    First a free action cannont generate another free action so when you move and get your free fight event if your rolled 100 times you would not generate a new free action. This prevents the chains that doesnt make sense unless the intent was for the tazmanian devil to come tearing across the battlefield.
    Not quite sure how often the "tasmanian devil" effect comes to play, as the attacker needs to double and kill everyone in the same square AND have another model in the next square. But basically I agree with this. Just remember that the fight action after move action is NOT a free action (errated recently by Mr. Thornton).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kodoth View Post
    Second to prevent the first turn your dead and to give more flow for the game you use the first stat of teh command rating for the number of models activated so instead of activating 6 models the plague would activate 3. This seems to keep teh games form being one-sided and make for more flow between the games and thus a better balance.
    So from the most extreme situation of 6-2 we go to 3-1. The game was originally intended to be IGOUGO and the battle cards were to give breaks to this, but then people wanted for alternate activation system and Mr. Thornton came up with this. Gotta admit that 3-3 leader feels quite OP to me, but on the other hand, there is this nice "falls like house of cards" effect if the leader is killed. Gotta play more games before I can agree with you, but I try to test it this way.
    "Deadzone: X-COM" community project:
    Google Docs document, i.e. the rules
    The topic, i.e. brainstorming
    Feel free to contribute!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Fean_arnailes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Jyväskylä, Finland
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Curse my skim-reading tendencies! Where can I find it?
    Under the Blaze Away modifiers table. I missed it also before someone pointed it out for me.
    "Deadzone: X-COM" community project:
    Google Docs document, i.e. the rules
    The topic, i.e. brainstorming
    Feel free to contribute!

  8. #8
    Senior Member Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    310
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Fean_arnailes View Post
    Under the Blaze Away modifiers table. I missed it also before someone pointed it out for me.
    I stand cheerfully corrected!
    Oh no my sandwiches

  9. #9
    the "tasmanian devil is the worst rule in the game.

  10. #10
    the "tasmanian devil" was recently thoroughly declawed. the fight action initiated by a move action is now firmly a part of the move and NOT a free action anymore.

  11. #11
    Koltoroc,

    I went looking for the clarification. I can’t find it.

    So the fight as part of the move no longer activates a free move?
    Because the fight was part of a move action, so you move/fight and can’t generate a free move any longer?

  12. #12
    A free action cannot generate another free action of the same kind. the initial action can be anything. so, the initial move and fight )or fight only, if you are in cube with enemies already)doubles, thus generating a free action, which can be either move or fight, now if you chose move to get into a new fight and double that again, you can only get a new fight, not another move, but if you can make that fight and double again, you can generate another move, but not a fight.

    the original tasmanian devil needs the fight action as part of the move action to be a free action to work. This has been taken away and fight is part of move.

    orginal it was : move --> free fight --> free move --> free fight
    now it is : move +fight --> free move + fight --> free fight

  13. #13
    OK so the effect didnt chage and Tasmanian Devil is still in place just a new wrapper.

    So, My house rule will stand, no generating a free action off a free action, so the Move + Free fight will not generate a new action.

    otherwise it make close combat to powerful and broken.

    Some factions are so cheap that you cant space out enough before the enemy is in your face on turn 2 and a 5 point Maw Beast should not be able to buzzcut through models like that watches it happed where a single mawbeats took out 4 rebels in one attack sequence. The rules should not allow for that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •