FWCII - notice of 'work underway' & request for Errata & Suggested Changes.

[dylan]

With respect to bunkers/buildings, I always liked this house rule suggestion:
When a building is completely covered by a template weapon, it has to make a save on 2d6.

Military Bunkers 2+
Other Concrete Buildings 3+
Brick Buildings 4+
Wooden Buildings 5+

Save Modifiers (Cumulative):
Light Arty attack -0
Hvy Arty Attack -1
Arial or Orbital Attack -1

If the building is detroyed, all units inside make an unmodified save. Success means they remain inside the rubble. Failure means they move adjacent to the rubble and are automatically supressed.

Rubble counts as linear terrain, providing a -1 penalty to hit (even against templates), but no armour save modifier.

[stevefprice]

Suggested Change: ban Kraytonians (especially Steve's pink ones)

Oi!!!

[Big Insect]

Just an 'update' for all you FWC fans out there.

Work is progressing well on the final draft of FWCII 

I've looked at all the Errata in this thread and I think most of what has been raised has been covered off.
But if you have any other burning issues or suggestions or bright ideas, all are welcome and do please post them here, now, or forever hold your peace (until FWCIII that is) 

As discussed previously - the army lists will always be a challenge - however, we've reached a decision around the points costs and points calculator and we are not going to 'muck about' with it. The only changes will be a few (minor) points costs adjustments and the addition of the costs for any additional tech/armour/weaponry. So the old lists should work equally well with FWCII as they did in FWCI (with some minor adjustments).
As with CWCII, the enormity of producing the lists will mean that they will be drip-fed out online. But as I've mentioned previously the plan is to get you guys to do some of the work by converting across some of the old lists on-line as a 'fan-based' project. But fear not - I will also be producing lists - revamping old lists and generating new ones - and I'll act as the moderator for any new lists as well 

NB: we've seen a number of great sci-fi books converted into films over the last few years, along with innovative new sci-fi 'universes' being created on-paper. I continue to be impressed with Neal Asher and Alistair Reynolds and I'm 'warming' to Adrian Tchaikovsky (slowly) but I still fall back on the likes of Robert A. Heinlein, Joe Haldeman, Arthur C. Clarke, Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven, and finally (the master) Frank Herbert for what I call 'real' space opera  stuff.

Cheers
Mark

[fred.]

Cool, good to hear progress is solid. 

Whilst I absolutely understand putting the army lists online, can I suggest that a good selection are still included in the rule book - as it is always good to have several official lists to use when you start playing, and then to refer back to once you want to start creating lists yourself. 

[Big Insect]

Hi dylan

As I'm working on FWCII I thought I'd come back to you on some of your points below - partly to clarify the points you've raised but also to maybe respond to a couple of things.
My answers are below in bold (NB: I'm not shouting  )
Cheers
Mark

Great news!

Some initial thoughts for things to clarify/correct:
1) Fully explain how opp fire works against initiative units using stabilisation to Move and Fire or Fire and Move.  (i.e. clarify when the opp fire takes place in each circumstance).  Also clarify whether a shield-equipped unit which fires opp fire can regenerate its shields in the subsequent initiative phase after opp firing.
> Not sure I understand the issue here?
You cannot use Opportunity fire against units that are undertaking an Initiative Action. You can only use Opportunity Fire against a unit being Commanded. Also, Initiative Actions are relatively limited to move or shoot or initiate an assault or some other specific task, so Stabilization is irrelevant. As a unit that is Stabilized can still only either move or shoot as an Initiative action, it cannot move and shoot or shoot & move.
If you are assaulted by a unit as an Initiative Action you will get Response Fire (page 36) but that is part of the Close Assault mechanism.
In the case of Opportunity Fire at a Stabilized unit that is moving/shooting as a Commanded action, the first action performed by that unit can trigger Opportunity fire against it. If it shoots and moves, it is the shot that triggers Opportunity fire. If it moves and shoots it is the movement that triggers the Opportunity Fire. 


2) Consider introducing open-topped AFVs (as written, FWC1 does not have them).
> consider it done

3) Consider making FWC artillery work just like BKC artillery.  (as written, FWC1 had different artillery rules than the other books in the series for some reason relating to barrages versus concentration, and had artillery hitting on better values than other artillery) 

> one of the intention of all the rewrites is to look to achieve consistency of core mechanisms. However, having artillery hitting on better values in FWC than in BKC & CWC probably reflects the situation around better/more effective ammo - as to your point 3a) below

3a) Also consider introducing special munitions from CWC into FWC (again, as written FWC1 didn't have any special munitions). 
> this is a tricky one - as with CWCII we are already seeing new and specialist ammunition appearing over the last c.30 years and whilst it would be easy to just replicate the CWCII specialist ammo types - I'm not sure that they actually work that well in an Future War setting. For example is a large chitinous bug going to draw the attention of a FASCAM munition (for example). But I'll see what we can do   

3b) Also consider introducing MRL (as written, there are no MRLs in FWC1).
> True - that is easily rectified - and is more a part of the army lists than the actual rules.

4) Clarify what happens if a sniper suppresses the CO of an army that only has the CO as a sole command unit (e.g. a 1000pt Marine or Kraytonian army)
> That's easy - the CO can give no orders - so the Active players CO cannot give an orders. The other Command units (such as FAOs & FACs & Recce) can carry out orders and move, but the turn will finish with a suppressed CO. You've just got to hope that next turn the Sniper misses or the CO saves the hit  - best to protect that vulnerable CO trooper!

5) Clarify who can fire at air target RECCE units. (such as a VTOL used for RECCE - can it be fired at by anyone, or only AA?)
> this is one of those 'how long is a piece of string' queries.
Technically in FWCI Recce units move in the Initiative phase - so there is no Opportunity or AA fire against them whilst they move. With an aerial recce - they are in the air whilst they move and again (like the Stabilized unit using an Initiative action) they can only perform a single action - so moving is that single action - just as landing is also another single action. If the aerial recce moved/relocated as its action, it is going to remain in the air for the whole of the Active players turn & the defending players turn, next. That means it is vulnerable to Initiative action AA fire from the defending player at the start of their next turn (& some AA units have an unlimited initiative  range) but also to Commanded AA fire as well. Aerial recce are great in that they can usually move longer distances and get a +1 for height for acquiring enemy units, but on the 'future' battlefield, they are very vulnerable.
NB: players have gotten very 'creative' with Initiative actions - but their options are actually very limited - you either: move or shoot or assault or undertake a specific action if you are Recce or Engineers (for example) - that's it basically!

5) Clarify whether Stealth is always on and at all times (including when suffering an assault from out of LOS) allows the owner to disappear into the reserve pool, or whether it requires an action to activate stealth during the turn.
> I'm not sure I understand the question? Units with Stealth have stealth as standard. The only time it isn't active is when the unit is suppressed. But it can only use Stealth as an action (page 55). But that action can only occur during the Initiative phase, as an action, in the Command phase, as an ordered action and when the unit is under assault. It cannot occur in response to enemy shooting.

6) Reconsider the many AFVs in the lists that are not IFVs but are given an infantry-carrying ability (e.g. neo-Soviet Vombat).  As written in FWC1 it was never clear how they were supposed to act in assaults - i.e. only IFVs can add their assault factors together with their troops.
> I agree that this is unclear but IFVs are a very specific type of infantry transport, that allows the internal passengers to shoot out whilst inside. In most cases that I can see - like the Neo-Soviet Vombat (which is like the Israeli Mekarva) the units primary function is as an MBT not an IFV, with the infantry passengers being their to support that tank in close terrain. With an IFV - like a modern BMP or Marder for example - it is the infantry that are the primary combat elements, supported by the weapons carried by the IFV. An APC - like an M113 for example is primarily an armoured 'bus' and again the infantry/passengers are the primary fighting element. I'd suggest that with a unit like the Neo-Soviet Vombat - the infantry will de-buss as if the Vombat was an APC as (like the Merkava) there is no ability for the infantry passengers to shoot out whilst mounted. Which I think is my prerequisite for an IFV over an APC. NB: I read (a while back) that IDF infantry disliked being passengers in a Merkava, rather than an M113, as although the Merkava provided better protection, the tank crews - by their nature and their being in a tank - tended to dump the infantry out in far more exposed positions than the M113 crew ever did. Worth thinking about the psychology of what you are driving.

7) Clarify how many spaces an IFV with its infantry inside takes up inside a Dropship/transport.
> APC (with 2 passengers) and IFVs (with 1 passenger unit) will each take up 4 Transport spaces - an MBT takes up 6 passenger spaces. Light vehicles - buggies & jeeps (which can carry 1 passenger) will take up 2 spaces. Towed guns (without their tows) take up 4 spaces. SPGs take up 6. Assuming all are Average profile - except the buggies which are Low. This is the standard CWC formula that will be carried across to FWCII. There will always be exceptions (of course). NB: in drop-ships - think 'Aliens' the passengers travel in their IFV on the journey to the surface! - "drive safely Bishop!"

Clarify what happens when you have gunship versus gunship combat i.e. what weapons can they use on each other?  can they assault each other?

> now we are getting into detail    CWCII covered this by simply stating that on-table aerial combat was carried out in exactly the same manner as if it was on-the-ground combat. Treating each aerial helicopter (gunship) as if it was a flying tank. Most gunships in the list dont have a primary AA capability in FWCI anyway. So simply use the weapons that each gunship has to target each other. Templated weapons wont work, so it it will be their effect as a concentration that is used. Some weapons like Pulse weapons are slightly different as unlike against Ground targets they only hit the target unit, not those on behind in either in the air or on the ground. With regards to air-to-air (gunship on gunship assaults) if the units have CA factors, then they can assault each other. Hope that helps?

9) Clarify when any support units are moved during an assault i.e. is all movement of support units left until after the assaulting units have moved into contact and any response fire is taken against them?
> the example on page 38-39 shows that the supporting units are moved into support after the assaulting units have made it into contact with their targets. You dont move the supports before then as there is a possibility that the assaulting units might be KO'd before they contact. If they are KO'd the supports are not moved.

10) Clarify whether infantry upgrades are separate weapons (so you list them separately and have to choose whether to fire them, or the original weapon) or are added to the original factors for a single new rating.
> Infantry upgrades are separate weapons - you fire them on an either or basis - nominating that you are choosing to fire them and at what. You buy and list them separately but assigned to specific units. If that unit is KO'd, the upgrade is lost.
 

[Big Insect]

Cool, good to hear progress is solid.

Whilst I absolutely understand putting the army lists online, can I suggest that a good selection are still included in the rule book - as it is always good to have several official lists to use when you start playing, and then to refer back to once you want to start creating lists yourself.

Yup, we'll be putting a couple of example lists in the main rules set - as we did with CWCII 
Cheers
Mark

[Big Insect]

This in particular I think was broken in FWC1 and was able to be exploited having an opponent fire and withdraw repeatedly effectively making the unit(s) in question unassailable. I think having it as an action to withdraw works better as it would introduce a decision, do I fire, move or vanish rather that fire AND vanish
G

Hi Graham - apologies for a very tardy reply - I trust your weather is nowhere near as damp as ours is currently???

I think you might have had Stealth used against you incorrectly my old chum. Stealth actions are actually quite limited.
1). Stealth can be used as an Initiative action - which means the unit can just 'stealth away' but do nothing else (no shooting or mooning etc.)
2). Stealth can be used as a Commanded action (a successful order is required) and even then you cannot order the unit to appear on-table and then shoot (for example) or appear and move. It can just 'appear'.
3). as a response to an Assault. The opponent declares that their unit is assaulting your unit with Stealth and you respond by disappearing. You don't shoot first & then disappear.

I suspect you've been remembering playing Gordon at some point in the past (or was that a terrible dream)     

Cheers
Mark

[Grumbeast]

Hey Mark!

It has been raining here, but not like with you (though we need it, its either raining here or on fire!, I'll take the rain)

 I think it was against someone else at one of our FWC weekends though I still have all the scars from playing Gordon

I did wonder at the time if the rules were being interpreted correctly.  Great to hear that there has been progress, I'll try and get some of the local guys to play when they are released, I have a couple who will play CWC with me (and I ran a game of CWC at our local show in Vancouver last year, went down well)

[dylan]

Hi dylan

As I'm working on FWCII I thought I'd come back to you on some of your points below - partly to clarify the points you've raised but also to maybe respond to a couple of things.
My answers are below in bold (NB: I'm not shouting  )
Cheers
Mark

Thanks Mark.  I think many of these questions can be easily addressed by just including a small amount more information in the rulebook at the appropriate point to make it absolutely clear to players what the intent is - as you've seen some players took liberties where there was any possible room to do so.

So, as but one example, make it very clear that AFVs that are not IFVs but carry passengers do not get any of the IFV bonuses in assault combat.

[Big Insect]

I think this is one of the 'big' challenges with sets of rules generally.
Rules should be clear, but foremost they should be about what you can do, not what you cannot do (IMHO).

Sadly it is often why rules sets 'die-off', due to 'congestion' and over complication caused by players requirements or demands for absolute clarity on things, along with a long list of what cannot be done.
I am not pointing a finger at you or anybody else specifically here, but if you look at a whole range of once successful rules that have withered and died, over clarification is often one of the reasons cited for the cause.

IFVs are IFVs and APC are APCs. IFVs behave in a particular way. APCs behave in a particular way. APCs don't operate the same way as IFVs. It's as simple as that 

Cheers
Mark


 

[fred.]

To me the AFV - APC - IFV interaction is more of a Venn diagram with overlaps rather than distinct labels. 

I think on of the problems with many rulesets is the writer has an understanding of how things work and interact - but the challenge is getting that over to the players, whose knowledge is limited to what is on the page. So having some extra clarity on what is a defined term in the rules (eg IFV, APC) rather than what is just a narrative term is really important. 

GW have much gone over to the keyword method to try to convey this. It's not perfect as you end up with a lot of keywords, but it does help avoid ambiguity 

[dylan]

I think this is one of the 'big' challenges with sets of rules generally.
Rules should be clear, but foremost they should be about what you can do, not what you cannot do (IMHO).

Sadly it is often why rules sets 'die-off', due to 'congestion' and over complication caused by players requirements or demands for absolute clarity on things, along with a long list of what cannot be done.
I am not pointing a finger at you or anybody else specifically here, but if you look at a whole range of once successful rules that have withered and died, over clarification is often one of the reasons cited for the cause.

IFVs are IFVs and APC are APCs. IFVs behave in a particular way. APCs behave in a particular way. APCs don't operate the same way as IFVs. It's as simple as that 

Cheers
Mark


 

That's fine Mark, and you've made your thinking clear.  I suppose the market will decide.  Good luck!

I would note, however, that every single one of the points with FWC1 that I raised for clarification were the subject of questions, discussions and debates on the old forum - so I wasn't just randomly selecting a few rules I had a personal beef about.  I'm glad you think the answers are perfectly obvious, although I'll note not everyone did or they would not have become the subjects of debate or questions.

[Big Insect]

That's fine Mark, and you've made your thinking clear.  I suppose the market will decide.  Good luck!

I would note, however, that every single one of the points with FWC1 that I raised for clarification were the subject of questions, discussions and debates on the old forum - so I wasn't just randomly selecting a few rules I had a personal beef about.  I'm glad you think the answers are perfectly obvious, although I'll note not everyone did or they would not have become the subjects of debate or questions.

Of course not dylan and they were all very good points that are now being addressed in FWCII.

The challenge you raise about players trying to use IFV actions with APCs is also not a new one. Players often read the rules in their own favor but there is nothing in FWCI that even implies that you can treat APC as if they behave as IFVs 
My point above was that however hard a set of rules might try it cannot be written on the basis that it anticipates all the various things a player might try to do and prohibit them. It just ends up with excessive wording and in the end always fails 
Cheers
Mark