Deadzone seems to be doing very well. Despite it being the largest print run of any Mantic game they’ve run out already and need to print some more. This is good news for a couple of reasons. Firstly this means you’ll have loads more people to play against. Secondly, it’s given them the opportunity to incorporate a few corrections into the core book.
These are clarifications of the rules as they are intended to be played rather than a reworking of the game. However, they will, hopefully, make a few things clearer.
If, like me, you have one of the original run of books, you’ll want to know what these changes are so you can pencil them in. There are (apparently) a bunch of typos and minor layout things I’ve not seen as well, but I’m not so worried about them. The important differences between the initial print run and the reprint are as follows:
- Page 22, Free Actions section, 1st para, 5th line, sentence finishing “…action of the same type”: add “for the same model” to the end of the sentence so that the sentence reads” A free action cannot trigger another free action of the same type for the same model.”
- Page 22, the sentence after the one above: Add to the end “unless it has been earned by a different model”. The sentence will now read: ” If the result says that a second free action of the same type is earned then ignore that part of the result unless it has been earned by a different model.”
- Page 28, right col, 2nd para, 2nd line: delete “for free”. The sentence will then read “…same cube as an enemy model then it will Fight as part of that action.”
- Page 53, right col, third para: After “…only have each ability once.” add a new sentence: “Use the cost listed at the top of the column where the ability first appears, regardless of the model’s actual Rank at the time.”
- Page 68, Deployable weapons, last sentence: delete the last sentence “All they do is react to enemy models.”
- Page 68, Deployable weapons, between last two paras: insert new paragraph “Any model that moves into a cube containing a Deployed weapon in circumstances that would allow it to pick up a normal item (see page 27) may choose instead to destroy the Deployed weapon.”
- Page 78, Sentry Gun: in the bold first line, before Range insert “Shoot 5+,”.
These don’t fix everything, though they do help. I’ll add these and some surrounding clarifications to the FAQ when I get a moment.
Currently gone back to arguing with zombies 🙂
Quirkworthy 
So you can’t destroy a Sentry Gun by shooting it?
No. If you could then that would make it just like everything else, and the whole point of including them was to add variety to the tactical landscape. They pose a different problem for the opposition, and offer a new string to the bows of those that can deploy them.
That is, of course, a bit of an abstraction, but not entirely. SGs are very small, hardened targets that are bolted to the ground when deployed so they provide a stable firing platform. If you can see them then they are probably firing back at you too 🙂
Well at least being able to treat them as any other item (option to destroy a deployed item) gives their opponent an option.
I’m confused about the ” in circumstances that would allow it to pick up a normal item” part. Does this means that models with no shoot ability cannot destroy the sentry gun as they cannot pick up items ? Or is it just a question of timing and the actual ability to pick up an item is not needed ?
nevermind, I see the answer further down in the comments, thank you Jake.
So will we be able to trade in the old book for the new print run instead of forking out for a whole new book?
Would be nice if we could.
2 A.Davies!
Or at least a discounted offer to the kickstarters who funded the creation of a book with errors and loads of missing information. Weapons teams etc etc.
Always good when cards get errata’d before the game is publicly available too
What an unreasonable request! Corrections are very common in new print runs. That’s how it works. I’m sure the next print run after this will contain another correction or two. We supported the kickstarter and were lucky to be the very first to recieve the game. I.e. get the first print run. That’s a BENEFIT, not something you should be “compensated for”! But that’s not all. Kickstarter backers have the pdf rulebook which gets updated. So you have first print run AND an updated e-version, best of both worlds!
In short, I’m embarrased at you all’s request…
Well Gritchy I wasnt a Kickstarter Backer and dont have the luxury of seeing a nice PDF that gets permanently unpdate. I am just a normal customer who bought the game on the back of all the hype. If Id known a new print run would be coming so quickly I would have held off and bought that instead of forking out for the box game with a rulebook that I will now have to repurchase.
You won’t have to repurchase it Carl. That’s why I’m, telling you what’s changed here – so you don’t have to.
Thanks Jake for posting these, still looking forward to those concept articles about the rules :).
@Carl Not very likely, as that’s kinda what you have to expect when you get the first print. I wouldn’t be suprised if the online rulebook got updated though.
I’m a bit tierd of the ‘well it should be expected’ answer. No, what should be expected is a complete set of rules. Players who joined the game early get a sub standard book while the others get a good one?
The customers should not take the hit on mistakes in any business and rules are fundemental to being able to play the game!
It should be proof read and proof tested till the cows come home. It can’t have been if it has so many mistakes or missing/ambiguous text. If it was then the people who have been doing it need to be replaced by more competant folk.
Video games often get delayed in order to preseve quality and deliver a full product. This book was rushed and as a result those who paid the best part of a year ago are left with a rushed and wanting product. I know what I would prefer.
Off course this is to be expected…
Can you name any (war)game that has no errata published. Or any game that gave you a new rulebook because your print run had a few errors in it???
Just like any first print run of every academic book out there, or technical manual…
@Ludo word.
Ummm… Ever heard of Wizards of the Coast? HUGE game developer… SO many mistakes in the 4e DnD books. The higher levels were unplayable as written.. And they STILL haven’t reprinted the books without errors, you have to search the deepest darkest places in the web to find them. 😉 I think it’s ok to say mistakes happen. Mantic and Jake are just a few people, editing is a tough practice. Takes many eyes to catch the smallest mistake. All rules these days have errata. I’m just happy Jake is being so forward with them. Thank you Jake.
@Michael second word.
And yet more often than not we get crazy glitches or patches need within days… Do you seriously think they did not proof read it at all? And why the full rules were not included has been explained, You will get the full rules with the compendium, and there was never any doubt about that.
This issue is universal. Look, for example, at any $100+ million blockbuster movie. They have hundreds if not thousands of people working on them in projects that last for years, and yet every single one has continuity and logic errors. Go to IMDB, and have a look at the lists they compile. Imperfection isn’t an issue with gaming, but a more general issue with the process of creating anything complex and releasing it to a global audience.
Personally, I am something of a perfectionist by nature so I’d be very happy to never need any FAQ/errata. However, experience and research tells me that whilst this is absolutely worth aiming for, it is a near impossible goal. Look at Avatar: over $230 million to make (plus $150 promotion), worked on for 15 years, plenty of continuity errors: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/trivia?tab=gf&ref_=tt_trv_gf
It’s interesting that for someone preaching about the importance of not making mistakes and proofreading that there should be a spelling mistake in the first 4 words of your own post and the wrong word being used in your second paragraph. That is without me really looking for mistakes as well, it just goes to show how common and easy such things can happen.
As for computer games and their play testing I can think of numerous examples of where a patch has been released in the first week (in some cases on the day) of release.
I must be missing something – If there are errors, then I’ve missed them!
If anyone ever produces a game that has no errors, no need for FAQs / Errata, then it will be either a) insanely simple or b) in beta for long enough for everything to be picked up by the testing community, and probably never get made!
Can any model destroy a sentry gun when moving into it’s cube or just ones that could pick up an item. I.E. Can a model with no shoot stat destroy it?
Surely they can… Bite it til it falls apart?
Yes, any model can destroy a Sentry Gun once they’re in the same cube. Explaining this in more detail than I had room for in the correction (and with examples) is the main thing I want to expand in the FAQ.
Great thanks. I assumed so but wanted to be sure.
Even a Survey Drone?!
Hot Survey Drone on Sentry Gun action, check your local listings! ^.~
Just to check,
The Marauder mauler, or any model without s shoot score, still cannot damage a sentry gun?
See above.
Yeah, i probably should read the comnents before doubling up on a question, thanks JT
No prob Maz.
I assume that when the deadzone compendium comes out these will be changed. Great for such an early update, cheers Jake and a merry christmas
WARNING – LONG POST not entirely directed at anybody in general but a look back on several years of my life I would never give up.
Let me speak as someone who has been “in the industry” for a small miniature gaming company back in the day and share some things with you.
But first yes, you are right, everyone is a paying consumer who wants a perfect product. But as gamers we always want more for less. Mantic tries to walk that line of value vs quality and in my opinion the consumer is the winner and Mantic the loser.
The entirety of Mantic’s staff is probably less than a dozen employees with a core of just 3 -6 who are on the creative side when they are not packing counters, boxing games, or unloading trucks.
You have a limited staff and budget and are on a release schedule that if you deviate from will get howls of outrage from your fickle fans. You feel giddy and sick to your stomach as you watch your commitment quantities grow.
Margins are tight and most are doing it for the love of the game and not to get rich or make the company big enough to sell off or have stock options. You figure out ways to get the most stuff in the gamers hands as you can.
The quality is never what you want it to be and mispacks make you feel like you have been kicked in the stomach. But finding perfect packers for what you can pay is an impossibility. Most of them are working for you because they love gaming or you get them from a temp agency. You can stress to them how much they have to be perfect and then realize the manufacturer mixed the bags up as well.
A single bad casting will haunt you for the life of your company and all you can do is move forward and take your lumps at every convention and event for eternity.
You have a single “layout guy” who needs x amount of time to process changes and he never gets enough time because changes happen 3 days AFTER the print deadline and artwork is ALWAYS late. To find a talented artist or sculptor that is good and prompt is like finding an obedient cat and they are as rare as unicorns.
Playtesters are unpaid and their input from changes comes in slowly if at all. Up to and past the deadline decisions are being agonized over what the newest changes have done to balance, points, etc.
Rules writers become frustrated that their elegant rule set has to have exceptions and addendum’s that make their system more and more “ugly” as playtest continues.
Software finds spelling errors, but an editor who has never played a game cannot proof a rulebook for content. Everyone in the office reads the books over and over and becomes snowblind to how a rule could be read any way other than as they are playing it during testing.
We use to say we never actually played the rules as written in the final book. We KNEW the rules after hours of playtest and discussion and feedback from our playtesters and it hurt our objectivity in how to format and present a rulebook in the proper order for someone to learn it.
By the fourth edit you have run out of friends or eager gamers who have not already read the same stuff before and will skim it instead. Wives and girlfriends develop “The look” after being asked “Does this sound right?” for the umpteenth time while sitting at home proofreading a .pdf.
Everyone thinks you get paid to play games for a living but the reality is games end up being run after work or on weekends because from 9-5 you have other responsibilities because somebody has to do them.
Then there is the forums, where everyone tells you what you did wrong, why X is “to expensive” and Y “breaks the game”.
Nobody at Mantic wants to put out a product with errors, but none of their games have been released “broken” their rules are well written and require very few fiddly bits. They fix what they do wrong, and have even admitted mistakes (Judwans).
You get much more than you pay for and their enthusiasm is infectious and genuine.
A revised .pdf to kickstarter backers is the most I would expect, but we all have our own opinions.
My career path saw me moving on to use my degree in Engineering where quality vs cost is a daily decision. I wish I could return to the days when a small group would decide the customers needed more models without consulting investors who asked what the projected ROI (return on investment) would be with or without those models based on lost sales to competitors who are offering those features.
I hope Mantic continues to grow, and my biggest concern is not that they learn from their mistakes or with the quality of the product, but that they are charging enough to continue to grow the company.
Ok, rant done. Go about your business citizens.
Sincerely,
“That Lee guy”
^ LOVE :3
A most worthy rant!
Well put Lee,
Brilliant explanation 🙂
I totally agree lee, the figures to cost ratio is awesome, you wont get the models offered at these prices from any other company. Mantic, you are doing an awesome job, keep it up and I look forward to future releases. 🙂
Hi Jake,
I’m not quite sure where to post this, but I have a question on your hand size and cards that I posted to this bgg thread:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1093911/cards-and-hand-size
On page 21, the rules read:
“Each player takes a number of cards from his draw
deck equal to the first number in his Commander’s
command value. He then keeps a number of cards
of his choice equal to the second number of his
Commander’s command value. Any excess cards
are placed at the bottom of his draw deck – not the
discard pile”
My question is: Say I’m playing with the big bad plague commander, with a command rating of 3-3. Do I add the 3 newly drawn cards to your hand, and then discard down to a total of 3 cards, or do I draw 3 cards, keep all 3, then add them to my hand? I’m guessing it’s the former, but the rules aren’t clear, and there’s some confusion in the thread. Makes quite a difference at the end of turn 1, when my hand size could either be 7 (at most) or 3!
This really belongs in the FAQ thread.
The answer is that this paragraph refers only to the cards drawn at the end of the Round and has nothing to do with hand limit at all. There is no hand limit.
If your Command is 3/2 then you draw 3, look at them and decide which 2 you want to keep. Place the one you don’t want to the bottom of the draw deck and add the other 2 to your hand.
“Behind in the FAQ thread” … So do you mister! Some of those questions have been unanswered for weeks! 🙂
Curses. Stupid phone. *belongs
*sigh* Having a big debate over this action chain: Short Action Move (or maybe Long Action Sprint) into cube with 1 enemy present->Free Fight*(doubles, kills enemy)->Free Move (to neighboring cube with 1 enemy in it->Free Fight(doubles, kills 2nd Enemy)->Free Move (to next neighboring cube with 1 enemy in it… etc.
In his opinion based on the wording under Fight, this isn’t possible, as it says the Fight for entering a cube from the Move action is “part of the Move Action” and thus any action after that Move-spawned Fight should have to be a Fight Action on grounds it’s really a Move(with a Fight as part of it) rather than a Move->Free Fight from Move start up.
I’m trying to tell him it’s the Fight that generates a free action, not the Move, so it should still be legal, but… Yeah… Neither of us want to give ground on this. Pedantic bastards that we are.
I see your point. Before, and specifically mentioned in the Nov FAQs, the fight from the move action was free. So you could have move,->free fight,->free move,->free fight,->free move, etc. But not move,->free fight,->free fight. So doubling up your guys in cubes could stop draughts/checkers style chains.
But now if the fight is not classed as free, but a part of the move action does that mean you can earn a free fight action for doubling the fight test you got as part of the move action?
And does it mean if I earn a free move action, and use it to move into a fight, that fight can not give me another free move action because the fight itself wasn’t a separate action, and the chain would be free move,->free move and not free move,->fight,->free move?
I don’t think the above rule change has added much clarity, unless I’ve missed something.
In other words, does the Fight from having moved into a cube with an enemy count as part of the potential chain, or is it ignored because it’s actually considered a Move action?
I guess this is kind of moot now, as Free Action spawning off the paid for move can be either Fight or Move as it is the first Free Action in the chain.
Pingback: Reinforcements Requisitioned – Mantic Blog
Pingback: Reinforcements Requisitioned | BoLS GameWire
No news about the FAQ update ?
Hi,
would it be possible to have the pdf file corrected ?