Deadzone is an SF skirmish board game set in Mantic’s Warpath universe.
It went live on Kickstarter on the 26th of April and reached its funding goal of $50,000 in just 33 minutes. It is currently top of the Hotness list on BoardGameGeek.com.
The rules are currently available as an Alpha version and you are encouraged to read, play and comment on them in the FAQ and articles threads below.
Living FAQ
FAQ – ask your questions here.
Alpha Rules & Designer’s Notes
Alpha Rules – the first public version of the WIP rules.
Alpha Rules Feedback & Comments – please add yours here.
I’m Listening – a roundup of early comments and general themes
Kickstarter Rules FAQ – Ask Alpha rules questions here.
Gridded Board & Line of Sight – why this combination and what does this mean in game?
Turn Sequence, Overwatch and Card Interactions – why i-go-u-go isn’t all bad if you add lots of sauce.
Suppression – rounding out the effects of Blazing Away.
Force Selection – how to pick armies.
Quirkworthy 
Pingback: What Has Kickstarter Ever Done For Us? |
Just listened to your M&M interview at Saute and I hope you don’t conjure up a sissy Judwan Medic/Scientist or a bland Judwan diplomat. As much as the concepts are fitting I think people might come to associate these with fringe races sharing some similar characteristics from Star Wars.
Medics, scientists and diplomats were all around long before Star Wars. I haven’t watched a lot of the recent SW material as what I did see was depressingly awful revisionist kids stuff. Whatever edge it used to have has been polished down to a mirrored sphere.
The suggestion of a ninja-death killy Judwan is just so trite and pointless as to be beyond words. I’d far rather have an interesting alternative than just another fighter in a game which is already chock to the gunnels with different kinds of combatants.
A medic has obvious uses and a wizar-scientist could pull out some awesome abilities.
A diplomat wandering into a Deadzone would take a lot of explaining and it does smell of Star Wars episode ohmygodwhywhywhy Trade Federation delegate especially with their superficial facial resemblance and (presumably) robes.
No robes if anyone listens to me. It happens occasionally.
The thing is that the Judwan (and a lot of the rest of the Warpath universe) is only very sparsely explored in public, and I think that there is a far richer tale to tell than simply dump them in the “let’s make them a ninja” camp. It’s been done to death and it isn’t exciting any more.
Whilst you may have seen the Trade Federation doing diplomaty things in SW I don’t recall them every turning up in the middle of a game. Maybe they did in one of the computer games. I dunno, I only played them for about 10 minutes before I got very bored.
The problem with being inventive is whatever you invent people say “it’s a bit like X, Y or Z”. This is a natural human response for categorising things, but one that does tend very much towards blandness. With the alien races in DB I am trying to drag the background into a different space from the standard issue cookie cutter SF. Some of it works, other bits don’t. You’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg so far though, in terms of background. Loads more to come. When you do have more frame of reference within a Warpath context you’ll be able to make more sense of things like Judwan diplomats.
“With the alien races in DB I am trying to drag the background into a different space from the standard issue cookie cutter SF. ” This is wonderful music to my ears. Please, pleease, please do.
It’s what I like most of the DB e DZ BG. Very beautyful.
Rules and toy soldiers are very nice, but dreams are what games are made of.
And this “dream” is shaping up very promising, interesting and thought-provoking.
Nice. 🙂
I heartily agree that a lone Judwan Ninja would be dull. On the other hand a troupe of Pygmy Zee Ninja’s would be AWESOME !! 🙂
Actually, the Zee are just the sort of malicious and underhand toe-rags to do it.
Ninja Mokeys?! Straight out of Grandma’s Boy!!! ❤ LOVE IT<3
Speaking of factions, Jake, will the regular (which is to say not Enforcers) Corporation troopers be making an appearance in Deadzone?
Not sure yet. The number of factions we do in this set really depends on how well the KS campaign does, and they aren’t in the first 6. Don’t really want more humans do you? Aliens are much more fun…
They are if they’re ratty and verminous aliens, who incidentally have also thus far been conspicuous by their absence…
Lurking just out of sight is their speciality.
Since this seems to be the place to talk about Warpath/Deadzone aliens: Will there only be plague versions of humans or some of other species, too? I guess 1st and 2nd gen are way too far mutated to look much different, but what about, say, third gen Orx? Or Veer-Myn? Especially the later ones are, if I remember correctly, troubling common on many corporation worlds.
I second this request when ever you get mutent or zombies or skeletons models they are always human would be nice to see a change
You may have noticed in some places I refer to the Plague as Stage 1A or 3D. The letter is a reference to the original species. “A” is human, which is the most common on Corporation worlds, and so the most common form of Plague. The further we get in the KS the more we get to expand the range of models and the more likely we are to see Plague with non-human starting points. The plague dogs are really just 3Ds.
Printed Beta rules this morning, had an extended break at work 🙂 and read rules 3 times over a few mugs of tea and toast. Well done Mantic, so many new possibilities running through my head. Initiative and Command Total are great game mechanics. Query: Assault Enforcer has a 5+ pistol range 3 Missile Enforcer has a 4+ pistol range 3 and missile AP2 Enforcer Sergeant has a 4+ pistol and range 3 I can see that the Sergeant would have better weapon skills at a 4+, but should the Missile Enforcer be the same as the Assault pistol as 5+, his missile skill being 4+? Would love to see close encounter shotguns, range 3 with damage bonuses :p Keep up the excellent work, can’t wait to get some beta games in this weekend, and it’s a Bank Holiday in UK on Monday, so another day of play testing…yippee!!!
The shooting skill is a function of the model, not the weapon.
However, the ML should have 6+ Fight, not 5+.
More weapons incoming 🙂
Ah, I need to update my print out!
I also noticed that it says in the rules that on the player stat card their particular interrupt skill will be listed – but it doesn’t. I assumed that for most bar the Plague 2A it is just a shooting action, while they get a fight action – but what about the Assault Enforcer?
They were missed on the original cards and I posted them up here. I just can’t remember where. I’ll be doing some new cards soon anyway.
So wait a minute, this thread says no Judwan ninja assassins… “The suggestion of a ninja-death killy Judwan is just so trite and pointless as to be beyond words.” So what is WRATH
Ronnie’s fault 😉
Lol, I just saw that and was about to say the same thing. 😉
Though for the record, I think Wrath is pretty damn awesome! It’s not like he chose to be a ninja-death killy Judwan… The Council of 7 forced him into it and now he’s making them pay! 🙂
Pingback: Model-less Rules « pigment.apply
Hi
I have translated Deadzone beta rules in french.
I would like to know if I can publish it on BGG and make it available for french people interested with the game. not sure about copyright .
In addition, during translation some points appear not to be clear for me,
About models positionning : “If possible, always position opposing models in adjacent cubes so that they are not touching.” not clear for me…
About Break Off action : it is said “A model that is in the same cube as any standing enemy models cannot guaranteethat they will be able to walk away unharmed”.
For me, standing, is then about Alert or Enraged models, not Pinned ou Suppressed as the figure is lay down, so I’m a bit confused with the fact the Fight mods can concerned Pinned ou Suppressed foe…
Hope you can help on those points.
Thanks
Dear Quirkworthy,
I have read much about Deadzone in recent months and I have some questions in regards to larger games and a possible alliance system:
Larger playing area – Ever since the kickstarter I have been drawn to the idea of a larger 2×4 playing space (2 Deadzone mats).
Will the game design for standard 2 player games be compromised in this larger playing area? Or will it scale up nicely? I’d imagine the likes of the Plague maybe hindered with the extra space while the Rebels will no doubt love the extra room for manoeuvre. How have you found the scaling up of the game during play testing?
3 Player games – I’m expecting, once I’ve receive a copy of game, to have a few 3 player games. Or at least have one extra bod wanting to play this most awesome cracking game. Would a game having one large force of say Plague (140 points) vs 2 forces of Enforcers (70 points each) or 2 different forces (Enforcers and Rebels), be OK? Does the game accommodate this kind of flexibility? Can it be played in this way? Will you be writing any special 3 player+ scenarios? Which brings me to ask…
Alliance System – is there going to be an alliance system? Does it matter if Plague pair up with Marauders to fight Rebels? Does anyone want to pair up with Enforcers? Really? Is there a system to use or is it quite flexible who you buddy up with? Are there enough reasons to justify why Rebels would be best friends with Enforcers for a game? Which brings me to ask…
Civil War – can forces of the same faction fight each other? And if so, why would they? Are there civil wars within the Corporation and Plague? Or do they all get along nicely? Would it make sense to have 2 sets of enforcers fighting each other over a long campaign? What are your thoughts Quirkworthy?
Pingback: Heroes & Villains |
Hey Jake,
I wanted to ask if it was ok if I were to make a rule adaptation of Deadzone, fluffed and crunched for Kings of War instead of Warpath? I wanted to check to see if the DZ stuff fell under the same license as the KoW stuff in terms of fan army lists and rules (ie, can’t use it for profit, must attribute it properly to copyright holders, etc). Would this be alright?
Planetary conditions cards? Gravity, light conditions, fog/smoke, seismic activity, extreme temperatures, raging T-rex’s now that the fences are down, carnivorous plants (see previous electric fence down)
That Lee guy
Not sure where else to post this where you might see it so I’ll give here a go.
I’ve been looking at the special character pdf and as a plague fan I obviously went straight to Dr Simmonds…however I’m not sure I get what she’s actually for…
She’s only 2 points cheaper than a General so she’s not exactly a bargain for her statline.
She has Tough but no armour (a general has armour but no tough) so the end result is the same. She’s a worse commander than a “general” (2/1 rather than 2/2), has a marginally better survive and Fast. I may use the model and just call her a “General” as I can’t see any-one at my FLGS complaining but other than that I’m not sure she has a use.
Making her a ‘Plague’ medic might have been a better idea. Or at least giving her Tactician or Strategist.
Or am I missing something?
Looking at her stats etc, I would say Dr Simmons is a flanking unit. A bit like Wolf Riders in Warhammer. Her strength is her Fast ability allowing her to move 3 spaces a turn. That is the 2 spaces for sprint which due to her ability is now a short move, plus the usual 1 space move ability. So in just 2 turns she is pretty much in the opponents deployment zone. Pair her up with one or two hounds who can keep up with her speed and you then have a headache for your opponent. No need to run her into a big fight. Just sit her somewhere where she can be a pain. A weak opponent will be greatly affected by her presence and will make mistakes which you can exploit. But even a seasoned veteran will want to do something about her and will result in distracting some of his troops away from your more deadly troops. She is also a mutant so perhaps you can beef her up with some even more annoying abilities like spit acid which will really put the wind up your opponent. In terms of deployment I would set her up in one of your flanks where you would think your opponent’s team will be most light in models.
Hi Quirkworthy, I posted this suggestion at the Mantic Deadzone Rules forum, but I figured I should also send it to you for your consideration:
So, after looking at the Mauraders gunrack and Hulk, and knowing that the Strider will also carry a HEW, I am seeing a bit of a potential issue. Right HEWs and AP6 Deliberate weapons in general seem to be an entire class of weapons that are placed in a very awkward position, since I don’t think the system, as is, can support anything over 4 armor. Currently, unless you are targeting the Helfather, there is no unit in the game an AP1 sniper is not better against. Their main advantage of AP6 is wasted, making them essentially longer range inferior snipers.
I am well aware that that will change when bigger game types and the Forgefathers come out. Bigger ranges means that guns with range 14-16 will be more useful, and if the Helfather is any indication, Forgefathers will have armor 3 models. However, this seems like a very specialized niche for a these models.
I think units like the Maurader Hulk or HEW gunwagon, perhaps eventually the Strider(Looks like it has a HEW) need a wider niche to fill. So my suggestion is, in order not to have to change the cards, to simply have a rule in any future expansions that says that all AP6+ weapons get Irresistible. It’s not as neat as giving it individually, but it works. Suddenly now the anti tank weapons are no longer just longer range sniper rifles. Instead they can hunt units like the Phase 1, Teratons, Hulks or Piece-keeper Captain, as they should. Those models will still be tough cookies, due to their 3+ survival roll, but now they have another tactical consideration. Most importantly, it makes the HEW Gunrack and the Hulk attractive prospects on normal games of Deadzone, whereas now, Rainmakers, the mortar gunrack or snipers seem almost always the wiser choice.
Plus it would make more fuff sense, cause seriously, why is a goblin with a sniper better than an anti tank plasma at hurting Phase 1/Teratons/ Hulks. I rather like the idea that it takes a tank or a Strider to down a Phase 1. What do you think?
Thanks DrD. I don’t get enough time to deal with all the comments on Quirkworthy, so rarely make it over to the Mantic forums. If you want me to look at stuff then this site is the place to post.
It’s an intriguing idea and I rather like it. It’s not quite how I’d implement it, but a good approach to start from and worth developing. I’m tinkering with some experimental rules which I will post up at some point. I’ll test out something along these lines too 🙂
There are reasons why a sniper might be more able to kill a target than a less subtle weapon. For example, imagine that Superman’s eye was vulnerable. You could try to snipe that small a target, but hitting him in the belly with an RPG would still do nothing.
Happy new year! Thanks for replying, sorry I did not reply back earlier, Christmas be crazy.
I saw your experimental Excessive Force rule, and I thought that was a really elegant solution. I added a comment over there for a possible solution to the potential issue that people mentioned, of making the really expensive superheavies(i.e the Piecekeeper) too risky to take. I think if you simply added the Tough and Really Tough (so +1 or +2) to the armour value to be doubled, you’d solve this issue rather elegantly.
Yeah, I see your point about the sniper, but if these things are anti tank weapons, surely no infantry should be able to withstand them, even the really big and boney variety. Though perhaps something like the Plague Teraton is simply that badass. That thing does look like it could take a tank shot and keep trucking. I love that model :D.
I’ve been playing around the idea that high ap should in some way be good at killing low armor (ie : “This situation is typically caused by someone using an anti-tank weapon to attack an individual trooper. In these cases the individual’s defences are totally outclassed and usually overwhelmed.”)
I changed irresistible to work the following : irressistible negate all armor points that are equal or below its ap value. Armor above its ap value work as per the general rules
Example : ap(4), irresistible weapons will treat any model that has armor 4 or below as having armor 0.
This i think, gives the mechanism intended to simulate that a missile launcher is capable of taking down a tank, but if shooted at a trooper, even heavily protected, it will probably get vaporized and his armor is like paper for high penetrating weapons.
It happens that most tough / really tough models also have also 1-2 armor points, so it would kind of solve the tough models vs high ap weapons (except for some exceptions like the plague swarm, but that does seem sensible to me)
Hi, I’m not sure if this is the right place, or if it’s already been answered, but what happens if I buy a Reb Commander a Energy Shield?
If I have 3 size 1 models in a cube, can I prevent a fight from size 2, 3 or 4 model because it can’t move into that cube?
Peter, Each side can have up to 4 size units worth of models in a cube. Your opponent can have 4 size units worth of guys in the same cube as your up-to-4 size units worth of guys.
Has there been any word on the AI deck? Any testing for it planned? I’m about to finish up my pledge manager and I noticed this has little to zero information.
The AI deck is almost finished. It’s gone through a number of permutations as it is a complex thing to get right. Not sure if it is slated for public testing.
Hi Jake,
I just posted a review over at bgg (check it out if you have a moment: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1132161/deadzone-this-aint-your-daddys-table-top-miniature) and someone replied that the paper map was not included in the retail version, that the mousepad version has replaced it. Do you know if this is the case? I’d love to update my review, as the paper map was pretty crummy.
Also, do you know if the colored plastic boxed set that was available for KS backers will be made available retail, or if that was just a KS experiment?
Thanks again for this great game.
M
As far as I’m aware the paper mat was a KS only thing. This was the original spec, and when the mouse mat appeared they decided to add rather than replace. But the retail version doesn’t need both, so it gets the better version.
I’ve never seen the coloured plastic version myself. My guess would be not at retail because multiple versions will risk confusing people, but that’s a guess.
I picked up dead zone recently and am really enjoying it. I was wondering if you had a vision for the game being played at a tournament level and if so if you think true line of sight could cause issues with certain models at that point I.e. the stage 2 leaping over a barrier is more of a liability than the one crouching down. Did you ever consider abstracting the los for the shoot action like you did for the blaze away action?
Yea, the non-shooty models that are tall are quite a liability in DZ. I don’t use the tall 2nd gen, and have modeled the leaper as crouching (I also have a pet peeve against models that drag terrain along with themselves on their bases!)
That might make serious tourneys a bit tough!
Blaze Away to Powerful?
We’ve got a couple of dozen games under our belts now using all factions and Blaze Away has become the default method of shooting as you have more chance of wounding than a normal shot.
Once a model is Pinned or Suppressed, which is easier to hit than a shoot, other models then Blaze Away with almost certainty of getting a triple as it’s so common for the target to roll no successes with 3 dice and the attacker needing just 1 success to get the triple and therefore get 3 hits on the target. Shooting only now occurs when there is a good sdice advantage in doing so.
Is anybody else finding this and if they are, ok with it?
You still have to take armour away from blaze away damage though.
Sure, but you have a heck of a lot more chance of getting 3 hits pre-armour with blaze away than a regular shot, You would need to roll 3 successes with a Shoot action and only 1 success with Blaze away if the target rolled none AND the target would roll more dice in defence with a shoot action.
I’ve not played as much as you have (only about three games so far) but all the “Oooh, that’s gotta hurt” cinematic episodes are from Blaze Away. That the defender tends to get fewer dice in Blaze Away does make it easier for the attacker to get some very strong results. It’s a bit of a pity to hear that you’re finding BA is now the default shoot action. I know Jake was working on BA until just about when the game was released; I’m interested to hear what others report too.
I’ve seen the same only it’s a little harder than what you are saying…at least in our games.
Rarely does it happen that an Enforcer is killed by this. Usually by just rolling 1 success it messes the whole thing up. And with their 2 armor,well it’s just hard. And the leader for the Plague or the Enforcer Captain…forget it. Even with 3 times the hit unless you are using AP rounds. The Captain has 2 armor with tough and the plague has 1 armor with Very Tough. Even 1 defensive success you are wasting time there.
Well you are talking about the heavies and not the general grunt, and their protection stops everything except the best of shots anyway. Try playing with Survival 6 Rebs.
Where do we find the cards for the Mercenaries? The Mantic site only has 2 to download. There were none in my Nexus Pi PDF but I got a number of them in my Kickstarter?
I think they were emailed to us, have uploaded to dropbox for you: https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5tgoustnub3otv/mercenary_faction_deck_digital.pdf
Thanks David – never saw that email.
A few questions we ran into while playing:
A) when shooting a grenade (marauder ripper suit) do you have to target a model or a location like when you throw? If targeting a model do they get a ‘defensive type roll’
B) using the above- do you use your shooting stat? Do you roll 3 dice? How many success’ do you need?
C) when shooting a grenade can they use long range? Double the shooting distance?
D) a model is suppressed in his next available action the only way to stand the model up is to use a courage card and a ‘get mean’ battle card correct?
E) is it correct to say that you can play 1 offensive card and one defensive card on the same model total? Or can you use multiple defensive cards but in different turns?
F) when drawing site from a vehicle is it from the drivers view or the weapons or either?
Thanks, I think that’s it for now.
Bill
Following answers are broken into Frag Launcher (which is what I believe you mean) and Frag Grenade (what you MIGHT mean)
A) Frag Launcher: It has Single Shot, so it’s a PointLOS Shoot Action attack thus pick an enemy model and frag it.
Frag Grenade: Uses Throw Grenade Action, so it targets AreaLOS, throw in general direction and watch it explode.
Both cases get survive rolls, though the Throw Grenade is a single success to hit Action, the Survive roll for it comes when you move on to the Frag part. The Launcher gets two Survive rolls, one from the primary target shot at to see if it HITS, the second for the opposed Frag test. Roll the Frag part once, then anyone and everyone in the target cube and adjacent ones get to try and Survive vs that result.
B) Yes to both. Shoot stat is used for all ranged attack actions, as stated in Shoot, Blaze Away and Throw Grenade.
C) Frag Launcher: Yes. But with usual penalties for Long Range,
Frag Grenade: No. Hand grenades of all types so far, including Frag Grenade are listed as Limited Range. So 3 cubes is it. You could miss and have it scatter a further cube, but beyond that, that’s pretty much it.
D) Yes… or you if you have a model with Tactician or Strategist and a Command Token unspent, you can attempt a Command Action to try and have the model take a ‘Get Mean’ that way too, and then use a ‘Get Mean’ card or a Short Action ‘Get Mean’ of their own.
E) You are limited to one Active Card for each model in your own Turn. In the opponent’s Turn, you can use play one Reactive Card for each Test. Hybrid Cards count as whatever they are played as (your one Active Card if played as one in your own Turn, or a Reactive Card if played in your opponent’s Turn). You can play as many Reactive Cards as you have Tests that can use them in your opponent’s card up to one Reactive Card per different Test.
F) Can’t remember the exact ruling on Vehicle LOS. I think it’s from the Gunner/Driver, but not too sure.
Yes,I was meaning the frag launcher. We were having a hard time figuring if it was an actual model used as the target or the cube?
Thanks for the info.
One other thing. If missed when shooting at a target does it deviate or just count as a “dud”?
Again thanks,
Bill
If you look at the smaller blue box under the Frag and Blast special rules, you’ll find the answer there:
They don’t scatter on a miss. Only attacks using the Throw Grenade actions scatter. If you miss with Shoot or Blaze Away attacks with the Frag or Blast rules, then it still goes off in the same target cube, it just doesn’t give the +1 from being a ‘HIT’, as it didn’t quite connect with the proposed target be it the cube or a single model as well as it could have.
If you hit, do you get the +1 hit bonus on the adjacent cubes if there are enemy models there as well? Or is it the +1 only on the cube it lands and hits in???
Hey Jake,
Can you help answer my questions? Others are asking me if I have gotten any new info about it.
Thanks,
Bill
Initiative is pathetic at the moment, I’m sick of small forces keeping initiative all game and making many cards useless. And with command total 6 for a peacekeeper, as long as the enforcers number less then 6 they can never loose initiative once they gain it after the first turn.
Options to fix this:
1: who ever activated their first model last on the previous turn goes first this turn, this would have an added benefit of working in multiplayer games of 2+ people where play would go around clockwise and initiative would go anti clockwise.
2: add in a command ability that commanders can try to steal init as a long action, both commanders dice off, rolling their command total in dice and who ever rolls the most 5+ successes wins init.
3: make it that the command ability and the distract cards etc may be used on a model already activated, but will take effect on the following turn.
Option 1’s pros are if deadzone expands to have multiple faction face off on the same board for battle royals then init can work easily.
Option 2’s pro’s are it adds to having a good commander and an interesting dynamic to the game.
Options 3’s pros’s are it’s the easiest to errata into the rules without effecting the game too much.
I believe (and could be wrong) that the cost associated with the higher cost Leaders is part of the reason that the end up with initiative for a good chunk of the game.. it is the trade off for having an expensive model in command vs having a lower-level guy doing the leading… I don’t find it broken, and at times it can be very advantageous for the smaller # team to pass the initiative if they have no good LOS, etc.. so if you are the 2nd player and know you aren’t going to have the initiative, make sure your models aren’t in an bad spot and make your opponent pass or waste their turn firing at non-idea targets… I don’t disagree that you could make initiative a 5+ command skill vs command skill test to give people a chance of winning.. maybe +1 dice if they finished their models activations first in the last turn?
Hey Jake,
I was wondering if there was any chance of you doing some rule previews(beta) of some of the new stuff coming out with wave two that we haven’t seen cards for yet. Thinking of stuff such as the sword sorak and walkers.
A model is moving from the mat level into a cube one level higher directly ahead with a wall it could used to get up there. My read is that during a Move action you can go up or down by one level. This doesn’t appear to be a Climb action since it’s one level and Climb requires a two-level change by my read.
1. Is this understanding correct?
2. Are models with Beast somehow prevented from doing this (changing level during a Move)? I think this keeps coming up as we’re remembering rules from Mordheim where things like giant rats couldn’t move up into structures.
1. You are correct. Move let’s you go up / down 1 cube, Climb is a separate action that lets you acend / decend 2 levels.
2. Beast only restricts units from carrying items. There is no impact on movement (beast is actually a weird name for this because it applies to vehicles, certain humanoid units etc.)
I really like what you guys are usually up too.
This kind of clever work and exposure! Keep up the excellent works guys
I’ve added you guys to my blogroll.
Hi
We are going to start a multiplayer campaign soon. If there is the same mercenary in both mine and my opponents strike teams how should we resolve this issue?
Regards
Dan
I believe this has been addressed somewhere in that it is fine to both have the same mercenary… one of them is probably the real one, but you’ll never know… but it doesn’t affect the game in any way and is totally legal and all that.
Evan asked: “If you hit, do you get the +1 hit bonus on the adjacent cubes if there are enemy models there as well? Or is it the +1 only on the cube it lands and hits in???”
Only ever roll one Frag Test (or Blast Test depending) and anyone who would be affected by it rolls their Survive dice against the successes generated by that Test. Those in Adjacent cubes with cover have a much higher chance of coming away unscathed.
If your attack hit, then the attack is bang on, and you roll +1 dice for the Frag/Blast test making it very well placed. If you got no successes, then it missed, it scatters if it was a Throw Grenade action, or it still hits the original target cube, but doesn’t land well enough to affect the enemy properly, and you don’t include the +1 dice bonus.
Hi Jake,
I was wondering what your thoughts would be on a possible expansion of the door rules to include a ‘breach and clear’ mechanic.
Something like a three dice [1] test with doubles allowing a free move or shoot action (or a throw for a grenade). I have found the current door rules to be a bit inhibiting when trying to play a terrain heavy battle with room to room fighting. Thanks
Hi Jake,
I’ve just watched the video from the Mantic Open Day (as sadly I couldn’t make it this time – I’m the one usually wearing the DIVE! t-shirt) and had some concerns about the new direction or changes to Deadzone.
We’ve only just started to play the game and we’re all really enjoying it, now I admit it takes a little time to get to the stage of playing ‘full’ games with missions cards etc etc but once you’re there it’s a blast, we simply played smaller games without mission cards at first and then steadily built up to the full game with relative ease for all involved. My concern is that even though Ronnie was saying the core of the game will be the same when you remove things like the command stat, potentially remove the use of cards, change the special rules then you’re changing feel of the game and how it plays. Granted the game engine with be pretty much the same I’m guessing but that isn’t what gives the game it’s flavour, its the special rules and card mechanics that give the game it’s own identity (over say Mars Attacks which shares the same engine).
I guess my main concern is that I would hate (and I don’t like to say this) a GW style situation in that we have a huge amount of gaming material from the first version which we really enjoy playing (four books, stat/battle/mission cards, ref material etc) and with the new version of the game that is all redundant and we basically have to learn to play a new game effectively.
So the question would be how different will the new version of Deadzone be from the first?
Thanks
Phil
After watching the footage of you and Ronnie talking at the open day I’d like to take a moment to impress upon you just how important random missions are, for me, in making Deadzone a cut above other games. Not knowing what your opponent is going to do adds such a different tactical level to the game.
As a house rule we pick our mission before building our strike team. The last time I played was against a friends Enforcers I was using the Plague, my goal was to survive. He set up first (the deployment was astraight line of one cube along each edge) he set up his small Enforcer force in one corner so my reaction to meet my goal was to set up as far away as possible.
Then he started sprinting straight across the board, I had to abandon my tactics and try to rush him endangering my forces in the process. And that’s what makes the game for me, it’s not a case of we set up we fight it out and the same thing happens every game. If the Enforcers always have the win by killing objective and rebs always win by looting your going to get to the stage where you know how a game will pan out before you even play it.
Yes some of the missions need a bit of balanceing to make them more winnable but the fog of war effect is totally worth it.
Thanks again for such a great game!
I don’t like to be inpatient for answers, but this is so important part of the game that I really would like to hear answer ASAP.
According to RAW (DZ v2 page 20, 2nd paragraph under Shoot) if a model starts it’s activation in same cube with enemy, it can’t do any shoot action that turn. Not even if it broke off from enemy. Is this correct according to RAI?
After this was pointed out to me, I see Enforcers in vastly worse situation than in V1, because their only rational response to enemies close up (get away and shoot) has been nullified. This sounds truly horrific against zombie horde that can just swamp all of the Enforcers.
The brief for DZ2 was for a greatly streamlined edition, with fewer exceptions and detail cases. This was one of the casualties of that drive.
Having said that, the addition of the Command Dice gives you the ability to move out of the way beforehand (going further than you could before), creating a similar effect of dodging the attack, but in a different way. The CD version also gives the player an interesting choice of what to keep and what to re-roll in a turn (if he sees the threat coming), and what to spend when. It also goes towards one of the other things I wanted to encourage more, which is acting as team, helping your buddies, and so on. Can’t get out of it yourself – get some backup – shooting isn’t your “only rational response”. Again, this creates an interesting dynamic on the tabletop as it makes more difference between small numbers of elites (who often don’t have back up nearby) and larger groups of less skilled individuals who usually do have someone nearby to help.
So it’s not all downside – it’s just different.
Overall, I agree that it makes life a bit harder for the Shooty sides, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing as they were winning a lot of the early test games fairly easily.
And fighting against a zombie horde should be horrific 🙂
Thanks for the reply.
I’m a little bit concerned about this still. Clever player will engage all of the Enforcers at once (shouldn’t be too hard with zombie horde) and making them helpless for the rest of the game.
Have to test against my nightmare scenario and see how it turns out 🙂
Do let us know how your nightmare scenario turns out! Seems the Enforcer player who lets this happen to him either got caught in the wrong corner of the map, or maybe shouldn’t be playing Enforcers!
I was thinking about this again last night.
From the other side of the fence, the situation has got harder for the attacking melee army too. Now the shooty defenders have access to way more shots with their Command Dice than they did before, so that hail of fire you have to cross is even more daunting. Or is it? Add the possibility of extra moves for the assaulting troops, and you can see that the whole dynamic is shifting. Planning your use of CD is central now, as is having a coordinated plan for your whole force.
The upshot is that I don’t think you should pick out one piece of the jigsaw and fret about its impact in isolation. Tactics need adjusting as a whole, not piecemeal.
Putting all that aside, please do let us know how your end of the world goes 🙂
Hey Teemu, I’ve discovered the real problem. The bit you quoted is wrong. After I replied it was still niggling. I couldn’t remember making this change deliberately, but it was a fair while ago so I wasn’t sure. Having checked my original manuscript, the quoted line is not there and I’m not sure where it came from. The correct interpretation is that of page 16, in the box out, 3rd para. It’s the state when the model wants to begin an action, not when he begins his turn that matters. Subtle, but important difference there.
The added line in the Shooting section misses that subtlety. It’s therefore correct sometimes, but not always.
So, when I start a turn in the same cube as an enemy, I can only Move or Fight as my initial action. That’s true. But if I Move out of that cube as my first action, then when I want to do a second action I check again, and now I’m not in the same cube as an enemy so I can Shoot.
Even so, I still think all the comments I made before are right. Lots going on in not many rules 🙂
The interesting issue then is that Enforcers get really really strong.
Since you basically cannot fail a break away (except dying) an Enforcer can just step away and shoot with guaranteed +2 dice for clear shot.
But if they cannot shoot at all they get really weak…
I know you want to avoid special rules but something a bit more balanced might be that you can break away and then shoot but you lose 1 or 2 dice due to “exhaustion” or something, just to compensate for the +2 for clear shot
It depends on who they’re fighting. Failing a Break Away by dying is eminently doable, and if they don’t, and fail their Shooting in turn, then they’ve just given away another charge bonus…
Going for cinematic here 🙂
Just noticed that you had given a second answer to me few days ago. Thanks for it and please ignore my ramblings below 🙂
Although not yet related to this main problem of mine, I had my first test game and zombies winning on empty field was quite a surprise. Report can be read on Mantic Forums here: http://vb.manticforum.com/forum/deadzone/general-discussion-ae/282592-deadzone-zombie-test-games
I have also managed to point out my main problem with new “Break Away”. It discourages Enforcer player from being mobile. I found this to be a problem in V1 too, where I often found myself just sitting close to my deployment zone and shooting at incoming plague hordes. Moving towards objectives was often a suicide.
Also, I think that “Break Away” disallowing shooting makes heavy density terrain favor melee strike teams greatly. If it allowed shooting, it would be more balancing factor between shoot-melee strike teams.
Other than this, I find new Deadzone better than old one and it still remains my favorite miniature wargame (if not even more so). Plus new terrain and gaming mat from Infestation KS was just what I needed 🙂
I see you already spotted the answer above 🙂
Hi Jake, are you working on the FaQ for v.2 or is it only the RC?
Group effort 🙂
ok that sound great, cant wait 😉
Would perhaps be a good idea to update this page now… maybe remove all the DZ1 links and actually add the DZ2 ones, like the FAQ
Yup. Will do.
Hi
Nastanza and Project Oberon both got an ability called Energy Field.
Is that just a typo and should be Energy Shield instead, or?
Reb Sorak is now a troop, but he has Specialist Campaign Abilitie, thas correct? It’s the same with the traton Shock Trooper, he has no Campaign Abilities
I’m afraid you’ll have to ask Mantic about Deadzone now. They decided they didn’t want me to work on it.
Thanks! Where can I talk with him about this?
I suppose you’d have to contact their customer services. The email should be on their website.
Thanks again!