Last Deadzone Stat cards

These files include all of the stat cards for the main set. I’ve added a final few since you last saw them, plus I’ve tweaked some that have caused issues.

The points costs are properly calculated, but ignore the letters for the moment. I’ll sort that out tomorrow.

Rebels Faction deck v3

Enforcer Faction deck v4

Plague Faction deck v3

Marauder Faction deck v5

This entry was posted in Deadzone. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Last Deadzone Stat cards

  1. Tom says:

    Some interesting new editions. Looking forward to trying them out.

    • Tom says:

      Quick thought, the rebel tk zero weapon team counts as one model despite 2 figures? Will they be based as one? And what does csw stand for again?

      • Hendybadger says:

        CSW confused me as well

        • Quirkworthy says:

          CSW is an abbreviation of Crew Served Weapon. It just means that they use that set of rules. In the end it seemed easier to have one card for the whole weapon team. They will be based individually, but work when they’re standing touching each other on the board. CSW teams always count as 2 for how many fit in a cube.

  2. jonatan reino (asdepicas) says:

    Will test them on tuesday 🙂
    It will be another night full of fun

  3. Chris Richardson says:

    There is a section of the beta under Positioning Models that talks about the maximum model count per side per cube being 4. It also states Stage 2 models count as 2 models each. I haven’t seen this size attribute expressed anywhere else in the updates. Will it be one the cards?

  4. Evan Champie says:

    Mawbeasts should have the Beast ability 😀

  5. Almer says:

    Nice suprise to see the rules for two special weapons with the Enforcers (already noticed some different guns on the parts preview in update 103) 🙂
    Small thing though, the Fusion Gun has Single Shot, yet the OW reaction is Blaze Away.
    Is this intentionally?

  6. Deaven R. says:

    Excellent looking rules set.
    I’ve been messing around with various lists, letter levels, and points values for fun.

    One thing I’ve noticed is that it is nearly impossible to make an A level force with a leader if you want even a single fun toy because there are no units at level A with either a better than 1/1 leadership value or a leadership ability.

    The only army that excepts this is the Marauders who, interestingly enough, have both at level A. Their commandos have 2/1 LD and their Sergeant has both 2/1 LD and Tactician.
    I’m not sure what fluff reason makes Ork commandos more tactical ability than genetically enhanced, lifelong super soldiers. But I don’t know enough yet to dispute.

    My real issue is that it seems the Marauders are geared to make some actually interesting A lists without having to sacrifice leadership ability, while the other races all have to use an extremely limited pool of troops.

    Since your not supposed to raise an issue without possible solutions, here are a few options:
    1. Non-Combat Leaders with a leader ability.
    2. Slightly Upgraded Basic Troops (in the vein of the commando sergeant) – Enforcer Corporal: same as basic enforcer but with 2/1 LD or Tactician.
    3. Modify current models rules to ensure that everyone has a Level A “Leader” of some sort. Commando Sergeant, Enforcer Sergeant, Yndij Sergeant, Gen III General would be best bets most likely. The cool thing is that you can increase costs, but leave them at A so they are versatile, but pricy.

    Anyway. Just some thoughts. Love the great work.

    • Deaven R. says:

      Oops. One more option: make leaders all Level H. This has no effect on the level of your force. Would probably work for all but the strongest of them. And those could either further increase their points, or retain their usual Level.

      I guess, what I’d really love to see is your standard squad mirror those in real life:
      A leader.
      A bunch of troops.
      A squad support weapon.

      So close already. Just minor tweaks to get there.

      • Chris Richardson says:

        I’m confused by the effort you put into generating an A level leader. If you need an A ranked force, why not make the single B trooper you take the leader?

        I just got back from seeing Elysium. If those weren’t the Rebs on display… And we need some ammo like that Jake! And a few exo-suits for the boys while you are at it! 😉

        • Deaven R. says:

          Because taking your leader as your only B unit seems like you’re pigeon-holed from the start.
          It wouldn’t even be an issue if it weren’t for the Marauders already being able to do so.
          If they can do it, then surely there is nothing innate about leaders that makes them B or higher.
          If its not changed. Doesn’t bother me at all. I sure Jake has his reasons. And I’ve been planning on playing marauders anyway.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          Don’t worry about the ABC levels any more guys. This isn’t really working so I’m replacing it with the another variant of the original idea. No point in flogging a dead horse.

  7. Mike Kirkham-Ingram says:

    I’m having trouble finding the beta rules. Would it be possible to put these and all the new updates in one place,please. A drop down tab labeled downloads would be good and you could put everything in including DB team betas just to make it easier to find everything.
    By the way,Nice work so far!

  8. Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

    although we are not testing this stats until tuesday, i would like to do a litle summary of what our gaming group and myself are thinking of the new units and changes.

    surprised that the teraton went up a point, nothing significative on paper though. Grogans not having support nor deliberate makes them really powerful, specially for the desolator wich becomes one of the few high ap mobile weapons, it is certainly quite better than the marauder missile launcher now. Our general impression is that they were fine with a litle reduction in points, we agree that big guys carrying big guns without effort is nice, just not sure if it fits in rebels way of play. desolator may need a litle reduction in range if it has no deliberate. zee and judwan seem fine, zee is just to avoid boobytraps that can really destroy rebels. tk weapon team on the other hand, we hope that shockwave and csw are really good abilities or else grogan will be a much better option due to not having deliberate. deliberate is right now a very big defect because if a unit with deliberate gets supressed it loses 2 turns of shooting… as i said, not being able to get mean! more than once per turn makes BA away this units too good

    we have a litle problem with enforcers playstyle, enforcers are suposed to be de elite shooty mobile faction… well… they are well equiped… and are shooty… is the mobile part wich worries us. enforcers have just now 6 units with deliberate out of 15…. too many if you want the force to be mobile… burst laser wich was one of the most interesting units in the army is just now not good enough compared with a regular enforcer, its not going to see much play… now the grogan seems far better thant this. I think the problem there was with this unit was more of a comparison with grogan and the fact that supressing units can make some units lose 2 turns. also surprised to see captain increase 1 point his cost, not a big thing, but we thought it was already overcosted. flamethrower seems fine, just we thought they could have better fuel tanks and not have the volatile ability. defender and medic seem interesting, we will see when their abilities are known. fusion gun and thermal rifle on the other hand are going to see very low play, so short range weapons with deliberate…. in our games we´ve found that in this game mobility is key to victory, to search for clear shots or cover, the other key being supressing the right units in the right moment (wich for now afects much more to units with deliberate) being deliberate and with such short range makes them really unatractive as they are rarely going to fire to anything interesting, also thermal rifle is extremely expensive points wise. im really looking forward to try the enforcer defender.

    very surprised that 2nd gen hasnt increased its point cost, still think 10 points for the best melee unit in the game is a bit cheap (and i myself am a plague player). bommer really needed that point increase. still dont see an utility fo hounds more than using those 3 spare points, maybe not even that as it will give Vps to my enemy. mortar seems like a super-boomer, will have to try it as 12 points for a so imprecise unit could be too much… on the other hand that massive frag can be quite devastating. plague teraton is a real massive plague tortoise! already a favourite for me!!! really resilient and interesting unit. plague swarm is seeing lot of discussion, its a very interesting unit without doubt, but… is it really better than a 2nd gen? faster (not once 2nd gen gets injuried) and with a better weapon but with a bit less resilience and far worse in combat.


    nothing new here, just what i already posted last time,

    • Quirkworthy says:

      Deliberate is a big issue, and it’s an important limitation to otherwise extremely dangerous weapons. If you take deliberate away from the heavier weapons then there is also much less difference between normal enforcers and the specialists, and I can see people simply ignoring the specialists for that reason. If deliberate earned a model an additional points reduction then that would make them even more comparable in costs to the normal troopers, which again would be bad.

      Enforcers are more mobile in a 3D battlefield because of their Jump Packs. It’s not a lot, but it’s a little something all the time. I don’t see the Enforcers as especially fast at nipping around the battlefield apart from that though. They’re already really costly, and making them even better is only going to make them even more pricey. Currently their expense is an issue. Incidentally, that’s why the Captain is so costly. He does everything very well. You can’t have that for free!

      Remember that you can always use a move card to position a model and then take the shot with their action. I know Enf don’t have many moves at present, but it makes them worth hanging onto for that reason.

      I don’t think that suppressed making more of a difference to slow-cycling deliberate weapons is a problem – it’s realistic (if I can use the term). Weapons that need to charge, take a while to lock-on or whatever are all going to be more badly affected by being pinned down.

      With ranges, the rule is that you can fire at up to twice the listed range, but lose a dice for tests beyond normal (combat) range. So, a range 3 weapon can fire 1-3 at normal dice, or 4-6 at -1. Limited range is an ability that means the weapon cannot fire beyond combat range. So thermal rifles, etc are not as short range as all that 😉

      Taking deliberate off the Grogans makes them very different and their mobility fits with the models, I think. It also gives the Rebs a bit of a (needed) boost, and something they can use against heavy armour. The models don’t look like they’re being slowed down any. It’s a tricky balance though.

      The thing that keeps the Stage 2 cheap is that it is only paying for fighting and survival. It’s got no command or shooting use at all. Really single minded models will always be cheaper than multi-function ones. Again, this is one reason why the E Cap is so costly. He does everything: best leader, almost best armour, pretty good shot with reasonable gun and can fight well. He’s just going to be expensive for all that.

      Anyway, some good points, as ever. Please do keep posting your comments.

      • Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

        i´ll do for sure!
        i´ve always thought that a good beta tester isnt the one that is always right but the one that forces the game designer to think 😛

        i see the point with the 2nd gen, but then, i dont underestand why plague swarm costs 13 points… it costs nearly as much as 3 mawbeasts….
        i also see the point with enforcer captain, but still think that for 30pt he is quite bad in combat…
        same with deliberate, i find right that those heavy weapons suffer more from supression… but still think that losing 2 turns is a bit too much. deliberate weapons lose the posibility of shooting when pined, regular weapons do not, thats already a difference.
        what i dont agree with is with the new weapons for enforcers, both the thermal rifle and the fusion gun are really bad units. fusion gun with limited range isnt going to be able to shoot (same with captains grenade launcher) and thermal rifle is too expensive, its going to shoot nearly always with only 2 dice… so it wont kill nearly anything… i rather use those 15 points in another sniper, rocket launcher or sergeant.
        also burst laser (wich was working awesome without deliberate) could have its range a bit improved so that enforcer players find a reason to use it, as regular enforcer does BA with only one less dice but can move to do it… (even then i think that regular enforcer would still be a litle better)
        enforcers may work as a “get to your marks, shoooooot” faction, i imagined them more like a mobile force, but that way seems also right.
        the grogans seem really apporpiate with the background to not have deliberate… just wanted to note that they become one of the best heavy weapons around and that their cost isnt too high for a unit that can move and fire like hell but also has good resilience (armor plus tough) and is as good as an enforcer captain in fights dur to not having support…. maybe i could use your own words about multi function models 😛 on the other hand i agree that rebels needed a boost against heavy armor and that grogan was the way to go… maybe just increase a point or so their cost…
        about the A-B-C mechanic… it may not work as limit for army creation… but i certainly liked the way it worked in missions… maybe you can still use it at some point.

        well, more onwednsday, after tuesday nights tests 🙂

        P.S.-> being a blood bowl player since the game exists i´ve been quite reticent to trying dreadball… but seeing the good work you are doing with deadzone i´ve finally convinced myself to give it a try… so this month i´ll be purchasing the basic game and the forgefather team (also will wait for the teraton and zee teams)

        • Peter B says:

          Agree with Jonatan – the Burst laser needs to lose deliberate and I’ve got a mechanical argument for why.

          An Enforcer with a Heavy Rifle can do the exact same thing as an Enforcer with a Burst Laser for less points and is more flexible. An “aimed” Blaze Away action with Weight of Fire rolls 5D which is the same as a Burst Laser and I get all the other benefits of having a shoot weapon. I think Support is enough of a drawback on the BL to compensate – no need for Deliberate.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          if it doesn’t have Deliberate then it can roll 6 dice at 4+, which I’m inclined to think is a bit much…

        • Quirkworthy says:

          @ Jonatan – regarding DreadBall and BB. There’s not reason why you can’t play both. They’re quite different games when you get them on the table.

          As for Swarms, a big part of their cost is Agile. You pay quite a bit for that. Acid Bite isn’t too shabby either 😉

        • Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

          6 dice BA is quire scary i admit that, but something should be done with this unit because right now its a useless unit, just worse and more expensive than regular enforcer

        • Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

          i´ve been thinking for a while in the problem with the burst laser enforcer, i always end thinking that it shouldnt have deliberate, but then having a 6 dice BA unit seems litle bit overpowered…. so, maybe we are looking at it from the wrong angle. grogan is a 6 dice BA unit that costs only 10 points!!! that seems overpowered also. maybe the problem is that aim shouldnt be used for BA…. realistically throwing a couple more bullets when you are allready being shot in auto-fire isnt much of a difference. if you want a +1 to BA you already have the cards, no need on aiming. Aim may work well with the shoot action just because there are other factors that count, mainly armor, but with BA, there is no factor that reduces its effects… so aim helps shooting, but becomes a bit too strong when blazing away

        • Quirkworthy says:

          Tweaked version posted as part of the new card deck.

    • D. Randolph says:

      I think a lot of your points about the severe drawback of deliberate would be mitigated by allowing Get Mean! twice in a turn (or as a long action).

      This would still make them lose an entire turn (in keeping with the “takes time to lock on” design concept), but wouldn’t be so severe as to make them lose two.

      • Quirkworthy says:

        I’ve added a new type of Battle Card which allows you to take a Get Mean action. As cards aren’t part of the one per turn limit (though cards have their own one per turn limit) that allows you to selectively help out deliberate model should you (a) have them and (b) decide that’s their best card.

  9. Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

    forgot to say that thermal rifle should not have its range increased, that weapon should encourage the player to move forward to find good shoots… im more inclined in it not having deliberate

  10. Mike Kirkham-Ingram says:

    Is it right that the Enforcer Captain doesn’t have a jump pack?

  11. Hendybadger says:

    Where do we find the rules for Crew Served Weapon?
    Think I may have missed them.

    What does a Defender Shield do?

  12. Mike says:

    Maybe its just because its first thing Monday morning but I can’t find the latest Beta rules anywhere. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I have a 5 hour journey to Wales this afternoon, finally I can sit down and read in peace but typically I can’t find the rules!!!

  13. Chris Pearse says:

    I can’t find the “Weight of fire ” ability anywhere. Can anyone explain it please?

  14. Mike Kirkham-Ingram says:

    I see what the idea behind deliberate is, that you want large or complex weapons to have time taken to set up etc. instead of shoot becoming a long action, keep it as a short but have a new action ‘Ready’ which is also a short action. You have to make the weapon system ‘ready’ before using a ‘shoot’ but you could use move or aim or get mean in between or split it over 2 turns.
    For example I have my snipers turn . I move to behind some cover as my first short, then I use ready as my second action. On my next turn I could use aim or move or if need to get mean or I could just shoot as my first then I could move again as my second. This way I could shoot and scoot but I’m still using 2 short actions to shoot. It gives a bit more flexibility .

    • Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

      i dont think that would work, with your mechanic a sniper could move before shooting, searching for easier clear shots and that could be very unbalancing

    • Rhift says:

      Another solution would be to change ‘deliberate’ so that a shoot action is not a long action but rather the unit cannot perform a movement action and a shoot action. The unit can still perform a ‘get mean’ action and a ‘shoot’ action or an ‘aim’ action and a ‘shoot’ action. This keeps the limitations on deliberate, but does not render the unit useless after being pinned.
      I think this is also inline with the intention of deliberate. A unit will move into position and setup their weapons (e.g., sniper, heavy weapon, etc.). Even if the unit is under fire (pinned), the unit/weapon would still be setup and able to return fire (get mean + shoot). When not under fire the unit could setup their shot (aim +shoot). The only time they would not be able to return fire is when they would be suppressed.

    • Quirkworthy says:

      I think deliberate is fine as it is. What is important is that it offers an alternative, not that it is the same as everything else. It’s finding a balance between the usefulness of one and the other. Each troop type should have circumstances in which it is better than the alternatives, and then it becomes a choice.

      For me the issue is not whether deliberate is too harsh, but whether, when you consider its limitations, the other good things about the model still give you a balance to consider. I don’t think that early versions of everything had this balance, but I do think that they’re much better now. Certainly, all the ones that have been raised have been looked at again and I believe they have been tweaked to ensure a valid reason for picking each one. YMMV, of course, as play styles vary, but at least it’s a discussion, which is all it has to be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s