Deadzone Faction Deck: Enforcers

I’m going to post these as separate files so the comments don’t get so mixed up.

This is the full faction deck with missions, stat cards and battle deck.

Enforcer Faction deck v5

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Deadzone. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Deadzone Faction Deck: Enforcers

  1. Alex Cooper says:

    Looking good Jake! Dominate mission sounds really hard to win! Just how I like it. Challenge accepted.

  2. Jack Trowell says:

    Are objectives still supposed to be secret ?

    The “survive” condition looks like you would have to reveal your objective as soon as the first turn in order to prove that you have earned the points, unless each player trace the survice objective each game in case it comes up. Did I miss something ?

    • Quirkworthy says:

      You keep count of how many Rounds you survive, just like you keep track of how many enemies you kill. Only when your total is enough to claim a win do you need to reveal your mission.

  3. Jack Trowell says:

    Looking at some objectives like “assassinate” or “hold”, why are there different entries for killing models of different cost if they all give only 1 point ?
    I might understand separating in other objectives “kill specialist for 1 point” and “kill leader for 1 point”, especially if it means that a specialist used as your leader might be worth one point for each, but shouldn’t “kill 7-10 pt for 1 point” and “kill 11+ point for 2 points” be merged into “kill 7+ for one point” ?

    • Quirkworthy says:

      The reason is simply so that the goals can be defined as fixed things. The VPs you get for them varies, and sometimes as you say they are the same for several related goals. However, for clarity I wanted to keep the ranges the same all the time (and the same for both Kill and Infiltrate) so that people will learn them. If they changed between missions then it would be more difficult to memorise, though individual cards might be more succinct.

  4. Jack Trowell says:

    Assassinate has an entry for “kill leader” and another for “kill commander” ?

    I suppose that it is linked to the new letters that each model get ?

    From what I can see :
    L = Leader
    T = Troop
    S = Specialist
    R = ? (for the engineer)

    Still i don’t see any unit classified as Commander for the enforcer currently, but the list seems incomplete, as we go from the enforcer sergeant directly to the enforcer in peacekeeper armor, so I suppose that it’s just that the units are not all finalized yet ?

    • Evan Champie says:

      I’m pretty sure the commander is just the highest command value at the start of the game

      • Jack Trowell says:

        Ohh, didn’t think about that, it could indeed be a new take on the previous “leader” status.

        And the assassinate objective would get 5 points for killing a leader that is also the commander, like in the previous version, looks good.

      • Quirkworthy says:

        Evan is right.

        The Commander is the one in charge of the force. he will probably be a Leader, but doesn’t have to be. Similarly, you can have more than one Leader, so you could kill a Leader that wasn’t the Commander. Hence both entries.

        In jumping from the Sergeant to the peacekeeper Captain I’m simply following the planned range of miniatures. I’m sure there will be more in due course, including something to fill in this gap 🙂

  5. Hendybadger says:

    What does the Defender Shield do?
    Also, the Sentry Turret seems to be missing.

    • Quirkworthy says:

      I’ll get to the shield in a bit. The sentry gun has been removed because it is more properly an item rather than a warrior. Giving it its own stat card was more confusing than helpful. At least to me 😉

      • Hendybadger says:

        That makes a lot of sense.
        I did think it was a little odd having its own Stat card.

        Maybe stats on the Engineers card?

        • Quirkworthy says:

          He doesn’t have to carry one, and other people could carry them too. It’s simpler just to list the rules for it with the other items like Jump Packs.

  6. jonatan reino (asdepicas) says:

    Wow! Really loving what i see, a couple of hours ago i was speaking about some problems they were finding when playing with enforcers, i was about to write about it but you have already solved all of them!!!
    Happy to see less deliberate weapons, especially for captain, bust cannon and thermal rifle costing less may make them more playable, giving assault enforcer brawler and increasing his cost is awesome as now enforcers have a solution to fighting problems when advancing.
    Its also genius adding those courages to the deck because enforcers were being beaten by armies with high numbers of troopers due to being constantly blazed away with spotters giving the extra dice needed. Im really really happy with this last iteration of enforcer cards

    Really impressed with your work!! Everything seems going in the right direction!! Go on!!

    What are those numbers in blue before the units name?

    • jonatan reino (asdepicas) says:

      Also noted the decrease in range of heavy rifle and the increase in range of the burst laser, wich is perfect as its logical that a less mobile weapon has more range

    • D. Randolph says:

      Pretty sure the blue numbers are the number of spaces they take up in a cube.

      • Quirkworthy says:

        That’s right. The blue numbers are the model’s “size”. All vehicles are 4 by default.

        Note that Boomer (merc) is also 4. That’s not a mistake. He’s a scrawny little runt, but he smells so bad that nobody wants to stand anywhere near him.

  7. I like a lot of what Jake is posting, the only thing I do not like is the decrease in range for the Heavy Rifle/Rifle, for me this should be at a base range of 8 so one game mat. This is one of the things I orginally liked about the concept then all other ranges work from that base. To my mind this is not devastating as with all the terrain in play then it will not dominate the game.

    • Quirkworthy says:

      Range 6 is plenty for dominating things. If you are standing on the mat and so is your target then 6 covers almost the whole mat. if you aren’t on your back line then it does cover the whole mat.

      The main reason for the change was to make more of a difference between the normal Enforcers and the burst laser chap.

      • Lee says:

        Speaking of the burst laser chap, have you decided if tripling a BA will give the opportunity to actually deal damage? Just seems a little strange to get real excited about dropping your big gun dude on some one in the open and “only” being able to suppress. Not complaining about suppression, just hope that the big guns can potentially do damage to someone foolish enough to face it in the open.

  8. Chris Pearse says:

    Have the rules for “Strategist,” “Tactition,” or “Medi pack” been shown anywhere yet?

  9. Philip D'Hollander says:

    The Peace Keeper commander seems to be missing a jump pack? Is that because he has a special (forge father) orbital drop armor or something? If so, shouldn’t it get a mention?

    • Henry says:

      Its been mentioned multiple times in the comments…

    • Quirkworthy says:

      I am triple checking that Peacekeeper armour doesn’t have one (which is what I’ve been told so far). It’s a completely different design of suit.

      • Quirkworthy says:

        Right.

        The metal one in the Warpath range and the (very nice) DZ one you’ve seen in the pictures don’t have jump packs. For some reason the hard plastic ones will have them…

        Must be a later model.

        • Philip D'Hollander says:

          Reading update 92, it says: “When a deal can be done the council purchase Peacekeeper armour. These suits are based on the Forge Father Orbital Drop Armour and have full-life support systems – capable of maintaining life for several days in even the most hostile environments – and they are armed with ordnance most armies can only dream of…”
          –> Combine that with the Orbital Drop Armour blurb in update 87:
          “A secondary function of the Hammerfist design is to protect the wearer from indigenous life forms whilst performing his prospecting duties in the field. The inbuilt mining laser doubles as both a robust core-sampling tool and accurate ranged weapon with both burst and duration selectors as standard. Easily controlled manoeuvring engines allow the wearer to navigate in zero gravity or planetside with equal ease, with a duration in standard use of up to 4 days (depending on onboard supplies).”
          –> the Peacekeeper armor should then have thrusters onboard for both zero G and planetside for four days!!!

          It’s what made me wild about Bjarg Starnafall and the Peacekeepers in the first place, their ability to (literally) “drop in” uninvited in my custom scenarios as a wild card:-)

        • Quirkworthy says:

          Damn! Someone actually read that stuff!

          Well, note the cunningly placed get-out phrase “based on” 😉

          Clearly the early versions of the suits had been partly deactivated and this is what the Captain is wearing. I suspect there was considerable haggling at the negotiating table when that was noticed. You can imagine the beardy old Forge Father merchants (gun runners) rumbling “You didn’t specifically mention that you needed the manoeuvring jets, now did you? Not a standard fit at all. At least not for the junior races, like humans. Well, I suppose the next shipment could be changed. For a small consideration, naturally.”

          Naturally.

  10. Chris Pearse says:

    With the new expanded card decks, do you choose any 12 cards for each battle?
    Energy Shield says each success stops one attack; should that be one damage?

    • Quirkworthy says:

      Shuffle the deck, deal 10 at random. Then choose a number from the remainder of the deck equal to the first number of your Commander’s Command stat (which will be 1-3). Add these to the random 10 and shuffle together to form your draw deck for this battle.

      Start the game by dealing yourself 4 at random.

      Where are you reading the energy shield comment?

      • Chris Pearse says:

        In your post of 9th august, titled “some abilities might help”. Any idea when you will post v2 of the Beta Rules? I’m getting a bit confused with all the various updates as to what some of the rules currently are. Incidentally, i had another game yesterday and all went well. My friend’s first go,and he loved it. Keep up the great work and thanks for sharing all this with the community.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          OK. Replace “attacks” with “potential damage” and you’re there.

          I’d love to post a coherent version of the rules, but I haven’t got a single tidy file ATM. Just been a bit sidetracked by an invasion from the Red Planet. I’m afraid you’ll have to muddle by a little longer. Basically, just use the latest version of whatever’s been posted.

          Glad to hear your games are going well.

  11. Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

    enforcer feedback:

    enforcers are working really well now that they have those courage cards. having so many capture missions has made players look out for mobile units, even captain not having deliberate is seeing some play now. assault enforcer is also finally seeing some play as some melee support is quite handy when you need to advance to capture objectives, so the habitual 3 regular enforcers every army was packing is now a 2-1 between regular and assault enforcer
    flamethrower without volatile! yay! i knew enforcers where better equiped than marauders!!! awesome flufffy change
    thermal rifle is now also being played, I like to see enforcer players thinking if their strategy is better supported by this one or missile launcher, they seem 50%-50% right now wich is just awesome. even though enforcers try to be mobile, sniper still sees lots of play.
    fusion gun saw not much play, its range 4 deliberate weapon being the reason why players do not like it much… that said, with a ridiculous cost of 10 points for a well armored grenade launcher i think players wil be using it sooner or later.
    engineer seems to be the less used unit in the enforcer list, probably still need some good rules for sentry drones. the other less used unit was burst laser… even with the increase of its range seems to not fit well with their mission objectives and players tend to use regular enforcers in his role due to being able to advance and shoot

  12. Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

    after a couple more games just wanted to note a little tip, agile models and probably enforcers with jetpack should be allowed to go up a level when sprinting, just using a bit of logic here

    also im trying to compile all the rules up to date in a single zip, hope its ready in an hour or two, i´ll be posting it in the facebook group, just feel free to do with it whatever you want, or link it here so people can access the full beta… i´ll try to update it as soon as you post new goodies

  13. Craig says:

    Okay – just reread the enforcer stat cards – long side the abilities – andit seems the burst laser is actually incapable of causing damage, as Rapid Fire prevents the weapon from using the Shoot action – meaning it can only Blaze Away. Have I missed something, or is this a little lame for a heavy weapon dishing out firepower?

    • Craig says:

      Actually – looking through – it seems quite a lot of weapons actually cannot hurt people – the rotary cannon, burst laser, wrist blaster, blaster, onslaught cannon – all of which should surely tear people to pieces. I think I need some clarification regarding the Rapid Fire rule as I read it!

      • Jack Trowell says:

        In a previous discussion thread, there was a suggestion of allowing models with rapid fire weapon to do a shot action with a malus instead of not having any access at all, and Jake answered saying that he was thinking of *maybe* using a solution giving a blaze away a chance to wound in some rare situations (maybe with triple successes or the like).
        But I’m quoting from memory and I’m not sure if there was any follow-up on this idea, so we will need Jake to confirm if there was anything changed for rapid fire/blaze away.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          I experimented with a variety of approaches and none of them worked very well. They also tended to introduce serious balance issues.

          I do have a solution, but it’s going to have to wait till we do a new run of additional cards.

    • Quirkworthy says:

      That’s right. Some weapons can’t kill people in DZ. This is a parallel of some models not being able to score in DreadBall. Deadzone is a game about how the strike team works as a whole and how each model supports and interlocks with the others tactically to create a winning strategy. I’m less concerned with the rules modelling every single physical possibility than I am creating a game that pushes players towards using their pieces in a combined and coordinated plan.

      The use of these weapons is to pin the enemy rather than kill them. That’s what it is now and what I’ve taken it to be in DZ. Whilst you can damage people with them in reality, that’s not what they are mainly tasked with. Hollywood ain’t real.

      • Jack Trowell says:

        Thank you for your answers.

        I suppose that a new card allowing a rapid fire model to do a shot action or something like that might indeed be a viable solution if nothing else works.

        Still, there will be meanwhile the problem of some units having a harder time gaining XP in the campgain rules if kills are their main source.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          True, but the same also holds true for medics, engineers, etc. I don’t think that it’s a terrible thing that some types of troops advance quicker then others. Again, this is in part a reflection of their doctrine and function. Plus, a reflection of my wanting to simplify something that could get enormously complex. My experience suggests that more complex campaign systems read well and play poorly.

        • Jack Trowell says:

          True, there is indeed the problem for all support models.

          Hum, what if instead of giving XP for kills plus one for just surviving, you gave XP for the objectives :

          – kills would be worth 1 XP only for those that are worth VP under the current objective
          – under a “survive” objective, all surviving models could get an XP (in addition to the standard 1 XP for participing to the mission)
          – for holding/capturing an objective, the bonus XP could be given at the end of the game for the models near or at the objective
          etc …

      • Craig says:

        Thanks – I wasn’t reading it wrong then! Maybe a heavier bonus for the heavy weapons when balzing away might help, or a penalty or no bonuses allowed for shoot actions. At least the heavy weapons could be more useful when the target is running across open ground and you spray the area with lead . . . I’ll wait to see what goodies you have in the next batch! 🙂

      • Lee says:

        Hey Jake! A little surprised at the decision to not have BA have any potential to damage. I appreciate where your coming from on it, but so feel having NO chance to injure takes away from the “psychological suppression” those pieces could have on a game. I am not talking about them dealing mass damage, but perhaps on a triple effect it could deal one (and only one) potential damage. After all, Shoot actions generate a suppression effect on a doubled success…. Just a thought.

      • crimsonsun says:

        I see this as a prime example of showing elements where Deadzone is a Board game which will be why I find it bothersome. From what I have seen with the rules so far, and from the few games I have been able to play thus far this game has some really Fresh ideas that I love and others I feel the opposite about. Its still way too early for me too have an informed opinion as to if I feel this board/skirmish mix is going to work for me which is of course subjective anyhow and even if it turns out its not going to work for me, that is not too say the game is not fun/enjoyable because I have enjoyed my games so far.

      • Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

        In my playing group I have also heard many complaints about heavy machine guns not being able to injury anyone… I can see the point of the BA rule wich forces the player to use it in “a correct way” supresing enemies…. I underestand thar hollywood ain´t real…. but would like to note 2 things; 1- this is a scifi game, it ain´t real either. 2- in real warfare this kind of weapons do kill many enemies, they throw so many bullets in their attempt to supress their enemies that they usually end hitting someone. maybe they could be allowed to shoot but doubling cover bonuses

        • Jonatan Reino (asdepicas) says:

          thus they will be blazing away targets in cover but still would be able to tear apart those fool enough to go into the open infront of a machine gun

  14. Is it just me or does the peacekeeper armor seem some what “pants”? Looking at the stats the only plus is the increase in survive stat no +1 armor over other enforcers???

    • Have you worked out what that means as a percentage increase in survivability though? 😉

      • Chris Bburn says:

        Before you jump all over me with stats. Tge increase in survive stat is fine but just look at the thing its clearly got more armor than your average trooper. He has tough which ignores one extra point of damage. Surely it should just have 3 points of armor and you can then get tough+really tough. It just seems that during the course of a campaign the enforce captains will be no better than your regular enforcer.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s