Since the DB3 rules have come out on pdf there has been discussion over whether there is a mistake in the Threatening rules on page 31. I’ve spent some time trying to get to the bottom of this and here’s the answer:
Yes, page 31 is in error. It should read “or -2 with Gotcha!“, not -3.
Apologies for this mistake. It seems to have snuck in during proofreading. Someone asked the question whether the -2 in my original text was right or whether it should be -3. Unfortunately this was read as a change to make rather than something to check, so it was altered.
We’ll obviously be looking at how we can avoid this sort of thing happening again.
Quirkworthy 
Thank you for the quick response Jake. I am sure that it was a Zee plot as i hear that they are about to hire the Nameless Thing.
Most things are Zee plots.
And the things that aren’t are Asterian plots.
Thanks for clearing that up Jake! That there are layers of proofing is normally a very good thing; that you’ll clear things up makes it quite easy to live with a typo or two which slips through. it’s also nice that I now believe that it’s a solid rule that makes good sense.
-Zorblag R`Lyeh
Thanks for the update.
On page 31 it says you cannot commit a Sucker Punch against a player with the teleport ability but it seems like it should say you can’t do it against a 360 Vision player.
Especially since it is mentioned in the tactics section that sucker punching a terraton is a sure way of making him move.
My understanding the that because a Teraton teleports away no slam occurs and therefore it doesn’t count as a sucker punch.
The tactics section for the Teratons is somewhat confusing in my opinion. Not only does it have that bit about Sucker Punch which contradicts the teleport rule, but it has a bit where it’s talks about using an action to teleport before a slam which makes it sound like it will always have to be a separate action (which isn’t the case for guards.)
-Zorblag R`Lyeh
At the time of writing the tactics you were able to slam or sucker punch the teratons in the read, they just teleported before any dice are rolled and your action ended. This was how it was played at the play testing day and was even commented on by Jake as a valid tactic at the time.
As for the wording about teleporting behind and then slamming, I worded it in such a way that should indicate to people familiar with the rule that they could teleport behind as part of a slam action or teleport behind and then slam for a second action which could be the case as your target could be out of the teleport range.
Hi there Rob,
First off, thanks for the time you put in with the play testing and the tactics for the new teams! I do like hearing from the beta testers what they got out of their play and it is a good place for new player to start thinking about teams they’re seeing for the first time.
The teleportation away from attacks to the rear is still a good tactic and as far as I can tell entirely valid. Including it was great (and in fact it’s even better now that there’s no danger of being sent off for having committed a foul!) If the rule that the foul could be called was changed since you played then the onus was probably on editors to catch the rule change and make sure the document was consistent, certainly not on you to write it before you knew the change should be made.
Thanks for explaining what you were saying in the bit about teleporting in for the slams. It wasn’t what I got when I read the section, but that could just be me. I saw it saying that you would have used the action before the slam to teleport and didn’t particularly notice any qualifiers.
In any case, thanks again for the work!
-Zorblag R`Lyeh
Also: Forgot “Slide” for Z’zor Jacks on p.65? (Summary tables).
Hello,
In the summary tables, there seems to be some more errors. Zees are listed as having 1 Initial Coaching Dice, and Teratons as having 1 Initial Card, when in the respective extended entries of the teams (pgs. 39 and 40) Teratons have no Cards and Zees have that rule which prevents them from obtaining normal Coaching Dice.
Cheers.
other probable error in summary:
Anne marie Helder is signed as guard/keeper and not guard/striker.
cheers…
Can someone explain why companies go to press with books without taking advantage of the communities willing to proof for free? Is it the mad cash they expect to make off selling the PDF version that keeps this from happening? I get the impression it all becomes hush-hush before going to print when it seems like the opposite policy would net the better result. Thoughts?
Oddly (as this is a post on a Mantic product) I don’t recall actually discussing this with them. However, there are common threads in other discussions I’ve had over recent years. They summary of concerns is:
1) Delay plus large amount of additional time to manage. Both = more cost.
2) Reducing sales by giving away a finished product.
So, you up your expenses and reduce your profits. Not a good combo.
As far as I am aware you cannont buy a pdf copy of the rules, if you can I would like to know where.
@Rob The Dreadball PDF can be purchased here: http://www.wargamevault.com/product/107707/DreadBall—The-Futuristic-Sports-Game?term=dreadba
@Quirkworthy Thanks for taking the time to give an honest answer Jake. It’s not one I like, but I really appreciate you tackling it head on.
I’m pretty new to this miniatures hobby. I don’t have much skill with assembly and no talent with paint. I got sucked into Sedition Wars by the videos that promised a simple single dice roll resolution system and grid based movement. What the videos didn’t go into were the terrible line of site rules and hard to read map board coupled with contradictions in the rule book that turned the whole affair into a brain-buster for me.
From the start, I’ve asserted Deadzone seems to be the system I hoped SW would be. I played a game of the beta rules with my group and we all dug it. I was hoping a final post of the rules would bring it all together so we could try all the new toys knowing your final intent. I know some fans have attempted this in one of the facebook groups, but it’s not organized with learning the rules in mind.
I will shut up about it and hope for the best with Deadzone.
Organising rulebooks is always a challenge. The demands of each reader are different, and even if you lump people together into novice, veteran gamer and so on it’s still not much help. The best sequence for learning just isn’t the same as the best sequence for ease of reference during play. Consequently, every rulebook is a compromise.
Skill with assembly and talent with paint are just a matter of practice and perseverance. These days there are loads of helpful videos on youtube that offer hints and tips for both. If I ever find some spare cash to buy a video camera then I’ll add some gameplay vids of my own to the mix. If I ever find the spare cash.
It’s really terrible when you post about proof-reading and include mistakes like “site” for “sight”. I never said I was the guy to do it! ;-P
Did you see my new game “Mrs Attacks”?
🙂
Did not think that was a mistake – I get that every day at home. 😉