Just wanted to say that I have played a few games with the new Indirect rules. All seems pretty balanced for single mat games; nice one! However, when a multi mat game was played, it is a different story.
We use around 100 points playing on multi mat games (4’x4′). 3 Mortars were used. Maybe it was to do with the amount of scenery we used (8 battlezone), but it just seemed to be no matter how good my dice were, or the tactics I used, I had no chance against my opponents “I’ll shot there” – “6 Dice” – “Boom” – “Auto Kill” – “Have a nice taxy home”.
My Question is, “do you foresee that some of the rules for the miniatures, or their points cost, might change when you bring out multi-mat games?
Damn I was too quick! Now I have read the whole book cover to cover I will say that it was very well set out and organised, I am somewhat frustrated by the very secretive nature of the fluff material as I only gleaned some minor new areas of information. The only part I was disappointed by though was the Marauder background which was a literal rehash from Warpath. So we learn no more about there physiology, military structure or the sub species (though the Hobgoblin information was nice :D)
So the twilight Huntress is neither Asterian or Human, and as no soul was rather disappointing, but I was surprised by Hellfather. Otherwise my previous post is still relevant and in terms of the campaign I feel its very simple but very nice and easy to build upon.
One critic, someone should tell who ever laid out the deployment zones that he can use a 3rd colour, as the Ambush Scenario looks like the ambushed side can deploy both in the centre and around the edge. There is no text to contradict this either but would make for one quick game!!
Thanks Crimson. I can’t take all the credit as I’m sure some of the background that is in there was written by other people. I haven’t actually seen a laid out version of NP myself yet. Been busy with MA all day 🙂
After a quick read through I think Nexus Psi looks great.
Rule additions are nice and clear, I’m glad to see that the vehicle damage chart is gone, this will definitely make using them more straightforward.
I really like the campaign rules! The variation in setup is really fun and I’m glad to see their isn’t a lot of very specific building requirements. I do think the victory conditions will make the campaigns take a large number of games to complete, but I may be proven wrong in practice. Either way I think removing 1 or 2 strategic assets is a pretty nice solution!
I understand that thematically it is important for one player to use the plague, but is it balanced mechanically that way as well? That is would it break the campaign if we used rebs vs marauders?
was very entertaining,I would of liked some merc or faction specific missions like survivor trying to synthesise a cure and others buying him time, a group on the run escorting a target nastanza was after. Faction missions could included Enforcers fighting a massive stage one or destroying the artefact.
But regardless was very enjoyable, apart from above criticisms the only other one I had was the few typos here and there but good job
Faction specific missions usually want both sides to be specified (to make them really closely balanced), and when you do that you ensure that far fewer people play them. It’s the same amount of work for less utility.
The campaign looks great are the going to be future scenarios (possibly compatible) when multi-mat, multiplayer, zombie and AI rules arrive? Or just vs. game modes? Something like the ‘alien terror’ missions in x-com?
Quick question: the various Strategic Locations are stated to grant certain advantages to the faction that controls it (bonus points to use in other combats, rapid deployment, etc.). As the Plague start the campaign controlling all of these locations, do they start with all of these advantages as well, or are they only gained once a location has been contested once?
Thought that it would make a great disadvantage for the invading player. But then noticed that most missions have 70-50p ratio between Attacker and Defender.
Thanks for the answer!
My only concern is the first engagement on Scenario A (i.e. first battle of the campaign). This will be a 50pt attacking force vs a 75pt Plague force, leading to a likely Plague victory. This is compounded by the fact that a Plague victory in the first engagement isn’t actually very interesting, as the Plague player can only choose Scenario A again (they control all S locations so cannot engage on them), and that if they won Scenario A before they almost certainly will again as they will know the enemy force disposition in advance as well. The non-Plague player will pretty much always have to use Scenario Y as their second engagement, and even that will be a bit iffy with a 100/95 point split (although the Plague deployment zone is so small that a few well thrown grenades or similar AOE weapons will have them locked down very quickly)
Not necessarily as 1/2 the plague options can’t carry items, which is the primary mission objective. A canny player could run out and get the Intel and make a bee-line back before the extra plague beasties can get the drop on them. Rebs might actually have an advantage on this one…
I agree, played that scenario yesterday with 4 Enforcers vs about 10 (or so) Plague, with one stage 2 scouting as well (another bonus from a stretegic location). Thanks to some good shooting I managed to inflict a good amount of damage in the first rounds, but in the end I was overwhelmed as there was simply not enough firepower to deal with these masses of Plague (also my opponent made clever use of cards, blaze away abd command actions).
The way I see it with 50 to 75 points the attacker can only win this scenario with a big amount of luck or bad playing by the Plague. It would be nice to know if this is intentional.
Another problem is, that with such easy plague victories the losing player has to repeat Intelligence Run over and over (Plague can not shose scenario 1-5 as long as they control the locations) unless he choses to spend his single use of the “Ambush” scenario.
Always playing intelligence run with 50 points per side would be better I guess…
Mr Pyro as the 50pt force takes up less of the 140pt Strike team the force might not quite be the same the next game. Also having a larger force might have a larger impact from losses received. Note the free raw recruits are for when you do not have enough to field a 70pt strike team so could win a game but not earn enough reputation to replace enough troops to use there option of fielding higher points if the defender loses causing heavy loses on opposing side over multiple games. Not played yet but that was something that occurred to me after reading your post.
The 50pt force well may be different, but the Plague will still know the force composition because that is the bonus from winning scenario A; the opposing force must reveal their force composition to you before you have chosen your own force, allowing you to tailor your own force against them.
My point is that if the Plague win the first play of scenario A, they will almost certainly win the second as well, as they have even more advantages in the second play:
1) They have the enemy force composition in advance
2) They are now the attacker, meaning that the non-Plague force must deploy first and loses initiative in turn 1.
Additionally, the actual main mission objective for scenario A is quite favourable to the Plague; flood the board with Fast 3As and have them track down every item as fast as they can. Rebs will have a strong chance to beat them at that play by fielding Y’ndij, but I don’t think any other faction has a Trooper pick with Fast or Agile.
I really do not understand the second half of the Intel missions aftermath rules section… Starting from “But the winner (usually) gets to choose this” but no explanation what “this” is, or the aforementioned combination.
Quirkworthy 
Nice changes to the Indirect rule. I think this will stop the mortar issues.
That was the plan 🙂
Hi Jake,
Just wanted to say that I have played a few games with the new Indirect rules. All seems pretty balanced for single mat games; nice one! However, when a multi mat game was played, it is a different story.
We use around 100 points playing on multi mat games (4’x4′). 3 Mortars were used. Maybe it was to do with the amount of scenery we used (8 battlezone), but it just seemed to be no matter how good my dice were, or the tactics I used, I had no chance against my opponents “I’ll shot there” – “6 Dice” – “Boom” – “Auto Kill” – “Have a nice taxy home”.
My Question is, “do you foresee that some of the rules for the miniatures, or their points cost, might change when you bring out multi-mat games?
Damn I was too quick! Now I have read the whole book cover to cover I will say that it was very well set out and organised, I am somewhat frustrated by the very secretive nature of the fluff material as I only gleaned some minor new areas of information. The only part I was disappointed by though was the Marauder background which was a literal rehash from Warpath. So we learn no more about there physiology, military structure or the sub species (though the Hobgoblin information was nice :D)
So the twilight Huntress is neither Asterian or Human, and as no soul was rather disappointing, but I was surprised by Hellfather. Otherwise my previous post is still relevant and in terms of the campaign I feel its very simple but very nice and easy to build upon.
Good Work 😀 crimsonsun
One critic, someone should tell who ever laid out the deployment zones that he can use a 3rd colour, as the Ambush Scenario looks like the ambushed side can deploy both in the centre and around the edge. There is no text to contradict this either but would make for one quick game!!
Thanks Crimson. I can’t take all the credit as I’m sure some of the background that is in there was written by other people. I haven’t actually seen a laid out version of NP myself yet. Been busy with MA all day 🙂
After a quick read through I think Nexus Psi looks great.
Rule additions are nice and clear, I’m glad to see that the vehicle damage chart is gone, this will definitely make using them more straightforward.
I really like the campaign rules! The variation in setup is really fun and I’m glad to see their isn’t a lot of very specific building requirements. I do think the victory conditions will make the campaigns take a large number of games to complete, but I may be proven wrong in practice. Either way I think removing 1 or 2 strategic assets is a pretty nice solution!
I understand that thematically it is important for one player to use the plague, but is it balanced mechanically that way as well? That is would it break the campaign if we used rebs vs marauders?
Seems like a great book, so thanks again!
Changing the factions in play shouldn’t break anything.
It looks like the rules for Defender Shields are missing. Where they supposed to be printed here, or are they being saved for the Compendium?
I was expecting to see them in here. However, I haven’t had that conversation with Mantic so they ay be saving them as you suggest.
was very entertaining,I would of liked some merc or faction specific missions like survivor trying to synthesise a cure and others buying him time, a group on the run escorting a target nastanza was after. Faction missions could included Enforcers fighting a massive stage one or destroying the artefact.
But regardless was very enjoyable, apart from above criticisms the only other one I had was the few typos here and there but good job
Faction specific missions usually want both sides to be specified (to make them really closely balanced), and when you do that you ensure that far fewer people play them. It’s the same amount of work for less utility.
thanks makes sense
The campaign looks great are the going to be future scenarios (possibly compatible) when multi-mat, multiplayer, zombie and AI rules arrive? Or just vs. game modes? Something like the ‘alien terror’ missions in x-com?
The zombie rules include the ability to add them to any game. That would include these scenarios 🙂
Quick question: the various Strategic Locations are stated to grant certain advantages to the faction that controls it (bonus points to use in other combats, rapid deployment, etc.). As the Plague start the campaign controlling all of these locations, do they start with all of these advantages as well, or are they only gained once a location has been contested once?
I’m interested in getting an answer to this too.
The Plague start with them.
Thought that it would make a great disadvantage for the invading player. But then noticed that most missions have 70-50p ratio between Attacker and Defender.
Thanks for the answer!
My only concern is the first engagement on Scenario A (i.e. first battle of the campaign). This will be a 50pt attacking force vs a 75pt Plague force, leading to a likely Plague victory. This is compounded by the fact that a Plague victory in the first engagement isn’t actually very interesting, as the Plague player can only choose Scenario A again (they control all S locations so cannot engage on them), and that if they won Scenario A before they almost certainly will again as they will know the enemy force disposition in advance as well. The non-Plague player will pretty much always have to use Scenario Y as their second engagement, and even that will be a bit iffy with a 100/95 point split (although the Plague deployment zone is so small that a few well thrown grenades or similar AOE weapons will have them locked down very quickly)
Not necessarily as 1/2 the plague options can’t carry items, which is the primary mission objective. A canny player could run out and get the Intel and make a bee-line back before the extra plague beasties can get the drop on them. Rebs might actually have an advantage on this one…
Jake, is this also true for scenario A ? That would be really tough to win against the Plague strait from the beginning….
I agree, played that scenario yesterday with 4 Enforcers vs about 10 (or so) Plague, with one stage 2 scouting as well (another bonus from a stretegic location). Thanks to some good shooting I managed to inflict a good amount of damage in the first rounds, but in the end I was overwhelmed as there was simply not enough firepower to deal with these masses of Plague (also my opponent made clever use of cards, blaze away abd command actions).
The way I see it with 50 to 75 points the attacker can only win this scenario with a big amount of luck or bad playing by the Plague. It would be nice to know if this is intentional.
Another problem is, that with such easy plague victories the losing player has to repeat Intelligence Run over and over (Plague can not shose scenario 1-5 as long as they control the locations) unless he choses to spend his single use of the “Ambush” scenario.
Always playing intelligence run with 50 points per side would be better I guess…
I hope Jake will give us some answer about this, this really prevents me from playing this campaign, first scenario is too deadly…
Mr Pyro as the 50pt force takes up less of the 140pt Strike team the force might not quite be the same the next game. Also having a larger force might have a larger impact from losses received. Note the free raw recruits are for when you do not have enough to field a 70pt strike team so could win a game but not earn enough reputation to replace enough troops to use there option of fielding higher points if the defender loses causing heavy loses on opposing side over multiple games. Not played yet but that was something that occurred to me after reading your post.
The 50pt force well may be different, but the Plague will still know the force composition because that is the bonus from winning scenario A; the opposing force must reveal their force composition to you before you have chosen your own force, allowing you to tailor your own force against them.
My point is that if the Plague win the first play of scenario A, they will almost certainly win the second as well, as they have even more advantages in the second play:
1) They have the enemy force composition in advance
2) They are now the attacker, meaning that the non-Plague force must deploy first and loses initiative in turn 1.
Additionally, the actual main mission objective for scenario A is quite favourable to the Plague; flood the board with Fast 3As and have them track down every item as fast as they can. Rebs will have a strong chance to beat them at that play by fielding Y’ndij, but I don’t think any other faction has a Trooper pick with Fast or Agile.
I really do not understand the second half of the Intel missions aftermath rules section… Starting from “But the winner (usually) gets to choose this” but no explanation what “this” is, or the aforementioned combination.
Anyone able to rephrase it for me?