Martians In Deadzone – Rules

Back from the meeting, and things are pretty much as I suggested earlier. I’m not sure when the printed rules will arrive, so in the meantime here are my original docs for the rules that are needed to go with the Martian and Human DZ cards.

Rules text DZ Martians v01

Rules text DZ MA Humans v02

You will still need the card deck to play with them. Most people won’t have these yet as they’re waiting for the printed versions of the rules to come in so they can all be shipped out together 🙂

This entry was posted in Deadzone, Mars Attacks!. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Martians In Deadzone – Rules

  1. Teemu Hemminki says:

    Deadzone: X-COM project gives it’s thanks for this information.

  2. Graeme says:

    Vaguely related: are there any plans for rules for the Martian Dreadball team (who arrived the other day and are fully awesome!) or should we just use the rules of a team of our choosing to represent these guys?

    • Vinsssounet says:

      There are, that’s for sure. But when is another matter. Some official word would be nice !

      • Teskal says:

        Do you have already any martians? Seeing them painted from you is something I hope to see, like hoping that I my MA stuff comes soon.

        • Vinsssounet says:

          Thanks Teskal ^^
          Acually I offered Mars Attacks to the wife recently, including the Mars Attacks team. So far just received the base game.

          We have a few commissions ongoing before we can get back to paint our personnal stuff, so we’ll probably not paint the DB team right away.

          Though, regarding Martians themselves, who knows what’s being done in the Iron Forge ?… One should keep an eye on the next next Issue (28).

    • Quirkworthy says:

      I’ve written rules for the Martian DB team too, and this is supposed to be in the MA compendium (currently on its way from the printers IIRC).

  3. Coops says:

    Hi Jake

    Sorry for the crossed wires and all. I did just want clarification and now I/we have it. So thank you very much.

    I think it was clear I was missing some sort of extra document. Which is why I, with some help from the mantic forumites brought to your attention.

    Thanks again. This clears up all my questions.

    However… it does raise one more minor query. The “Pheremone Dispensor” makes reference to “Barely Controlled”. The wording in the pdf makes the rules entirely clear. I understand how it works. All is good on that side… but no Martian deck card has “Barely Controlled” printed on it. I am taking it was left off unintentionally when the cards were made/printed. Misprint. Not your fault.

    To that end, I assume the mutant bug card is supposed to have it? And Wrex as well maybe?

    Sorry to be a bother.

    • Quirkworthy says:


      Yes, you’re right. The Mutant Bug should have Barely Controlled. Apologies, that was my fault 😦

      The bugs (and how they interacted with the handlers) were a pain and took some time to get right. I obviously failed to type all my final play test notes back into the docs.

  4. Jake, do you know of any plans to do Warpath lists for both Mars Attacks factions like they did with the Plague from Deadzone? I certainly have enough models from the Kickstarter coming to do armies of both.

    • Teskal says:

      Warpath rules are not made by Jake or not?

      How many units are necessary for Warpath?
      I have 40 martian grunts, 10 stealthy’s, 20 marines, 16 scientists, 6 Bugs with handlers, 4 saucers, 4 stompy’s, 10 Masters of science. And all special units. Should be hopefully enough if there will be an official list.

    • Quirkworthy says:

      I’ve not done any work on Warpath, and I’ve not heard of any plans for Martians there. However, a new and improved version of Warpath is currently being worked on, so if anything was going to be done I would expect it to be for the new rules once they come out.

  5. Teskal says:

    There is no rule for a shrink ray?

  6. Mike says:

    After a few games of MA!, I love the “off-board” support effect mechanism for things like Harassing Fire, Freeze Ray, etc, as well as the very cinematic events, like the Mutant Bugs, and Flying Cars. They make the world seem much larger than the map board. Will there be something like those in the DZ version of the rules?

    • Teskal says:

      I must say I would like to have the option to include such support attacks. Only optional!
      About cinematic events like the flying cars, they are not so good for DZ. Eventually usable as unreliable support weapons.

    • Quirkworthy says:

      I’m not sure that the MA approach to off board events would work so well in DZ because of its different take on combat. MA is far more cartoony and abstracted than DZ. Also, I tend to think of DZ as more literal in scale than MA, which makes most of the airstrikes, artillery and so on prohibitively large. Most air dropped or artillery launched munitions would fill the board with their explosions.

      Even so, I have been looking at the DZ decks to see if there was anything we could add, and this is on the list to experiment with. Not an exact copy of the effects, but a related approach. We’ll see how it work on the table.

      • Mike says:

        For me, it’s a desire to have my cake and eat it too. I like the wider array of choices in the DZ rules, but I like the cartoony, cinematic effects and support weapons from MA. If it doesn’t work out, I may just try it with the DZ stats and rules, but still retain the MA card deck as is.

        Regardless, I’m have a blast with both games. These are easily my favorite games and the best KS’s I’ve done!

      • lord_blackfang says:

        I think these things are very appropriate in MA as it is more “cinematic” (in the GW sense of the word), but in DZ players shouldn’t really be at the whims of random events. Rampage is pushing it for me and Gun Crazy is unacceptable, so things falling from the sky in random places would really, really irritate me.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          Ah, a control freak 😉

          Don’t you think that troops ever behave irrationally or unpredictably?

        • lord_blackfang says:

          Well, sure. But I’m bothered when there’s a flat dice roll – with nothing I can do to mitigate it – that gives my opponent full control of the model. I would feel better if it were “attacks the closest model, friend or enemy” as that at least I can plan around and it still represents the dude going a bit nuts without looking like he is actively trying to sabotage his own side.

          But I do understand that even the most basic “AI” Rampage would take a lot more space in the book and the FAQ.

          As for Gun Crazy, I also have a thematic/design issue with it. The Marauders are supposedly an organized, sensible military force, and then there’s the Rainmaker, who feels like a zany 40k Ork who fell through a warp rift into Deadzone. I could live with them all being one war or the other (I own like 20.000 points of 40k Orks) but mixing styles bothers me.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          You could think of the rainmakers as berserks in a historical Viking army. As a whole, the army is organised and efficient. However, within this they have specific uses for a small group of unbalanced loonies. My particular favourite was the king using berserkers as tax collectors because nobody refused them 😉

          To pick another weird example, the Roman army tried smearing pigs in oil and setting them on fire to scare Pyrrhus’ elephants (it didn’t end well). Nothing predictable there, and the Romans are famous for their organisation.

          Both real historical examples and the sort of thing I’m drawing from.

          My point here is that even the most organised of forces may include weird and unpredictable corners if they perceive it as having an overall benefit. Don’t confuse that with the pervasive Orky wackiness in 40K.

          Of course, you’re right that the simple table is a vastly simplified approach to the “reality” we’re representing. As you say, a more detailed approach would call for more rules on a single trooper in a single force than is probably warranted overall.

          None of which means that you have to like them. The simplest solution to disliking them would be to ignore them or to house rule it away. Allowing them to be entirely predictable and safe would make the Marauders rather more dangerous, and would require a cost increase on the model itself. I think that would all be a shame as it’s the challenges that make things interesting. I don’t want DZ to be a nice safe game where things always work perfectly because I think that is both wholly unrepresentative of the idea of futuristic skirmish and plain old dull. As I said though, feel free to disagree 🙂

        • lord_blackfang says:

          I don’t disagree on principle, I just dislike a few of the implementations 🙂

          Maybe the real issue is the relatively small number of options currently available. If we dislike just a few of them – and people can dislike certain models for a variety of reasons – we are left with very few choices to play with.

          High AP single shot weapons have never worked for me, for example. And Massive Frag is either a one-shot win or dead weight. So all of these things stay at home. In the case of the Marauders this is a huge chunk of the faction’s total choices. Once more models are added, it won’t be that much of a problem.

  7. Teskal says:

    Hi Jake,
    I hope the Compendium is not printed!
    It has several typos and misaligned character stat.

  8. lord_blackfang says:

    World War and the Compendium have been digitally delivered to backers today. I only “leafed” through them but it is obvious that Jake has put his experience with DZ to good use and we are seeing a more polished product. At a quick glance, I noticed the multi-mat games in particular look much more integrated and less of an afterthought.

    I will try to resist reading through all the supplements in detail until I get some games with the basic rules in, however.

    Final note, I saw the MA Dreadball rules, but will they get any rules for DBX? Or will DBX be so backwards compatible that no further modification is needed?

  9. Josh says:

    any chance of getting a preview of the Martian Deck (&/or Humans Deck) or we just going to have to wait for the Cards to be printed, sent out to KS, then put somewhere on the Mantic Shop for those of us that didn’t realize we were missing the Mars Attacks! Deadzone Decks by not jumping in on the Mars Attacks! KS… =p basically I wanted to see which martians I should be working on for my future Deadzone games…

  10. lord_blackfang says:

    I got to see all the stat cards now and I think they are my two new favorite Deadzone factions. It feels like they are more mature and polished than the original 6. They feel like proper, coherent armies with real leaders, troops and support elements, not a random hodge podge of warriors. I would say they are both at least as focused in their design as the Enforcers (all the civilian special characters aside, obviously), but have more meaningful variety in unit selection.
    A+ from me as far as design goes. Can’t make a call on balance yet. They seem strong and cheap, but have weaknesses (basic Martians can’t Blaze Away, for example)

  11. Jon Finn says:

    All the backs of the Human cards say “Battle Card” too, instead of the separate backs for Mission and Stat cards.

    All the backs of the Martian cards say “Mission Card”…

  12. lord_blackfang says:

    Errata time?
    That human Scour mission is 2 points per item
    Science Division guy with heavy blaster should probably be a Specialist
    Giant Bug and Wrex should probably have Barely Controlled
    Novas Vira Weapons Team and Sonic Disruptor shouldn’t have CSW

    • lord_blackfang says:

      Just noticed. I don’t know what special ability you intended Drex having, but it’s not on the card. He is identical to a generic Bounty Hunter in every way except he costs 2 points more and isn’t a Trooper.

  13. Leon says:

    Where are the rules for toxic ?

  14. grinborg says:

    It feels to me like a model with flight should not get a +1 cover bonus for being at a higher elevation when hovering in an empty cube.

  15. Walter W says:

    Got to try out thee Martians in DZ for the first time. Some thing came up.
    1) As Grinborg noted, we played that the flying saucer was not benefiting from cover due to elevation.
    2) Freeze rays are a bit over powered. The doubled effect isn’t too bad, however the treble effect is brutal, netting all 4 of my kills in the game. 2 success on blaze vs 0 survive nets 4 wounds.
    3) The flying Saucer got shot by a shotgun, knocking it back. By the angle, we decided to push the saucer back 1 cube, and raise elevation by 1.
    4) Is the saucer limited in height purely by its base stem, or can it be assumed to be at various phantom heights?

  16. Psychopomp says:

    Will the Mars Attacks factions still be included in Deadzone after the Infestation rules rewrite? I’m enjoying playing my Martians in Deadzone and would hate to see them get left out or forgotten!

  17. Helmet says:

    Can I asked for one clarification? The Martian rules for Freeze! says:
    “Treat an attack with this weapon as a Blaze Away action with the modifiers and results replaced by the following. Attacks by Freeze weapons cannot be supported by other models or use Ammo items. …”
    Does “supported by other models” refers to Blaze Away (short action) rules – “+1 per supporting model*”? The point is – if I ever get model with Spotter ability, can he add +1 to Freeze! attack?
    From my point of view, by wording, it seems that Spotter model can add +1 to Freeze! action, because “Supporting Models” are explicitly defined at Blaze Away section and Spotter is different rule (stating that it gives 1 modifier, nothing with “supporting” is mentioned). But I would like to receive the confirmation. Thanks in advance!

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