I’ve decided to post the next iteration of the DZ FAQ tomorrow rather than today, as originally planned. Some of the answers I’ve been working on are a bit involved and need some more cross referencing before they’re published to ensure that they fit what’s already in print and cover all the various permutations.
However, keeping things moving is important, so I’ll post up a new version tomorrow regardless of where I’ve got to.
Iteration – great word.
If you’re interested in games as a business rather than just a pastime, Purple Pawn’s annual look is well worth reading. It takes a while to collate so this latest one is data from 2013. Some interesting nuggets in there.
Rather than link the pdf, I’ve linked the site as it’s worth exploring 🙂
Well here we are at the end of the week, and as I said I would, I’ve added some more updates to the Deadzone FAQ. Most of the time I’ve been able to spend has been on the long discussions of defender shields and the infinite fight chain, but as these were two of the most commonly asked questions I thought it was worth getting them out of the way. I also included the errata from the reprint of the rulebook in the update. I’ve posted this before, it’s just simpler to have it all in one place.
The next stage is to work through the rest of the questions on the Living FAQ pages, many of which have already been answered, and incorporate them into this pdf. I’ll do another update midweek.
I’ve also got all the bits for the new camera now, so I’ll be trying my hand at some video this week too. I’ve no idea how well that will work, so I’ll not promise any dates. Will let you know how I get on.
Before anyone else asks, I want to focus on getting the DZ FAQ up to date, and then I’ll tackle the DB one. Not forgotten, just forming an orderly queue 😉
As before, please add any DZ questions to the Living FAQ page rather than here.
Thanks.
Probably the most common question I’m asked about Deadzone are about linked Fights. This has been called several things like daisy chain combats, infinite fights and so on, and according to some folk it’s the most over-powerful thing going. Opinions differ though, and I’m one of those who hasn’t found it a problem. There are some subtleties in this area of the rules, so to make sure we’re all on the same page I thought I’d go through the process in detail and then discuss the issues that have been raised.
I’ll start with the basics.
A model moves into a cube containing one or more enemies. This requires them to Fight one of those enemies immediately, as part of that Move action¹.
If the attacker doubles the target model then they can make either a free Fight action (if there are still enemy models in that cube) or a free Move action (if he’s already killed them all). If he takes the free Move and there is an enemy model in an adjacent cube then he can Move in and will have to Fight that model too – again, as part of that (free in this case) Move action.
Assuming that the attacking model doubles every single attack they will keep getting free actions. However, remember that a free action cannot trigger another free action of the same type, so no free Fight – free Fight. Note also that the Fight included as part of a Move action is not a separate free action – it’s an intrinsic part of the Move action.
This sequence can be combined with Move cards and extra actions from Command tests to give a melee model a very long range (probably most of the tabletop at the extreme end). At least, it can in theory.
Getting this to work requires everything to go right for the attacker. A single break in this chain and the whole thing stops dead. Most stages require a dice roll to work, and some require use of a limited resource. All require your opponent to help you (and why would they do that?) or be unaware of the tactic.
For the long range version you need a model that can use a Command action, is close enough to the attacking model, and doesn’t need to use their action(s) for anything else (like staying alive). You also need to have a token left in your Command Pool. These tokens are in very limited supply, so if you use one for something then it’d better be worthwhile. If all this is true then you still need to make the command test. It’s not that hard to do, but it is a dice roll and we all know how they can be 😉
Ideally you want a Move card in your hand as well.
The long version will involve at least 2 actions that the other side can potentially Overwatch against. If the moving model is Pinned, Suppressed, Injured or Killed in either of these actions, then the “infinite Fight” is over before it starts.
Even in a normal Turn, without the benefit of Command actions or extra Move cards, there are many things that have to go right for an attacker to pull off anything spectacular. To start with he has to double his first opponent in the Fight. This is likely in some combinations and less so in others. It’s never guaranteed.
In order to cascade this into a series of Fights against multiple enemies you have to get the right results every time, plus the enemy have to be positioned in the right way. For example, let’s say we have an attacking model called Attacker, and a set of 2 target models in 2 different, adjacent cubes called Targets A and B.
The Attacker takes a Move action and moves into the cube containing Target A. As part of this Move, he must now Fight Target A. They roll for the combat and the following results are possible:
Things are different if there are 2 or 3 enemy models in a cube, but I’m sure you get the general idea.
The limit on repeating free actions is a major restriction here. If the enemy aren’t stacked up in exactly the right way, and you don’t roll exactly the right results every time, then your “infinite” Fights won’t last long. This limit on sequencing can be forgotten in the heat of battle and may account for this seeming to be more dangerous than it actually is.
Of course, if your enemy knows that this is possible they can try to either avoid the potential chain by positioning their models carefully, or use it to their advantage to lay a trap². Protect some models and leave others out as bait to get the enemy to go where you want them to. Into the sights of overwatching heavy weapons would be a preference for me. And for those who suggest that the attack simply suppresses the overwatchers first, I agree: that would be a grand plan. However, it assumes that you can see them. If an attack has to move into an enemy position (as melee assaults tend to) then it is likely that at least some of the overwatchers can be positioned so that they are not visible from the enemy lines, where the supporting models are. They will come into view only when the attacking model has advanced.
This is a nasty trick that experienced players can use to flatten novices. It’s also something that a lucky player can pull off against an unwary or careless opponent. It is, in my view, a perfectly reasonable tactic to attempt, but that view has a caveat: both players need to know it’s possible.
It’s not much fun losing to a trick you didn’t know was there, whether it’s this trick or any of the others. If, on the other hand, it’s a trick you know about, could employ yourself, are aware of possible counters and have just either been careless, taken a risk or been outfoxed, then this is all part of the contest of wits. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to layer in a series of different tactics and counter-tactics into Deadzone, some of which are more obvious than others. Some only work with certain factions or with certain models. As normal in any game, many of these tactics are particularly nasty the first time you encounter them, and this seems fair enough to me. If we play and I lose then I learn, rethink and come back with a plan to counter you. It may take a few goes for me to come up with an equally nasty surprise, and then the circle starts again, but reversed. This tactical equivalent of an arms race seems to me to be one of the more interesting things about gaming. If it was the same every time it’d be dull.
Pulling this off against an opponent that’s aware of the possibilities should be seen as an achievement, just as any other plan that bears fruit. It is hard to do though. Scarletsquig asked why I didn’t just remove this possibility if it was so rare. That’s simple. It’s all about balancing the relative usefulness of melee and ranged troops. There are many very nasty shooting tricks (aim, weak spot, clear shot, etc) and these can all be done at no risk to the Shooting model. I’ve seen more battles won by overwhelming shooting than I have overwhelming melee power. Both are possible, and both can be devastating if done right (and with a bit of luck). As the melee beasties have got to get past all that shooting stuff to do anything at all they need a nasty trick of their own if they get up close. Even if it’s hard to get right, even if it is rare, it’s something that makes an opponent wary. And when we’re talking about huge, plague-ridden monstrosities, wary is what you should be.
1: This last bit is very important: the Fight caused by moving into a cube is part of that Move action, not a separate Fight action (free or otherwise). In the initial print run of the rulebook the relevant wording was “… it will Fight for free as part of that action.” This was confusing as “for free” didn’t mean it was a free action, just that it happened as a bonus without costing you another action. My bad. The second print run of the book fixed some typos and included some minor corrections (see the FAQ), one of which was to change this line to “… it will Fight as part of that action“. The rule hasn’t changed, it’s just been made less confusing. Again, the critical bit here is that this Fight is part of the Move action.
2: Positioning is a key aspect of the game, and there is rarely an ideal solution. The game is also designed to generally work better for a fluid set of positions. Static defences are weak in most DZ situations – keep moving! The board is a small area and it can be hard to get away from threats with long reaches. But this is part of the point. The area is intentionally cramped and claustrophobic to better represent the nature of close quarter battle.
Even though you guys haven’t got the models yet, there are obviously people who want to proxy some Enforcers with defender shields. Alternatively, you might be playing in a campaign and have acquired them there. Either way, here are not only the rules for defender shields (which you’ve seen before if you visit often), but an explanation of why they work as they do.
There is more than one type of shield, and each type is designed and used differently. I have a habit of starting with reality and extrapolating from there. So, defender shields are based on how modern security forces use them. How is that? Well, modern militaries tend not to use shields at all unless they’re acting as police, so the nearest analogue we have are the police themselves. Riot squads and SWAT team equivalents across the world use 2 main types of shield: riot shields and ballistic shields.
The first type of shield comes in two broad shapes: round or rectangular. They are generally see-through plastic shields and are used mainly by riot police.
The most common type is the large rectangular variety, with or without rounded corners and in various dimensions. These are mainly designed to be used in walls to contain the disorder, blocking off some areas and advancing in formation to shove the protestors where the police want them to go. They are also good protection against thrown stones, molotovs and the like. They are not bullet proof. In may ways they are like the Roman legionary’s scutum, being are designed to work en masse and in formation.
The small round shields are lighter and more easily portable. They are designed for a number of peripheral uses, sometimes being given to leaders and those not intended to be part of the main “battle line”. They are also sometimes issued to snatch squads and similar groups who deploy on more fluid missions, needing to move quicker and not in formation. They often hide behind the main shield wall until needed. In terms of construction these round shields are the same as the rectangular ones.
“Dynamic entry” is one phrase I’ve come across to describe the situations in which more than the typical riot shield is needed. If the bad guys are holed up somewhere defensible, and they are well-armed, you may need to go in very forcefully to overwhelm them. In these situations you’re likely to take fire, so you need more protection than a riot shield is going to offer you. This is what ballistic shields are for.
These are very heavily built and can withstand direct weapons fire. They are generally used by already armoured troopers, and are an additional, mobile piece of armour to hide behind rather than something to parry melee attacks. The one shown above is a relatively light one. The really serious ones are wheeled. Of course, if you’re wearing a full suit of futuristic armour then you’re likely to be able to carry the serious ones without help.
The defender shield is a ballistic shield, not a riot shield. The rules are the same they’ve been for a while:
When a model with a defender shield is moved to a new position, always align the shield with one of the four sides of the cube on the level you are on (ie, not the top or the bottom). Any attacks that trace a LOS across that side of the cube count the model holding the shield as having +1 Armour.
This reflects the sort of static protective benefit that ballistic shields offer and allows models that are so equipped to withstand a lot more punishment. This is what they need when they’re on point, which is what it’s designed for.
All pictures except the top one from Wikimedia Commons.
As promised, I’ve expanded the DZ FAQ. I’ll post a further update at the end of the week.
If you have any further questions, please post them to that FAQ page rather than here.
Thanks
Models that have ben resurrected or have been treated with emergency medical aid may suffer complications in surgery, as you might expect. This reflects the fact that dead guys should really stay dead, and people heal best when left to do it over time.
Some of the bad results on the table are stat reductions, as physical or mental faculties are degraded in the process of either bringing them back from death or rushing their healing. But what happens if the model in question has a “-” value for the stat to be reduced? The answer is simple: nothing. Well, nothing bad, at least. They recover without mishap as if they had rolled a 6-8 result.
Now this has caused a few highly analytical folk to raise their eyebrows. Surely this gives models with “-” stats an advantage? Well yes, technically it does. In the unlikely situation that a model reduces their stat to the worst it could possibly be they will die, and a model with a “-” value for this stat is obviously immune to this. However, this is only a very slight benefit indeed. To start with, there are only 2 models currently in the game that have a 7+ stat, and could threfore die with one bad roll. All other models need to get themselves into this situation repeatedly and then you have to have and choose to spend the points to resurrect or buy emergency care, and then they have to roll exactly the same result again. So yes, being able to avoid this is a bonus, but a tiny one. Most people won’t ever see a model die from reducing a stat this way.
Remember also that the model with this supposed advantage is also labouring under a complete lack of that stat, and so are already at a (IMO rather bigger) disadvantage. The most common stats to lack are Shoot and Command; the former limits your combat ability and the latter can trigger a lost battle. Both are things I think hugely outweigh any benefit that may accrue in the very rare (and somewhat self-infllicted) situation of repeated complications.
Just so you know, I’m working on an update for the DZ FAQ which will go up later today. Another update will follow at the end of the week.
One thing that won’t be in the next update is movement clarifications. I know these are important and I have looked at them. However, what this brought up was that they either need loads of new diagrams or for me to show you in person. Consequently I think these are perfect for a video answer rather than a text one. I’ve already got the camera and am just waiting for a bigger memory card to be delivered. If we hadn’t had that chocolate egg festival…
These videos are a new experiment for me, and if I can get them to work I’ll be doing more. We all know that the best way to learn a game is to have someone show you, and this applies to FAQs too. Some things are just easier to explain by showing rather than telling.
The way I expect this to work is that there will be a pdf FAQ as there is now, but in addition to the normal answers it will include links to Quirkworthy posts and videos that explain answers in more detail. This means that the pdf can be kept shorter as the detailed discussion will be elsewhere. It also allows you guys to comment on the more involved bits, which is fun too 🙂
Despite my relative silence on the topic, things have been moving along nicely on this front over the last month. It very definitely hasn’t been forgotten. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you any details just yet. “Moving along” doesn’t mean we’ve quite got where we need to be in terms of nailing down all the major variables, and we wanted to be sure of them before we went live. Close though.
All I can say is that it’s looking pretty exciting and is not all that far off now 😉
Of all the games I’ve worked on, Deadzone is probably the most awkward to balance in terms of points. There are all the usual reasons for points systems not working, though in the case of DZ it’s more than that. Terrain plays an unusually large role in the game, and for this reason the exact set up can make a huge difference to the relative values of individual models and, indeed, whole strike teams. The type of set up that you normally play on may make one side or another globally better (or worse) or it may favour a particular troop type.
When you have a game with a fixed terrain (as with most board games), then this whole aspect disappears. Even when compared to most tabletop games the scenery in Deadzone is unusually important. This issue is, therefore, more problematical here than elsewhere.
I could have been far more prescriptive when I was writing the game, defining exactly what went where. However, this was against one of the major themes of Deadzone, which is that you have a set of terrain you can assemble as you choose (and re-assemble, and so on), and build up into whatever you think looks cool. So I opted for suggestions and guidelines instead, to allow you to keep the freedom.
DZ is still a very new game, and so people are still familiarising themselves with all the ins and outs of the tactics and forces available. It’ll take a while for things to settle down. This is normal.
For the moment, I’m hearing a number of comments about points. “This model is too expensive”, “that faction are all too cheap”, and so on. However, these comments don’t yet show a pattern when compared across gaming groups. In fact, they are frequently completely contradictory. While I was at Salute I was told that the same faction was both entirely unstoppable and that it couldn’t win because it was horribly overpriced. In an abstract sense (which is the only way you can practically point something) this cannot be true. However, when taken with the many permutations of missions, player skill, and terrain (yes, back to that) it can.
On the little evidence I have, one thing that seems to be influencing things is the style among individual groups. By “style” I mean what the group collectively accepts as a reasonable way to set up the game; what “looks right” and so on. It’s not really right or wrong, but as I mentioned above, even 10 or 20% more or less scenery can make a huge difference in apparent values of models. If this sense of what looks right differs between groups then they may well have different experiences of how one faction fares compared to another. Anyway, it’s a theory.
So does anything need to be done? Personally, I’d say it was far too early for any rash changes. What we need to see is the results of hundreds or thousands of games, and we don’t have that information yet. For every person who’s saying that x or y is wrongly pointed, another tells me that they’re fine. If I did change the points values then the ones who think they’re right now would complain when I did so. Can’t win 😉
If you’re interested in exploring your own perceptions a little, try playing a DZ game and then refighting it (same strike teams and missions) but with half the scenery. Then a third time with double the original amount. Then ask yourself: did the value of each model stay the same or change between battles? Even more awkwardly, did the amount by which they changed stay the same or vary?
Aren’t points systems fun?
Quirkworthy 