FWCII - notice of 'work underway' & request for Errata & Suggested Changes.

[Big Insect]

Cool, good to hear progress is solid.

Whilst I absolutely understand putting the army lists online, can I suggest that a good selection are still included in the rule book - as it is always good to have several official lists to use when you start playing, and then to refer back to once you want to start creating lists yourself.

Yup, we'll be putting a couple of example lists in the main rules set - as we did with CWCII 
Cheers
Mark

[Big Insect]

This in particular I think was broken in FWC1 and was able to be exploited having an opponent fire and withdraw repeatedly effectively making the unit(s) in question unassailable. I think having it as an action to withdraw works better as it would introduce a decision, do I fire, move or vanish rather that fire AND vanish
G

Hi Graham - apologies for a very tardy reply - I trust your weather is nowhere near as damp as ours is currently???

I think you might have had Stealth used against you incorrectly my old chum. Stealth actions are actually quite limited.
1). Stealth can be used as an Initiative action - which means the unit can just 'stealth away' but do nothing else (no shooting or mooning etc.)
2). Stealth can be used as a Commanded action (a successful order is required) and even then you cannot order the unit to appear on-table and then shoot (for example) or appear and move. It can just 'appear'.
3). as a response to an Assault. The opponent declares that their unit is assaulting your unit with Stealth and you respond by disappearing. You don't shoot first & then disappear.

I suspect you've been remembering playing Gordon at some point in the past (or was that a terrible dream)     

Cheers
Mark

[Grumbeast]

Hey Mark!

It has been raining here, but not like with you (though we need it, its either raining here or on fire!, I'll take the rain)

 I think it was against someone else at one of our FWC weekends though I still have all the scars from playing Gordon

I did wonder at the time if the rules were being interpreted correctly.  Great to hear that there has been progress, I'll try and get some of the local guys to play when they are released, I have a couple who will play CWC with me (and I ran a game of CWC at our local show in Vancouver last year, went down well)

[dylan]

Hi dylan

As I'm working on FWCII I thought I'd come back to you on some of your points below - partly to clarify the points you've raised but also to maybe respond to a couple of things.
My answers are below in bold (NB: I'm not shouting  )
Cheers
Mark

Thanks Mark.  I think many of these questions can be easily addressed by just including a small amount more information in the rulebook at the appropriate point to make it absolutely clear to players what the intent is - as you've seen some players took liberties where there was any possible room to do so.

So, as but one example, make it very clear that AFVs that are not IFVs but carry passengers do not get any of the IFV bonuses in assault combat.

[Big Insect]

I think this is one of the 'big' challenges with sets of rules generally.
Rules should be clear, but foremost they should be about what you can do, not what you cannot do (IMHO).

Sadly it is often why rules sets 'die-off', due to 'congestion' and over complication caused by players requirements or demands for absolute clarity on things, along with a long list of what cannot be done.
I am not pointing a finger at you or anybody else specifically here, but if you look at a whole range of once successful rules that have withered and died, over clarification is often one of the reasons cited for the cause.

IFVs are IFVs and APC are APCs. IFVs behave in a particular way. APCs behave in a particular way. APCs don't operate the same way as IFVs. It's as simple as that 

Cheers
Mark


 

[fred.]

To me the AFV - APC - IFV interaction is more of a Venn diagram with overlaps rather than distinct labels. 

I think on of the problems with many rulesets is the writer has an understanding of how things work and interact - but the challenge is getting that over to the players, whose knowledge is limited to what is on the page. So having some extra clarity on what is a defined term in the rules (eg IFV, APC) rather than what is just a narrative term is really important. 

GW have much gone over to the keyword method to try to convey this. It's not perfect as you end up with a lot of keywords, but it does help avoid ambiguity 

[dylan]

I think this is one of the 'big' challenges with sets of rules generally.
Rules should be clear, but foremost they should be about what you can do, not what you cannot do (IMHO).

Sadly it is often why rules sets 'die-off', due to 'congestion' and over complication caused by players requirements or demands for absolute clarity on things, along with a long list of what cannot be done.
I am not pointing a finger at you or anybody else specifically here, but if you look at a whole range of once successful rules that have withered and died, over clarification is often one of the reasons cited for the cause.

IFVs are IFVs and APC are APCs. IFVs behave in a particular way. APCs behave in a particular way. APCs don't operate the same way as IFVs. It's as simple as that 

Cheers
Mark


 

That's fine Mark, and you've made your thinking clear.  I suppose the market will decide.  Good luck!

I would note, however, that every single one of the points with FWC1 that I raised for clarification were the subject of questions, discussions and debates on the old forum - so I wasn't just randomly selecting a few rules I had a personal beef about.  I'm glad you think the answers are perfectly obvious, although I'll note not everyone did or they would not have become the subjects of debate or questions.

[Big Insect]

That's fine Mark, and you've made your thinking clear.  I suppose the market will decide.  Good luck!

I would note, however, that every single one of the points with FWC1 that I raised for clarification were the subject of questions, discussions and debates on the old forum - so I wasn't just randomly selecting a few rules I had a personal beef about.  I'm glad you think the answers are perfectly obvious, although I'll note not everyone did or they would not have become the subjects of debate or questions.

Of course not dylan and they were all very good points that are now being addressed in FWCII.

The challenge you raise about players trying to use IFV actions with APCs is also not a new one. Players often read the rules in their own favor but there is nothing in FWCI that even implies that you can treat APC as if they behave as IFVs 
My point above was that however hard a set of rules might try it cannot be written on the basis that it anticipates all the various things a player might try to do and prohibit them. It just ends up with excessive wording and in the end always fails 
Cheers
Mark