Rank: Commander
Posts: 50
Thanks: 7 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
I'm sure it's not going to happen in the near future but for you guys what would V2 look like? What changes would you make? What direction would you want them to take the game in?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 197
Thanks: 34 times Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Well, if they did a new starter set, they'd need to update the rulebook to include all the rules errata and op rules (minefields etc). They should also include the following New card terrain for minefields, bocages etc. These should be double sided (Europe and Africa) Every tank card since wave 1 All universal upgrades cards (this would help those who don't want to buy a load of expansions) I'm torn between them putting different models in this time round or not. If they did, I would like to see something totally different from before. Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps could be interesting. I terms of actual new rules that'd change the game, I can't really think of anything to be honest. Edited by user Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:33:41 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
Kelvin Griffiths, Attack Wing Captain, Lord Of Rings Hero and Tank Commander. Sort of... |
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 50
Thanks: 7 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Great response I'd completely forgotten about the op kits.
In terms of rules, any views on initiative? I wasn't sure if it was too critical at the moment and maybe needed a random element to moderate certain match ups, I know no one build is dominant but certain match ups make it a very tough time for whoever took less initiative buffs.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 197
Thanks: 34 times Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
I'm not sure how to respond to that one.
You certainly have a point, however, you pay for initiative. They could do like STAW, where you purchase the ship and have a initiative 1 captain included, you then pay the extra if you want a better captain.
Problem is that tanks is too far established in its own system. They would have to reprint every tank and commander card in order to change to this method.
Also, I think initiative is meant to represent more than just the commanders ability. It likely includes stuff like how fast the actual tank can turn its gun, rev up engines, ability to cross terrain and other things that affect operation.
As a tanks and attack wing player, I like the similar yet different approach to this, keeps me sharp tactics wise. |
Kelvin Griffiths, Attack Wing Captain, Lord Of Rings Hero and Tank Commander. Sort of... |
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 50
Thanks: 7 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
I wasn't sure if a blended approach might work i.e for each point of initiative you roll a die and act at an initiative equal to your pass rate. No change needed and with only a few tanks each it's not hard to track. I guess you could always have a new type of token.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 197
Thanks: 34 times Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
That could work. I didn't think of that.
|
Kelvin Griffiths, Attack Wing Captain, Lord Of Rings Hero and Tank Commander. Sort of... |
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 138
Thanks: 48 times Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 19 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Kelvin <snip> I'm torn between them putting different models in this time round or not. If they did, I would like to see something totally different from before. Desert Rats vs Afrika Korps could be interesting. Which we already got. Why not go with Eastern Front? (Truth be told, I know why... because it won't sell too good in the States) Originally Posted by: Kelvin I terms of actual new rules that'd change the game, I can't really think of anything to be honest. Ekhem... Sort out hand brake driving and get rid of tank-two-step for starters... Originally Posted by: Kelvin <snip> Also, I think initiative is meant to represent more than just the commanders ability. It likely includes stuff like how fast the actual tank can turn its gun, rev up engines, ability to cross terrain and other things that affect operation. <snip> Open-topped...ness, Commanders cupola (or lack thereof)... Correct. It was discussed with Crew from TANKS HQ ages ago. And I think that a basic statline was suppose to represent an 'average joe' crew manning the tank. Originally Posted by: Sohlon I wasn't sure if a blended approach might work i.e for each point of initiative you roll a die and act at an initiative equal to your pass rate. No change needed and with only a few tanks each it's not hard to track. I guess you could always have a new type of token. I'd love this idea, if TANKS would not already be a dice heavy game. Introducing that would add potentially up to 10 rolls a turn (?!?)... But that gives me an idea how to change the things around a bit. What do You think about a rule, that for every lost Damage Point the Initiative falls by one? Simple, easy to track (just check the damage and substract from Ini) and even a bit fluffy... (crew shaken up by receiving fire, tank systems slowly shutting down in face of taken punishment).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 197
Thanks: 34 times Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
The eastern front idea is ok with me.
Gotta ask though, do you mean replace the movement system entirely? Ive toyed with that before as STAW and X wing both use templates and each vessel has a different set of moves. I think that could work for tanks, but theyd have to supply a load of manuever cards or dials.
As I said, Tanks and STAW are similar games, but I like the slight differences as it keeps each unique.
My main concern has to be including all the extra rules that have come about since launch. |
Kelvin Griffiths, Attack Wing Captain, Lord Of Rings Hero and Tank Commander. Sort of... |
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 161
Thanks: 74 times Was thanked: 149 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Kelvin Gotta ask though, do you mean replace the movement system entirely? Ive toyed with that before as STAW and X wing both use templates and each vessel has a different set of moves. I think that could work for tanks, but theyd have to supply a load of manuever cards or dials.
This is one of the purposefully big differences for TANKS. Space games tend to operate with units that are constantly moving. Momentum keeps them moving forward, even when they slow down, so flight-path style templates makes sense. Whereas a tank can stop, pivot on the spot, quickly reverse and perform rather fine-tuned positioning, which is why we aimed for a more freeform movement style.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 197
Thanks: 34 times Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Thanks Sean
I figured that was why. I personally like the movement in tanks as it does feel right.
I gotta ask though, is an updated rulebook a possible thing? I know you cant divulge releases, but rule updates are an important thing to any evolving game.
At home, I got no idea how minefields work, or hills. Some official rules (Even just update current starter set) would be appreciated. |
Kelvin Griffiths, Attack Wing Captain, Lord Of Rings Hero and Tank Commander. Sort of... |
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 50
Thanks: 7 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: JagdWehrwolf
I'd love this idea, if TANKS would not already be a dice heavy game. Introducing that would add potentially up to 10 rolls a turn (?!?)...
But that gives me an idea how to change the things around a bit. What do You think about a rule, that for every lost Damage Point the Initiative falls by one? Simple, easy to track (just check the damage and substract from Ini) and even a bit fluffy... (crew shaken up by receiving fire, tank systems slowly shutting down in face of taken punishment).
Fantastic point, I'm too used to playing dice intensive games it really didn't register how light tanks is by comparison! I like the damage point initiative idea although it would seam to punish slower tanks more (as they are quicker to take damage) and extra ruling would be needed to clear up the initiative step as different tanks take damage and the order changes. Could be something to add into the critical cards though as like you say the crew get shaken and the tank systems begin to wear down.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 161
Thanks: 74 times Was thanked: 149 time(s) in 83 post(s)
|
It's true, I can't speak or speculate about future releases. But rules compilations or new editions are always an inevitability if any game runs long enough.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 138
Thanks: 48 times Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 19 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Kelvin The eastern front idea is ok with me.
Gotta ask though, do you mean replace the movement system entirely? Ive toyed with that before as STAW and X wing both use templates and each vessel has a different set of moves. I think that could work for tanks, but theyd have to supply a load of manuever cards or dials. <snip> Nope. Despite my moaning I actually like TANKS system. I just think that simplicity went a step too far. I'd keep the arrow and two basic moves. With a couple of caveats, specifically, arrow ALWAYS placed from the front line of the tank (and voila, Your tanks slows down during reversing) and maximum 90 degrees turns (and suddenly Your tank stops acting like an attack helicopter). Originally Posted by: Sean at TANKS HQ This is one of the purposefully big differences for TANKS. Space games tend to operate with units that are constantly moving. Momentum keeps them moving forward, even when they slow down, so flight-path style templates makes sense. Whereas a tank can stop, pivot on the spot, quickly reverse and perform rather fine-tuned positioning, which is why we aimed for a more freeform movement style.
It was discussed in the early days of the forum and at least from forumites interpretation it looked like at first there was intention of limiting the turn (see above). And that would work fine giving at least a slight feel of a cumbersome piece of steel on tracks. The ballet that the tanks are allowed in TANKS feels very anti... immersive. I raised that point before, but with current ruleset with a little imagination You can change the name for 'Dinosaurs on Mars', rename the cards and play. From a certain point of view this is a strenght of the game, but as it is advertised as game about tanks, sometimes it does not feel too 'tanky' indeed... And I won't even go into pure cheese that is tank-two-step... Originally Posted by: Sohlon <snip> Fantastic point, I'm too used to playing dice intensive games it really didn't register how light tanks is by comparison!
I like the damage point initiative idea although it would seam to punish slower tanks more (as they are quicker to take damage) and extra ruling would be needed to clear up the initiative step as different tanks take damage and the order changes. Could be something to add into the critical cards though as like you say the crew get shaken and the tank systems begin to wear down.
LIGHT?! Hesus... So what do You consider dice heavy??? Anyways, no clearing up needed. Assuming all shots are exchanged simultaneously (or pretty close) the Ini penalties would come into effect at the beginning of the next turn of game.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 50
Thanks: 7 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
He he play 40k, one unit of bog standard troops like tactical marines can put out 20 shots a turn. roll 20 to hit, then roll the remainder to wound then roll armour saves for whatever gets through, then moral check. And that's just one unit. Your probably playing with between 5-10 units in a 1500pt game and most people play 1750-2000 it seams these days! The old fantasy warhammer was even worse (or better depending on your disposition!)
I'm with you on the movement front, it's always bothered me quite how the game let's tanks dance around the field at odd angles.
My only thought with the simultaneous fire is how does cautious fit in?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 197
Thanks: 34 times Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Your movement idea does make sense from a believability point of view. As far as dice heavy, trust me tanks is pretty dice light to be fair. I've played rounds of 40k in past with obnoxious numbers of dice hitting the table. Almost sounded like a little artillery barrage! The simultaneous fire with cautious I would say that the tank with cautious still makes the move unless it's destroyed. Hopefully HQ will weigh in with an official rule regarding this. Edited by user Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:38:59 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
Kelvin Griffiths, Attack Wing Captain, Lord Of Rings Hero and Tank Commander. Sort of... |
|
|
|
Rank: Loader
Posts: 8
Thanks: 3 times
|
The only rules change I would make would be to Initiative. By that I mean specifically attacker getting to move last and fire first on tied matchups. I have been running events since it was possible to do so, and I have mathematical evidence that I have gained over time to show for it.
Attacker Move Last Shoot first win rates Attacker-83% (Now 78%) Defenders-17% (Now 22%)
Fix I have been using. Will get another big test at Cincycon! Attacker gets to choose Move First but Shoot First, or Move after but Shoot after win rates Attackers-49% (Now 52%) Defenders-51% (Now 48%)
For a V2 starter Eastern Front would be a solid set. Could be 2 T-34’s and Tiger I or 2 (MW)Stugs and a T-34(/85)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 41
Thanks: 12 times Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
V2 ??? Hah ! I'd be happy with an update to the website maybe once a month or so...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 457
Thanks: 18 times Was thanked: 84 time(s) in 69 post(s)
|
Isn't it bad luck to have festive things up after 12th night?
Maybe that's why the site is getting so much spam. |
2 Dec 16, me to BF CustServ Is there any news on my replacement replacement cards for the Achilles please? 6 May 18 no
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.