 |
| Hawk Wargames; not producing a document without a typo since 2012 |
We've all had time to dissect and gather together our opinions on the changes (mine are more or less all positive for once!), but in the OB camp there is a single rule which sticks out like a sore thumb for being the 'winner' of the latest errata; the Horde (Hoard) rule. Incredibly it features on everybodies favourite and formally mostly-useless Halo Grunt rip-offs, the Pungari Auxiliaries.
So why is this rule so good? Not only is it rich in theme, it oozes mechanical *bliss* too. The image of twenty Pungari tearing apart a building and tripping over each others feet like a bunch of Minions, (y'know, from that movie, Minions) whilst a Firstborn shakes her head in frustration makes me chuckle. On the other hand, the simplicity of the rule works so solidly with the objectives and intel mechanics.
We have a theory though, which seems to be shared by a few others. We think this subtle inclusion of the rule on the Pungari could be a playtest for a wholesale change to infantry squads of three bases or larger. What could that mean for Dropzone? Let's weigh up the pros and cons.
Firstly as a reminder and so you don't have to rummage through files and documents to find it, here is the rule;
The Hoard: While this Squad has at least 3 units remaining, it may roll an additioanl dice when searching for objectives and receives a +1 modifier when searching for Intel. Once this Squad is reduced to 2 units or less, this bonus is lost.
Read it? Understood it? Well read it again. Get it? Great stuff, let's go.
Pros or Why Is A Stupid Midgit Alien Better Than My Highly Trained Soldier?
The biggest benefit to each individual army is of course the ability to get the extra die when hunting for objectives if you pay the points, rather than (for the moment at least) only the Shaltari having the option. This has the potential to dramatically change objective based missions, like Targets of Opportunity, Military Complex and Secure the Flanks, with generals perhaps deciding that it isn't worth loading up on demo units if their opponent is likely to find the objective on turn one.
 |
| A glimpse of the future? |
This could end up changing the meta as we know it. Would these large infantry squads become common place? What would you not take to find for 70 odd points? Would this prompt more fast movers to hit the field? In a way this point falls under both a pro and a con, let's look at it from an optimistic view point though. Variety is the spice of life, and a rule change this subtle could shake things up just enough to vary some of the more 'generic' lists which are bouncing about.
Cons or My Stupid Midgit Aliens Are Willing To Snorkel Through Shit To Find That Objective. Literal Human Waste. Are Your Soldiers?
Let's start with the counter to the last point of the pros, the meta change. That 70 point swing could actually end up limiting the variety of armies even further, as generals would be sure to only take the very most elite of units to make up for their lack of points. 70 points may on the face of it not sound like a lot, but I have no idea what would come out of my list to fit it in! Hunters, or the Scraider maybe? That could be the realisation though, less standard or 'luxury' units being fielded to make way for the more dependable forces in your roster,
It may sound like I'm ringing the dooms day bell, and I doubt the inclusion of the rule will make a massive change, but it is a possibility that can't be ignored. Also it will be much easier for some lists to fit this in than others. Resistance for instance, will find it much easier to add an extra squad of Fighters or Veterans to their Bus squads, whereas Scourge (as previously mentioned) will have a more awkward time of it.
And what about PHR? They literally have no way to get this bonus, as they can't have squads of three or more bases. As a counter point they do have the most excellent Valkyries, and Medusa can be used for objective searching if need be, and they of course do have Mercurys which solve certain issues. That said, is it fair for there to be a rule for everyone except one race?
Thematically it's a great rule... For the most part. Legionnaires, Warriors, Fighters, and Pungari are all units which have 15+ DP with three or more bases, and it makes perfect sense for squads of this size to have spare personnel to search. If you start adding 3DP units which can have three bases like Freeriders, Sappers and Snipers the rule unravels slightly. Twelve individuals is not a lot more than ten (...duh...), so why would the rule apply to them?
This is a nice segue to the last con, which is that the cleanliness of the rule over such a large forum will become diluted. It works perfectly for the Pungari because they are an absolute, in that you will always have four bases to begin with. To thematically tackle this you would be forced to start adding in rules about a minimum amount of DP and the like, which could get a little messy.
Conclusion or So Your Soldiers Will Go Knee Deep? That Seems Like A Fair Compromise
Firstly I want to make it clear that the above has absolutely no connection to any insider scoops I have heard from Hawk. This is an article and synopsis of an event which may or may not transpire, and strictly from my own opinion.
I like the rule. I really like it. Do I think it should be a general rule for all infantry squads? In a word, no.
I think the dilution of rule over that many units will become awkward and un-thematic. Personally, I would like to see it appear on basic Infantry like Warriors and Legionnaires, and to be added as a special rule to their profiles. I'm not sat in the camp off 'too many special rules will ruin the game', as I really don't think we're even on the same planet as that issue, so this small addition to specific infantry units would be a nice touch.
The internet isn't normally known for uncontrollably spewing out opinions, but if you did have any please comment below!
Also, apologies for the block of text. It may amaze you to discover that I have little to no pictures of three bases of infantry doing, well, pretty much anything!
Something should be done to make 3 man squads more viable, but I don't this rule is the answer. I think it is too far a swing in the other direction. The quicker searches means the quicker units are leaving, which means less contested buildings and CQBs.
ReplyDeleteThe rule is kind of problematic to be added in for Shaltari since they are already so mobile via gates. Right now I wouldn't be surprised to see people skip braves all together and just spam these guys.
I think the problem that needs to be addressed is the APCs themselves. Most of them are pretty useless and basically just a tax.
I would argue that APCs could be made viable by adding some sort of extra feature to them. For example.
DeleteBear APC
Medivac fascilities. "Heal" d6 dp from a damaged squad if it ends its activation in the bear.
The resistance Jacksons alrteady have some options with regarsds to this with their CQB enhancing abilities. This could probably be exploited further.
I like the hoard rule, play for 6-12 months and change it again if needed. Will 4 sure add apc back to the game. Does FiretrUCK PHR, but who cares, they have valks/medusa/sirens. Hurts resistance a little, but maybe drills disgorging 3-4 base squads will come into vogue or buses w/ 3 units.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they won't mind, they Stealth Missiles for FiretrUCK's sake!
DeletePersonally I dislike the luck factor when it comes to victory points. Having the luck factor for shooting and damaging is fine, but rolling for victory doesn't seem right to me. Don't know if there is a better way, Have wondered if rather then rolling there was a fixed time to search. So after that time if you still had troops there they found the objective. By having more squads and/ or larger squads would reduce the search time, allowing you to find the objective earlier. So a player could flood a building with troops to find it quicker. You would have to decide when building army lists how many troops you would need and also how many buildings you would enter. It has it flaws I suspect.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the Pungari, do they provide a logistic issue for a Shaltari player? How may can fit in a haven? will moving them from building to building mean more fine gates will be required?
Pungari are .5 FM, so 4 fit in a Haven or Spirit.
DeleteYou do have a point with the luck factor coming into play with objectives, and there are alternative routes to fix it but they will require wholesale changes. I wouldn't expect them to change until V2, if they change at all.
Yeah, I agree. I have been rolling abysmally when searching the last few games. That makes me want to change it. Perhaps base the the search by DP. Each DP contributes to a cumulative sum which when it reaches the original DP of the structure activates the objective. Perhaps make it it building Dp * 1.5.
DeleteFor a while I mused over some type of counter representing the floors to clear. The more bases, the more that can be cleared in an activation. It was intended to remove luck and help encourage APCs. My only qualm is the known timer can be gamed. Sometimes players dive in to risky buildings T5 for a chance of a roll. Removing luck would remove this aspect, which I'm not entirely sure I like.
DeleteHow 'bout if it's based on the buildings original DP? For every full base of troops, roll 1d6 (to represent rooms/floors/cubicles searched) and subtract that from the building DP. Once the building is at zero, you've found the objective. Maybe rolling Boxcars anywhere in the roll means your troops found it that turn.
DeleteI'm fine with the Search rules as they are. To me it's very fluffy that if you roll a 6 the first turn you search, then the "objective" was a VIP sitting in the lobby going, "What took you guys so long to get here?!?!?!", whereas if it takes you to turn 5 or 6 to find it, it was a 27th Century equivalent of a thumb drive sitting in the drawer of some desk in some cubicle on some floor of the building, == Very Hard To Find. I also agree with Crisp Mini (Chris) that sometimes I will dive a squad or two into a building on Turn 5 for a desperate attempt to find an objective in what is likely to be a tottering structure Turn 6.
DeleteSome people I know who have left the game because of randomness such as this did have an issue, although old school Recon was more of an issue for most, but I've never had a problem with this aspect of the game...
The search rolls for objectives, recon, search and so on is the main thing that is cool with DZC! We see same people at the top so so damn random are they not (although Search never see the daylight except in sweden).
DeleteIf you want 40k missions. Play 40k. Using to much focal points is an extremely bad development. As well as not having focalpoints in buildings. The Search roll for objectives is an incredible drawing factor for me and many others who are tired of 40k's old system.
At least my opinion.
/Egge
I don't think anyone is holding up 40k as a shining example of what to do. I didn't even know 40k had missions, last time I played you lined your guys up at one side of the table, moved to the other side of the table shooting everything as you went.
DeleteIt is random because it uses dice. top tier players are good and skilled. tournaments aren't all objective based and the difference in kill points is what elevates them to the top, good players are better at gaining kill point bonuses.
I'm not overly fussed about dicing objectives, I fall on the make your own luck kind of side, it doesn't always work out but for the most part put enough rolls in buildings and you'll get it.
DeleteI have more problem with passing objectives, carrying lots of objectives, or maybe just that they can leave the board at all. Early extraction is just too easy; which perhaps makes the luck thing more painful.
I always thought that if a squad found the objective then they should have to hold it a turn and extract it the next turn. Think it would make it more interesting
DeleteI think this is a great special rule to add to Pungari, and makes them viable and desirable, and as a mostly PHR player (who is now playing UCM, for the most part to give my opponents a break) I'm also fine if this gets applied to v1.2 Legionnaires and Warriors. It makes sense, and is just the incentive UCM & Scourge players need to bring 3 base squads of Troops in APCs for a change. (For Resistance players and Buses, too, for that matter...)
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a typo. But then I thought maybe it is a British thing. ;)
ReplyDeleteYou're almost right. It's a Hawk thing!!!
DeleteAh! So it is a Croydon thing then ;)
DeleteNot so much, it's spelt 'whore'd' in Croydon.
DeleteDan....I am not sure if you even speak english. Even I know what that means and I do not think it have a place outside Team OB. ;)
DeleteAnd the hoard rule can be restricted to the infantry, not scouts or exotics
ReplyDeleteWe have a winner. That solves everything
DeleteThat would be a very simple way of doing it - and I like simple but elegant rules - but thematically it is pretty odd not to let scouts benefit from a rule that applies to cannon fodder conscripts...
DeleteI think the unforeseen consequences of this rule change on the meta have more to do with the amount of time it will take to find objectives, the viability of building demo, the increased utility of units which can jump from building to building (or ferry troops from building to building) more than on list building. Of course list building could change, and quite drastically in some cases, but I that's always a possibility with rules changes.
ReplyDeleteI like diving for objectives - I think it's characterful and interesting - and my main reservation is that objective finding could become too easy for certain armies, and you'd end up losing this element of the game.
If the rule is rolled out to other units and armies, then I'd prefer it to have a minimum DP requirement to a minimum base requirement as a way of avoiding issues with freeriders and the like being better than other men and women at searching.