Why take a Veteran crew instead of a Large Crew?

[mkcontra]

It's a 1:1 ratio. The confusion stems from the fact that the language is more or less shared between AEWWII and Bounty. Some WWII Detachment types (Infantry, Command, etc.) have 2 options instead of 1. You have to look at the specific Option section for each detachment. It just so happens that the currently available detachment types for Bounty all have 1.

[gregx999]

Yeah, under the descriptions of Two-Man, Vet, Std, and Large, under the "Options" heading, they ALL say "Players have the option of removing one unit selection and exchange it for..." (emphasis mine)

This would seem to point to only one such "swap" able to be made. I was thinking exactly what mkcontra said, maybe the wording is for other crew types that may have more than one option.

Also...

I didn't notice about all the crew types adding up to 11 (actions + tricks) before - good catch. But then swapping a slot for a Hero upgrade messes that up, as you'll loose the actions to gain an extra hero. And if you count Hero upgrades into the "point" system, then all crews have 12 points except Two-man crews have 13 (since they can have 2 heros from the start).

[varagon]

It's the only explanation I could think of that differs than what was being construed. By no means do I know what I'm talking about as I'm still new to the game, but it's simply another way to take meaning from the sentence structure.

[dijit80]

Sept 13, 2010 21:11:33 GMT -5 gregx999 said:

I didn't notice about all the crew types adding up to 11 (actions + tricks) before - good catch. But then swapping a slot for a Hero upgrade messes that up, as you'll loose the actions to gain an extra hero. And if you count Hero upgrades into the "point" system, then all crews have 12 points except Two-man crews have 13 (since they can have 2 heros from the start).

Good point I hadn't thought of putting the heroes into the equation. But two man crews are underpowered for anything other than slaughtering the enemy.
Duncan

[gregx999]

Using the "points" system (actions + heros + tricks), it would seem quite feasible to "grow" (or shrink) a game just by using 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, etc. "points". Is there any reason I've overlooked why this wouldn't work?

[dijit80]

Well troops loose drive quite quickly meaning that if you did that, then at larger games the crews would break relatively much quicker.
Duncan

[gregx999]

Ah, yes, good point. Drive-loss due to killed or routing friendly units - it doesn't matter how many unit your crew starts with, if 3 are routing, all other units get -3 DR. That's certainly a negative - even for Large Crews (built with existing rules).

Too bad there's no "cannon fodder" ability - other units wouldn't care if they're routing or destroyed.

Or a rule whereby elite and vet units can ignore routing or destroyed green or regular units. But maybe that starts to get too complex.

[varagon]

Sept 14, 2010 17:16:57 GMT -5 gregx999 said:

Too bad there's no "cannon fodder" ability - other units wouldn't care if they're routing or destroyed.

Or a rule whereby elite and vet units can ignore routing or destroyed green or regular units. But maybe that starts to get too complex.

I'd say make your own rule! Call it a dirty trick or give it as an option to Elite's and Veterans in some cases.

I'd also hazard a guess that these type of rules can be added into later expansions quite easily.

[Cilionelle]

There is an ability like that at the moment, it's called Apathetic, and it is an option for human crews...

[abbysdad]

Wow. A lot of good discussion going on in this and a few other threads. Here's some Nyquil induced thoughts on them from sick-ville, pa.

First, there is a "cannon-fodder" type ability. Or rather, there will be. The same that there is in WW2: suicide trooper. Coming soon to an OTW near you. And then there is that cold-blooded ability that the Black Site gangers can have, they get better the more people around them die

As for the points vs. the current slots...that will always be a matter of opinion. So here are some of mine.

Some of the things you mention are concerns, the balance of a two man crew in a scenario that requires more than just killing the other guy is tricky. I think some of the ideas in the next book will be very interesting for you guys to try out with that one. But the bigger point, why not points? Couldn't we do that? Hasn't that already been done by associating some "value" to the dirty tricks, hero choices and different units?

Sure, yes. It could be done.

But I wouldn't want to do it that way. I don't think Rob or Clint would either. Maybe they'll chime in here too.

The biggest reason, again in my opinion, is that the medium of the detachment/crew building system changes how people think about table top games and making lists.

I liked 40K for a long time. I still do. But the method of picking your list with points makes people go at a list at such a granular level it kills the game for me. "I have three points left, do I take frag grenades and a CC weapon or krak grenades?" Now, people can be kitted out for certain tasks in real life too, but at that level in a game, it turns into a min/max fest. I just don't think that is fun.

By limiting the choices to slots, and taking away the points values, you have to look at a detachment, and a battleplan, as a whole. You don't get lost in the trees; you see the forest. The same with Bounty. You don't see trooper A, you see Jenkins, who is part of a support squad in Kyle's Irregulars in the Union Guard.

The result is that people do things differently and play differently and treat the game differently. I think too, that you treat it more like a real thing, picking units with what they've got to do the best job they can.

I think people are starting to find that applies in Warmachine and Hordes Mk II now as well. With the Warjack points and Beast points, you make lists differently, you do things differently, and you can have a lot of fun doing different things you wouldn't have done before. That is reinforced by reducing the point values for the different units in Warmachine/Hordes Mk II now too.

I like that the detachment system in AE is different. I like the different challenge of putting together units with options instead of points. I do believe that it makes the game, and the experience of the game, very different from the other options out there right now.

Please keep posting ideas and comments and critiques on this topic. When the medicine fog lifts, I will read them. I know Clint and Rob will too.

All the best (cough, cough),

Chris

P.S. Rules for multiple crews (2, 3, 4, 5, 6...) are coming, we think you'll like them and it will make it very interesting to take more than one crew at the same time.

[mrharold]

Thanks for chiming in... and I agree, I quite like this system, much easier than math too! And I am enjoying hearing everyone's opinions...

So does that mean that each crew template can only change one unit selection around?

[Darkson]

Points vs No Points:
This was the great beast that Matthew and I had to overcome from the start. I had my mind set on No Points asI was tired of sitting down an hour or two before a game to number crunch. We were also told that it was much harder to do a No points game and we should just stick to what has been done. We both thought "To hell with that" and dove in head first to the No Points system we have today.

Does it always work? No as players come up with crazy combos that we never even though of in the year and a half we did playtesting AE and than the extra year that went into Bounty.

But after it is all said and done the game is still very balanced and works well (and we still have fun playing it and making new units, background, fluff and miniatures).

[dijit80]

I have to agree with you guys. The no points system is very nice. I would say you guys hit the nail on the head with Bounty, maybe less so in AE-WWII, but it definately works very well in Bounty. My point with the number of AP in each crew was simply that it shows that each crew is pretty much balanced. However together with the quite innovative mission system it makes each game very interesting, because no one crew can be sure to be a take-all-comers-and-wipe-the-floor-with-them crew. As said 2man crews are very nasty when it comes down to annihilating the enemy, but fail miserably in any mission that doesn't include that (Foraging - I'm looking at you!).
So well done chaps!

(PS - any news as to when we can see some of all the bits and bobs you guys keep talking about?)

Duncan

[gregx999]

I have no idea how many game rules I own (most I've never even played), and I have to say I was very impressed with the creativity of the "no-points" system in AE-B. It's the first time I've ever seen something that was both "pointless" (hehehe) AND balanced. All the other pointless rules I have seen just leave balance up the game-master or whoever writes the scenario.

So kudos on that!

But as a self-avowed rules-tinkerer, I'm always fascinated with the "under the hood" stuff. So realizing that the no-points systems was kind-of using a very rough point system was an "ah-ha" moment for me. And once I have one of those moments, I can start to get carried away.

I agree with abbysdad totally - this system is different, and (IMHO) in a very good way! I knew exactly what you meant when you wrote: "I have three points left, do I take frag grenades and a CC weapon or krak grenades?" I'm quite tired of that sort of thing as well.

So, carry on! And get those OTWs and new books out!!

Greg

[Darkson]

Thanks Greg for the props. We Did a TON of playtesting to make sure both AE-WWII and Bounty were balanced. We ran with something new that we were told would not work or be fair. This is a game system we want to play and the fact that other players enjoy the game as well makes it even better.

So please enjoy a few "Pointless" games this weekend.

Cheers,
Robert

Now to nail down a solo pointless system.