Conflict of Heroes

Lagduf wrote:

Hey Nick, my "house rule" is just your suggested rules change as you posted here:

www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/345645

It's only a "house rule" right now because it's not printed in the rulebook yet

Anyway, I agree with you on that change, and your second proposed rule change as well.

Ha! Yeah, we ditched those ideas eventually, mostly because it creates situations where a tank with a damaged gun becomes more effective attacking certain targets. (Ex: An 8 blue, 3 red tank is more effective attacking infantry once it loses its blue value from a damage chit.) We currently trying to come up with situations where you'll want to use the red FP more instead of mandating anything.

Nick Warcholak wrote:

Lagduf wrote:

Hey Nick, my "house rule" is just your suggested rules change as you posted here:

www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/345645

It's only a "house rule" right now because it's not printed in the rulebook yet

Anyway, I agree with you on that change, and your second proposed rule change as well.

Ha! Yeah, we ditched those ideas eventually, mostly because it creates situations where a tank with a damaged gun becomes more effective attacking certain targets. (Ex: An 8 blue, 3 red tank is more effective attacking infantry once it loses its blue value from a damage chit.) We currently trying to come up with situations where you'll want to use the red FP more instead of mandating anything.

Ha! I didn't even think of that.

I'll be interested to see what you guys come up with.

Are you leaning towards a rules change or simply rethinking of how tanks FP values (Red/Blue) are assigned.

I wasn't thinking the Blue FP valued halved represented HE rounds. Rather I thought the RED FP itself was the HE round. Interesting. I like it.

What, if anything, were you thinking about RED FP and close combat for Guns?

Schweig! wrote:

Lagduf wrote:

Schweig! wrote:

Lagduf wrote:

Unit facing: nice addition really. It does away with complicated armor rules for facings and makes "flanking" foot units a possibility (again, without adding complicated rules - I'm thinking about ASL's "surrounded" rule here...).

Have you played Up Front?

Nope.

I'd love to have someone teach it to me though.

I'll buy the MMP reprint if that ever materializes.

Basically to surround the enemy you have to move from a relative range of 5 to an adjacent enemy target group forward to relative range 4 and then you need to play a movement card in the sideways mode (lateral group transfer), while the enemy group has still one of your own groups directly opposing them on the other side. Pretty simple, eh?

I'm sure it all makes sense once you know what you're doing

Lagduf wrote:

Are you leaning towards a rules change or simply rethinking of how tanks FP values (Red/Blue) are assigned.

I wasn't thinking the Blue FP valued halved represented HE rounds. Rather I thought the RED FP itself was the HE round. Interesting. I like it.

What, if anything, were you thinking about RED FP and close combat for Guns?

Actually, I misrepresented what the values are supposed to reflect in a late edit to the rules. Blue is armor-piercing, half-blue high explosive, and red machine guns, crew weapons, and the like (also, sometimes special up close defense). This will be clear in the update.

We won't change how the values are assigned. Like I said, they reflect actual capabilities within the system Uwe designed. We just have to figure out how to make better use of some of them. We're thinking about requiring the use of red FP by guns and tanks in CC only. In CC, units are right on top of each other. Typically, tanks would rely on their MGs to take out infantry that were close. Guns wouldn't be able to adjust quickly enough to attack enemies right no top of them. However, some of them had crews as large as regular squads.

We've tried to stay away from exception rules like this, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

Nick Warcholak wrote:

Lagduf wrote:

Are you leaning towards a rules change or simply rethinking of how tanks FP values (Red/Blue) are assigned.

I wasn't thinking the Blue FP valued halved represented HE rounds. Rather I thought the RED FP itself was the HE round. Interesting. I like it.

What, if anything, were you thinking about RED FP and close combat for Guns?

Actually, I misrepresented what the values are supposed to reflect in a late edit to the rules. Blue is armor-piercing, half-blue high explosive, and red machine guns, crew weapons, and the like (also, sometimes special up close defense). This will be clear in the update.

We won't change how the values are assigned. Like I said, they reflect actual capabilities within the system Uwe designed. We just have to figure out how to make better use of some of them. We're thinking about requiring the use of red FP by guns and tanks in CC only. In CC, units are right on top of each other. Typically, tanks would rely on their MGs to take out infantry that were close. Guns wouldn't be able to adjust quickly enough to attack enemies right no top of them. However, some of them had crews as large as regular squads.

We've tried to stay away from exception rules like this, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

That sounds like a good fix, I think.

I understand the desire to stay away from exceptions - however, I don't think this one pertaining to CC will be too big a deal (though ultimately I understand ideally there would be NO exceptions for ease of play) especially given that Squads and MGs/Guns already have exceptions in CC.

Thanks so much for the replies Nick.