WaW Series Rules Revision

Discussion in 'World At War 85 Series' started by Matt Lohse, Jan 20, 2015.

  1. Matt Lohse

    Matt Lohse Editor
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    13
    As I have mentioned recently, I am getting ready to start the process of editing/updating the World at War series rules. The goal is to have a general series rule set that applies to all games/expansions that we can always refer to (rather than see BnB, now see TUS, now see AC, now see the next game). Any rules specific to a module (say special infantry types) can then be put in the special rules/scenario book for that module only. Any rules specific to a scenario will be dealt with by SSRs, as they have been in the past.



    In addition to having a general rule set to refer to, this process is a chance to address rules that led to frequent questions and/or disagreements in interpretation. It also is a chance to consider if there are any rules that need to be revised due to balance issues they create. I have been looking over the rules from the various games/expansions in the series and have a number of clarifications I want to make in order to address questions that frequently arise. Before I start putting pen to paper (or more accurately track change to word document), I wanted to give the WaW community to note rules that they think need clarification or even revision. Likewise, if there are any rules that you think are prone to being exploited in a “gamey” manner or that may need modifications for other reasons, let me know. Once they community had provided input, I will put together a draft of the new rules which will then be run back by the community for at least a second round of comments (and typo/error identification).



    Ideally, I would like this process to happen relatively quickly as it will probably be the rate limiting step for a couple of reprints in the series. As a result, I would request any comments by the end of the day [Pacific Time Zone] on Thursday, January the 29th. Feel free to comment on the LnL Forums, on the WaW series page at CSW, or in any of the WaW Games or Series forum at BGG…. I will follow all three locations.



    During this process, I have a few requests…

    1. When talking about a rule, if you can indicate which game and rule number you are referring to, I would greatly appreciate it as it helps me quickly bring up the rule in question.

    2. Please keep the discussion civil.

    3. Please understand that just because something is mentioned/suggested, that does not mean that it will not automatically be accepted… so please don’t get upset if your suggestion doesn’t make the final cut or if your clarification suggestion isn’t addressed.



    So with all that said, let the commenting begin…
     
  2. Jonathan Nikitas

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    8
    There arent any particular rules that strike me as just really wonky/off the wall, but I do think the rulebook in general could be laid out much better and a lot more examples (Accurate ones at that) given? Once it has been played a few times they settle in, but overall the rules are somewhat hard to learn from out of the box and require learning aids from BGG.

    Im all down for a consolidated rulebook though, everything in one spot. Also major request, AN INDEX! Seriously that would help alot too. :)
     
    brett skinner likes this.
  3. Matt Lohse

    Matt Lohse Editor
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    13
    I assume an index would be possible. Will have to see about that.

    Any particular rules that need examples if we could only add them to a few things?
     
  4. brett skinner

    brett skinner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    1
    could we move the reference to terrain movement costs currently in 5.1 Stacked Units to 5.0 Movement? I was looking it up tonight and couldn't find it, never thought to look in Stacked Units ( assumed that would just be specifics to stacked units - the TEC is used by non-stacks too).
     
  5. Matt Lohse

    Matt Lohse Editor
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    13
    Won't be able to respond until tomorrow night (sorry for the delay, got home late).
     
  6. Matt Lohse

    Matt Lohse Editor
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    13
    Good catch… I will add that to the list to fix.
     
  7. rastamann

    rastamann Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    7
    I've got the America Conquered game to my mailbox a couple of days ago and will have some time to go over the rules tomorrow. I'll try and take notes to give some thoughts afterwards.
     
  8. Matt Lohse

    Matt Lohse Editor
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    13
    Just to keep everyone updated on the rules revision process (in part since it is the rate limiting step for the TUS reprint). I have added/revised everything I think I want to at this point. I have also tweaked many of the examples so that they can be followed even if they refer to a counter or formation not in all modules. I want to look over a hard copy one last time tomorrow night (assuming I have time), at which point I will upload the draft here and a couple of other places for people to look at and to comment on (do new wordings make sense, are there typos, ect). I will then give about a week for comments before I make any revisions and it can go to layout (assuming there are no major issues).

    I do want to apologize that this has taken me longer than I initially expected.
     
  9. rastamann

    rastamann Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    7
    That sounds great!

    I've been reading up on the America Conquered rules and taking some notes:

    • I'd have counter examples in 1.2.1 nomenclature definitions to better illustrate each concept.
    • I've seen at least one instance where the rule is in the example text (morale tests is the case in point - 1.6.) and not in the rule text per se.
    • The targetting table on the back of the rulebook has some color typos - there are a bunch of "No" in the 2 bottom lines (overrun and aircover) which should be in grey but are in green and a "Yes" that is also reversed in its color coding.
    • There are some rules which could change sections (for instance the stacking rule on the HQ's section [1.3.3.] should perhaps be moved to HQ Movement [1.3.3.1.]
    • Mortars and Antiaircraft Units could also be moved to their own subsections [as it is they're part of the vehicles subsection - 1.3.5.x]
    • In sections 1.3.6. and 1.3.7. I'd add a more comprehensive set of examples illustrating their capabilities - I'd also move the Hallowed ground part to 1.3.7.1. instead
    • Perhaps the effects of disruption should be in the Morale Section.
    • To me it seems section 2 - setting up the game - is doing nothing there. Perhaps put it to right before the scenarios?
    • Section 5.2.2. [unloading from transports] should be clearer - can infantry move 1 Movement Factor or 1 hex after unloading? I ask because 5.2.1. has infantry able to move 1 Movement Factor and not a Hex.
    • Section 6 should have a progressive example situation that gradually illustrates what is happening.
    I still have to finish but these are my notes so far (others you've already addressed in BGG).

    Thank you for all your hard work - I look forward to the revised set of rules :D
     
  10. David Heath

    David Heath Administrator
    Staff Member Support Staff

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    919
    HI Everyone

    I just want to thank Matt for all of his hard work. Matt has put a lot of work into making this series the best it can be. We new edition rules will be available as living rules as well.

    David
     
  11. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2013
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    33
    Hi David...what about "Untold Stories" re-print?:rolleyes:...i already own HG and B&B but, as you know, UT is one of the cornerstone games of WaW series (many LOF scenarios and expansions require it) so i would like to get it as soon as it will be available...
     
  12. rastamann

    rastamann Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    7
    I too would very much like to get that one!
     
  13. David Heath

    David Heath Administrator
    Staff Member Support Staff

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    919
    Hi Guys

    A re-print of The Untold Stories is big on our list. As you know we really wanted to update the rules and adjust a lot of items the community been asking for. Most important we want to really make the rules clear and easier for new gamers. As soon as Matt is done and Jeff edits the manual we will make it available as a living rules.

    David
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  14. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2013
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    33
    Very happy to read these news...after a short break, LnLP seems to start off again on the right foot :happy:
     
    #14 Stefano G., Feb 24, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
  15. Pete Maidhof

    Pete Maidhof Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    4
    Suggestion: why no negative effect to Opportunity Fire vs a moving unit. Options could be a -1 Save Number for the target or a +1 To Hit for the firer? I wonder why Mark chose no such effect.
     
  16. rastamann

    rastamann Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    7
    Frankly, I'd prefer that not to be implemented for 2 reasons:

    1) I think there is enough of a penalty in Opportunity Firing already built in --> the fact that you can neither move nor shoot in your previous activation in order to into overwatch

    2) vehicles don't get to duck and zigzag when moving, and aren't doing it in small 5-10 meter bounds, as would be the case with small (section and squad sized) infantry units moving in cover.
     
  17. Pete Maidhof

    Pete Maidhof Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    4
    Good rationale both here and on CSW. Was just a thought. Thanks very much.
     
  18. rastamann

    rastamann Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    7
    I don't follow CSW, so wasn't the one who posted there but it was a good suggestion and I didn't mean my post to come across hostile. I apologize if it did! I simply meant to state the reasons I'd prefer it not to go through.
     
    Pete Maidhof likes this.
  19. Matt Lohse

    Matt Lohse Editor
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    13
    Crossposting this from CSW...

    I actually hadn't though about this topic (modifiers when firing on moving targets) before. All sort of interesting points made by people on it.

    Just thinking about implementation of something like that, it would probably need to be a mod to the to hit value (presumably a +1) rather than the to save value or it gets into the variance issues Peter mentioned where tanks benefit a lot more than other unit types. I assume we would ignore how fast units are moving as accounting for that would be more of a pain to deal with.

    My initial response would be somewhat hesitant about adding something like it, if just from the point of avoiding having another modifier for people to keep track of (my default is to err on the side of simplicity in this system).

    But it is an interesting question, one I do want to think about a bit more and to see what everyone thinks on it.
     
  20. Pete Maidhof

    Pete Maidhof Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    4

Share This Page