|
Post by andrea sfiligoi on Mar 30, 2010 15:35:20 GMT 1
After I come back from the States this summer, I plan to give a little time to update SBH.
There are a few clarifications that can be added, a few rules that need to be tweaked, and so on. My plan is to bring the current rulebook up to 48 pages and also include a few of the most used special rules from the supplements.
Those who have a receipt of payment of any earlier edition may require a free PDF copy of the new version.
This update will initially be only to the English edition. It won't be dramatic. A free PDF with all the changes and additions will be made available and translated in all other languages.
I'll also bring the pdf price up to $8 like the other rulebooks. The game is well grounded now so after two years I can start making some little profit from it. As $5, once you take off paypal and the vendor's share and taxes, I almost make no profit at the moment (most of my profit comes from the sale of supplements).
This thread is to ask you, the players, what tweaks and changes you want to see in the new edition of the game. Please do not ask that all the rules be included, that I create a master book with all the specials etc. We already have discussed why this is not viable, and I do not think there is enough demand for a "one book to rule them all" .
If you spot a typo or factual mistake, such as contradictory rules, please mention them here.
Note that I do not plan to change the game a lot -- only to make it clearer where it isn't, to rewrite or add examples, to balance some rules better. A general clean up and update, not a rewite. Ideally, no big changes to the point costs will be needed.
I do not guarantee that all suggested changes will be taken on board but I'll try. Remember that the "vocal" part of any commnity of players (i.e. those who actually and actively post on these boards) are just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by A-Train on Mar 30, 2010 16:08:20 GMT 1
One thing that leaps to my head was that the word "treble" was incorrectly used in place of the proper word "triple" in most instances.
I don't have any other real suggestions, I loved the book as it was, I just recall that typo sticking in my head, and if you're going to be making changes anyway, now would be a good time to fix it, I think.
|
|
|
Post by charger3604bbl on Mar 31, 2010 17:23:13 GMT 1
It may not hurt to go through the points costs for the units in the book to make sure they are correct. I believe I came accross some errors when I was transferring them to my Excel spreadsheet.
Of course I've already done all of this if you are interested in my spreadsheet.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 1, 2010 7:36:53 GMT 1
Clarifications in the campaign system would be nice. I remember not being 100% certain whether the loser got any victory points or not and had to ask around online.
|
|
|
Post by boromirandkermit on Apr 1, 2010 11:03:15 GMT 1
Change nothing! I just bought a hardcopy rulebook mate! Just kidding. In all seriousness though, I think it would be a good idea to have another look at the Undead in general and how lower quality models (4+ and 5+ work in the game at the moment) I don't think its a major problem, but I think its worth looking at to see if we can come up with a consensus. Even the suggestion of making an Elite Undead special to help tweak them a bit might be something to look at. I'll try and have a think and get back to you with any other ideas. Cheers, Ben.
|
|
|
Post by andrea sfiligoi on Apr 1, 2010 12:23:27 GMT 1
Sure Chris, please send the spreadsheet to andreasfiligoi@gmail.com
About lower Q troops -- I think the balance problem comes from the way people compose their warbands. No matter how many point tweaks we do (an easy fix would be, dunno, any model worth less than X points gets a discount of 10% if you buy more than one, stuff like this) the variables are simply too many. Either we came up with restricted lists a la warhammer, which is a direction that I don't want to go but could be used for tournaments, or there will always be warbands that do not work.
The cleanest way of differentiating between rank and file undead and superior ones is simply to state that undead personalities are superior and therefore immune to this and that.
|
|
|
Post by andrea sfiligoi on Apr 1, 2010 12:25:40 GMT 1
One month before doing the new edition, I will temporarily retire the print copies from the shops so I'm sure people don't buy a print copy of the old edition.
No matter how I do this, there will always be someone who gets annoyed because he just bought it... so at least I'll try to give a decent advance warning.
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 1, 2010 17:06:48 GMT 1
Problems with low quality troops aren't with the points but with their performance. More guys would make them even worse. =) I'm typing up a separate thread for this discussion though and will link it here.
I have another suggestion. It's actually a rules tweak, so might not be appreciated though. =) It's regarding direction of routing, when a model breaks and flees. It doesn't make sense to flee towards the closest table edge if it's cut off by opponents. Picture this: My models are all on my opponent's half of the table. The closest table edge is the one he deployed on. His troops are arranged in a line, as are mine. If one of my models break, it will flee towards my opponent's table edge - through his models. Why?! It doesn't make sense at all. I see why from a rules perspective, as a fleeing model always rally if he survives breaking and fleeing. Just fleeing towards my table edge would remove some of the negative effects of fleeing.
My suggestiong (and how I will house rule it) is that routing works exactly like the transfix effect. It's a state that needs to be broken. Until the fleeing state is removed (by two successes, just as transfix) the model is fleeing (with three activations) towards the nearest table edge in a straight line, swerving only to avoid impassable terrain or to stay one short away from opponents. If he can not do that, and has to come within a "short" from an opponent, he's destroyed. A fleeing model would always flee the shortest route, not the fastest or safest. Thus we would see more fall damage, more people running into quick sand or flaming lava. =)
This can be expanded to also include pursuit. If an active enemy model comes within a short distance, the fleeing model is also instakilled. I think this would work alot better and be more fun. You'd get more tactical decisions when a model routs. Should you pursue and try to intercept it or hope it runs off the table?
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 2, 2010 7:07:36 GMT 1
Will you do any modifications to "official" stat blocks? There are a few design choices in the basic book that I don't agree with. One example is light human infantry vs heavy human infantry. The latter are more inclined to flee, and even if they are trained to move in armour are less likely to activate. Why have both higher quality and "short move" when it would be sufficient with "short move" to show that heavily armoured troops move slower.
|
|
|
Post by toaster on Apr 4, 2010 4:55:25 GMT 1
Just a small quibble with a profile. The Ratman Assassin profile has both assassin and poison rules, but poison only takes effect if you beat but not kill your opponent and an assassin always kills if he beats his opponent so it's wasted points.
Robert
|
|
|
Post by pentaro on Apr 4, 2010 22:03:51 GMT 1
I love the idea. Some people aren't interested in dungeons, but would like to use some rules from SGD. I think the campaign system needs some rewriting, with some examples and explanations.
|
|
|
Post by andrea sfiligoi on Apr 5, 2010 2:35:02 GMT 1
phreedh I think you are playing the flee movements incorrectly, or at least not the same way I do. You run towards the nearest table edge but you can change your course to stay away from enemies. The only case when you can't is because you are between a terrain feature you can't cross and an enemy, or are so completely surrounded that you'll be anyway destroyed (because you are moving within 1S of an active enemy).
The way morale rules are written works for small tables. On what size of table are you generally playing? on a 3 x 3 in 28mm generally one or two morale failures drive you off the table anyway unless you are right in the centre of the table.
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 6, 2010 14:35:57 GMT 1
Andrea, I'll post a thread on it when I get home - and put up some illustration. Makes it easier to follow what I mean.
Maybe we just need a clarification in the rule book?
|
|
|
Post by henrix on Apr 20, 2010 19:03:36 GMT 1
Will you do any modifications to "official" stat blocks? There are a few design choices in the basic book that I don't agree with. The Quality 6 Blob with Toughness? A perfect waste of good points.
|
|
|
Post by richjones on Apr 20, 2010 22:27:49 GMT 1
Only thing I would change is the morale testing ... in bigger games losing half and leader means if you roll well most will carry on ... we have been toying with once you are at half strength you have to test everytime you lose a figure from then on ... works well in bigger games.
Rich
|
|