rubber-police

Author Topic: The New BROE  (Read 2469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
The New BROE
« on: April 21, 2011, 08:18:21 PM »
I am steadily working my way through the Basic Rules of Engagement to have a re-release by the end of the summer.  I worked off the Blue Box but there are some changes that I am considering.

Leadership has its own thread that I will continue to post to until it all makes sense.

Movement

Is not being allowed to move through friendly figures too constraining or is it a constraint that makes the game more interesting?

Diagonal Rule

I can’t say that D&D and other rules ripped off this idea because it is basic mathematics, but some do it different.  In LOS it is 2 movement for every odd diagonal while for D&D and such it is only one move/range for the first diagonal and then 2 for each even diagonal.  Is it a severe distinction?  Should we get with the program to be consistent with other game sets?  Is there a balance problem for that range?

Desperation fire is gone and replaced with roll upgrades as the standard.

Snap firing could be standard. Kneeling should not simply due to the counter/bookkeeping issue. Incline turns disrupt balance when you can cover two corridors simultaneously.

Your thoughts, please


Offline Kindred

  • Overlord
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
    • Turtle Shell Productions
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2011, 09:36:58 PM »
I agree with "no move through figures, even friendly" it requires thought and tactical movement to plan. (good thing, IMO)


DND actually got rid of the 1-2-1 movement for diagonals with 4th ed.   but I think 1 for odd, 2 for even step diagonals makes sense and may be simpler for people to remember.

Offline sgibson260

  • Nightmare
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2011, 10:15:31 PM »

Movement

Is not being allowed to move through friendly figures too constraining or is it a constraint that makes the game more interesting?


We house rule this to allow moving through, but all movement types (turning, kneeling, moving out of the square) cost double the MP's when you are in a square with another figure.  You also need to have enough movement to leave the square.

We do not generally have shooting into or out of a double stacked square, so I don't remember how we dealt with this.

Regards,
Steve Gibson

Offline Dave Chase

  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2011, 10:22:12 PM »
Well if you want a slightly different take, when we did MageKnight Dungeons, we decided to keep the rules simple and consistent.

Turning had no cost, but it took 1 Movement Point (MP) to more forward a square unless that square had a number in it. That number represented how many MP's it took to enter that square. A figure could always move one square on it's turn no matter how many MP's it had left unless it started the turn with 0 MP's.

To move diagonally, it cost +1MP above normal movement. Ie. if it would normally take only 1 MP to move into the square, to move into it diagonally, it now took 2. If the square normally took 4 MP's to move into, it now took 5 MP's do move into it diagonally.

The only typical question that arises when attempting to move diagonally using the 1-2-1-2 etc is;
Does it matter from turn to turn if one continues to move diagonally?
Ie. a figure moves 3 squares diagonally 1-2-1 for a total of 4 MP's. Next turn does it cost the figure 2 MP's to continue moving diagonally?

I ask because if you are going to get realistic, the answer is yes. If you are trying to keep the night mare ;) of tracking things low, the answer is no.

Or you can make each diagonally move the same cost no matter what.

Dave Chase
Freedom is the right to speak your mind.

It is also the right to walk away from those you don't want to listen to.

Offline Dave Chase

  • Succubot
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2011, 10:31:01 PM »
As for moving through friendly figures (in LOS or restrictive terrain in Planetstorm) the we never allowed it.
With the kneeling rule and optional laydown rule we never bothered.

But once a desperate player stated he wanted to Jump over (no jump jets) a prone figure to run away from the enemy.
After a brief discussion, we allowed him to attempt the movement (Jump) d6 roll, had to make 6, got a +1 for every 3 full squares of straight movement made before the jump. If successful the figure would end up in front of the prone figure for 2 extra MP's.

He ran the figure (move 4 now move 8 ), moved the figure straight for 4 squares (+1), made the jump (2 MPs) and then moved 2 more squares.
The next figure he attempted the same, moved 5 squares (+1), and failed the Jump (still cost 2 movement points) and now he and the prone figure were entangled. We decided that it took twice the movement points for both figures to become un-entangled. Neither one could fire, but could attempt to defend HtH if attacked at -2.

Also, no other figures could attempt to jump over the entangled figures.

Dave Chase
Freedom is the right to speak your mind.

It is also the right to walk away from those you don't want to listen to.

Offline SgtHulka

  • Predator
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2011, 09:52:01 AM »
Diagonal Rule

I can’t say that D&D and other rules ripped off this idea because it is basic mathematics, but some do it different.  In LOS it is 2 movement for every odd diagonal while for D&D and such it is only one move/range for the first diagonal and then 2 for each even diagonal.  Is it a severe distinction?  Should we get with the program to be consistent with other game sets?  Is there a balance problem for that range?

D&D's 1-2-1 was ridiculous. I always moved one diagonal to gain ground and game the system. Soon everyone I was playing with did the same thing, including the monsters. The 2-1-2 system is far superior. Yes, one-half extra space for free is meaningful in games like this.

Kneeling should be a core rule, imho. I get what  you're saying about needing more counters, but without being able to move through figures (a good rule, imo) you need some way to allow two figures to cover the same corridor. And how about new kneeling sculpts of figures instead of counters? =)

I was reading through Rules of Engagement last night and I feel a need to criticize its design. Coming back to these rules after so many years (when I bought RoE I was already a LoS fanatic and knew the rules backwards and forwards) I suddenly saw flaws in its presentation. There is a lot of information presented in that book with absolutely no context. For example, all the Unit designs are presented first, before you have any clue as to how to play the game or what the numbers mean. Then, in the rules proper, Leadership is introduced right after initiative. The leadership rules reference a bunch of things that, once again, haven't been introduced yet. Even the basic concept of actions haven't been introduced, so when the rules say you can use leadership to perform actions, it's meaningless.

When I first picked up Rules of Engagement I valued it because it was a concise booklet that put the most important official rules in one place and had the most recent UPVs. It was a sort of mini-compendium. But looking at it from the perspective of a "newbie", I can see how it would be a very frustrating read.

Offline SgtHulka

  • Predator
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2011, 10:15:34 AM »
In continuing to read ROE, I discovered another inconsistency and/or something I've always played wrong. I've always assumed that the diagonal rule system wasn't just for movement; it was also how you determined range.

On example 1 of spread fire, page 33, that assumption is proven wrong. After dispatching robot 2, the example states Private Romano may dispatch either Robots 3 or 4 with her final spreadfire die. But robot 4 is at a diagonal from robot 2. Therefore, if the 2-1-2 diagonal rule was consistant, Romano would actually lose a die if she wanted to use her final spreadfire on 4 (since it's technically two squares away from Robot 3, not 1).

My preference would be that whatever you choose for diagonals, you make it consistent throughout the rules for ranges and movement. This probably has an effect on grenade scatter, which suggests maybe you should change to the inferior 1-2-1 rule.

Offline YojimboUsaka

  • Nightmare
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2011, 04:49:11 AM »
We played that small figures (gremlins, runaways) could move through other small figures.  When we started to include NPI we just stated that any powered infantry or large figure blocked movement to keep things simple.  Later I just gave units the 'bulky' trait which meant other units could not move through them, they could not go prone and got less of a cover bonus from cornering and snap fire.

I also went to a d12 type system to help put some more granularity into the modifiers.  It started to become more of an RPG with the level of detail though.

Charles

Offline grendeljd

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Mk III Assault Fiend
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
    • My Deviantart Gallery
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2011, 10:40:06 AM »
Going off other comments about rules abuse here, it sounds like keeping the 2-1-2 diagonal rule would be the best idea.

I think Kneeling is such a simple rule to remember and so effective to use it could be part of the standard RoE... its not much of an extra bookkeeping issue to me.

Moving through friendly fig's, snap firing & incline turns seem more suited as optional for those who want to try them. Incline turns were great, by the way, exactly for covering two corridors! I never though it was unbalancing.
I hate people generally, but I like them specifically - John Malkovich

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2011, 05:35:01 PM »
The diagonal rule was intended to work with both movement and ranges.  In terms of ranges, 2-1-2 vs 1-2-1 was almost never an issue.  However, it made a noticeable difference for movment when you were in the large room or a 3 wide corridor. 

But the diagonal rule was specifically not applied to spread fire because most weapons only have a 2 ROF so it was useless to attack two figs kitty corner from each other.  One fix would be to allow more spread.  Standard military spacing is 5m (2-1/2") much as you wouldn't think so from basically any war movie ever made (or any sci fi battle art).  So maybe spread fire could follow the diagonal rule but you only lose a die for every second square (which reinforces a 3" spacing). But leaving only one space between you and your compadre won't save you from spread fire.

Offline sgibson260

  • Nightmare
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2011, 08:20:38 AM »
The diagonal rule was intended to work with both movement and ranges.  In terms of ranges, 2-1-2 vs 1-2-1 was almost never an issue.  However, it made a noticeable difference for movment when you were in the large room or a 3 wide corridor. 

But the diagonal rule was specifically not applied to spread fire because most weapons only have a 2 ROF so it was useless to attack two figs kitty corner from each other.  One fix would be to allow more spread.  Standard military spacing is 5m (2-1/2") much as you wouldn't think so from basically any war movie ever made (or any sci fi battle art).  So maybe spread fire could follow the diagonal rule but you only lose a die for every second square (which reinforces a 3" spacing). But leaving only one space between you and your compadre won't save you from spread fire.

Wow.  We have always played that you couldn't spread fire into two diagonal squares without discarding an extra die.  I had no idea that there was an exception to the standard rule of diagonals for spread fire.

I would try very hard to avoid making special exceptions to the official rules to reproduce a desired game effect that 'seems right.'  You can end up with Advanced Squad Leader if you go down that road.  (well, not really, but you know what I mean)

Steve Gibson

Offline SgtHulka

  • Predator
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2011, 09:36:15 AM »
I completely agree with Steve. I had never played that you could spread fire diagonally without losing a die, and only just noticed I had been playing wrong when I re-read the ROE. Having now finished re-reading the ROE, I see that, as you say, spread-fire is the only exception to the diagonal rule. Even K-Pulse grenade kill numbers seem to follow the diagonal rule.

I've started browsing back through Planetstorm...well I'll start another thread for that.

Offline Clark

  • Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
Re: The New BROE
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2011, 02:53:34 PM »
I hear what you are saying about making exceptions. What do you think of a 2" spread rule rather than to adjacent squares?