|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 1, 2021 19:41:24 GMT
|
|
zhoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 254
|
Post by zhoe on Jan 2, 2021 7:36:37 GMT
falling corvass looks compilcated
|
|
|
Post by lordazathoth on Jan 17, 2021 3:27:09 GMT
Having read all of the Fallen Corvis documents through in detail several times, and taking a couple of weeks to really digest them and analyze them, I'd like to share my thoughts.
First of all, thank you undertaking this massive effort! The Iron Kingdoms needs a good skirmish campaign game, and Company of Iron didn't deliver the goods, but I hope Fallen Corvis can pick up the baton and run with it!
Before I begin, I should share my personal mini gaming background for context:
1) I love small scale skirmish games, and started playing them way back in the 1990's with Warzone 1st edition. We always played at very low point values, which is also why I love Brawlmachine so much. We also focused on story-driven driven campaign play.
2) I've never liked Warhammer 40k. Too much customization on too many models at such a high scale is hard to remember. For the same reason I never invested in Warzone Resurrection. I found it unwieldy to include so much customization when playing games that field dozens of models.
3) Conversely, I wound up invited to a Necromunda campaign at a college frat house in the 90's (yeah, coolest frat ever) that I absolutely loved. I enjoyed the campaign structure and growth of individual characters. Having only a half dozen models made them all stand out and feel unique, and customization and character growth made sense at that size.
So then came Company of Iron, and I was super excited to dust off those models I hadn't used in a while.
Steps in the right direction:
- Alternating model activations
- Asymmetrical scenarios that attempted to be narrative driven
- Including a system (the cards) that allowed a limited but replenishing resource for improving model performance
Missteps:
- The injury system - there's definitely a need to reduce lethality in a low model count game, but this was swingy and random and not the right solution
- The injury system and scenario design led to quantity of models being superior to quality of models, leaving many models on the shelf and reducing list-building options
- The game was too reliant on using existing model cards and coming up with translations for abilities that didn't fit, instead of rebuilding model stats from the ground up.
Okay, so let's talk about Fallen Corvis.
Things it does right:
- The setting. No really. I actually didn't care for the turn the metaplot took with Oblivion. I was enjoying the political intrigue with Cygnar, Llael, and Khador, and I feel that was ruined when the appearance of archons and demons pushed the setting past a point of no return. I don't like Warcaster, and I also don't like Riot Quest. And yet the Hengehold Scroll tweets were fun to read, and so is the intro to the Magestrophic Explosion scenario. Fallen Corvis is a perfect setting for a bunch of small warbands trying to scrape by and survive, not knowing if the rest of the world did. And it allows the setting and game mechanics to merge together in a super interesting way with the Infernal contracts. Bravo!
- The damage rules. Beat armor, deal 1 damage. Beat it by 5 or more, 2 damage. No boost on charging warrior models. Super simple, clean, and efficient. I absolutely love it. It may need to be clarified that 2 damage is the max and it is not "+1 damage per 5 points over armor", though.
- The injury deck. I love the idea of mental trauma that forces certain behavior. "Poor Coping Mechanism" may be my favorite. There's probably room for tweaking some of the cards and adding more, but the concept is sound and looks great.
- Gear slots. Nothing fancy, but it's a necessary bit of bookkeeping.
So, here's where I start the constructive criticism, and it's really just one point, although a large one.
You're running into the same issue as Company of Iron - trying to use a model's existing Warmachine card stats for a skirmish game. There's just too much of a difference between a large scale game that activates one army at a time vs. a low model count game that activates one model at a time. You'll also be playing catch-up every CID to check balance.
If I may, I'd like to offer an alternative:
Don't use the Warmachine cards at all. Let every member of the warband be unique and customized. Create a small number of templates for each faction. Those templates will be based on the existing model cards and will determine starting stats, starting abilities, and which abilities are ultimately available for purchase. Buying combinations of weapons and abilities you can recreate the models you have or have customized.
This will not only reduce bookkeeping and balancing for you, but also allow you to introduce abilities specific to this game. For example, imagine adding abilities that improve climbing, produce an additional leadership point each turn, or allow a model to interact with loot from an extra inch away. You can also combine Shield Wall, Defensive Line, etc. into a single effect to maintain simplicity.
As these models survive engagements, they can use experience to unlock new abilities available to their template or increase their stats (including wounds).
In addition to the models in your warband created from templates, you can add specialists. Only one specialist can be fielded at a time, but you can have multiples in reserve. For example, in Cryx these would be your Skarlocks, Pistol Wraiths, Necrotechs, Necrosurgeons, Brute Thralls, etc.
As an example of what I am talking about, below is a rough idea of what Cryx may have for available templates: Bane, Black Ogrun, Blighted Trollkin, Satyxis, and Scharde Pirate (work in progress, nothing locked in).
- Banes start with Spd 5, Str 7, Mat 6, Rat 4, Def 12, Arm 16, Cmd 7, Wounds 5, and the Undead ability. Available abilities to purchase with advancements are Dark Shroud, Ghostly, Rise, Tough, Wall of Steel, and Vengeance. Leaders may also unlock Rapid Strike and Weapon Master
- Black Ogurn start with Spd 6, Str 9, Mat 6, Rat 5, Def 13, Arm 15, Cmd 7, Wounds 5, and the Tough ability. Available abilities to purchase with advancements are Combined Fire, Curse (Cryx Bonejack), Dismantle, Gang, and Repair (2). Combined Fire could be a Fallen Corvis replacement for Combined Ranged attack, allowing +1 to hit a target that was already attacked by another friendly model this round.
- Blighted Trollkin start with Spd 5, Str 7, Mat 7, Rat 5, Def 12, Arm 16, Cmd 7, Wounds 5, and the Tough ability. Available abilities to purchase with advancements are Bloodthirst, Overtake, Relentless Charge, Steady, Unyielding, and Vengeance. Leaders may also unlock Beserk and Weapon Master.
- Satyxis start with Spd 6, Str 5, Mat 6, Rat 6, Def 14, Arm 12, Cmd 7, Wounds 5, and a Horns melee attack (range 0.5", Pow 3, Crit Knockdown). Available abilities to purchase with advancements are Attack Type (choose one: Black Penny, Ghost Shot, Heart Seeker), Dodge, Gang, Gunfighter, and Prowl. Leaders may also unlock Pathfinder, Rapid Strike, Sprint, and Weapon Master.
- Scharde Pirates start with Spd 6, Str 6, Mat 5, Rat 5, Def 13, Arm 11, Cmd 7, Wounds 3, and the Tough ability. Available abilities to purchase with advancements are Assault and Gang. Wait, only two? Well, only two inspired from their Warmachine card. This is a perfect template to add custom abilities specific to Fallen Corvis. How about Deckhand, which triples instead of doubles strength when Climbing Up and Jumping Across, or Pilfer, which adds adds 1" to the range a model can interract with loot. This makes these model templates that are weaker in combat useful for scenarios.
It might even be fun to randomly roll one ability on character creation. This would prevent everyone from taking the ability they think is best and keep characters distinct.
Similar templates could be created for other factions, like Khador having templates for Iron Fangs, Greylords, Kayazy, Man-O-War, and Winter Guard, with Doomreavers and Widowmakers as specialists.
Anyway, just my two cents, but I wanted to respectfully respond with some feedback after all the work you've done. Again, I appreciate your efforts!
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Jan 19, 2021 20:16:39 GMT
lordazathothThank you very much for your detailed critique. I agree that, ideally, we could make default profiles and let people customize like made but there are a number of reasons we opted to go the direction we did. 1) Built in Warroom support for most models is extremely pleasant. 2) The PP parts store isn't up and running and probably won't be for a long time, which makes buying individual models for this really difficult unless you're willing to wreck a model and not have a tournament legal ten person unit any longer. 3) Really, this is just me developing the game. Bret and Chandler help playtest, but I'm the one coming up with all of the rules, all of the systems, and all of the model profiles. Using default ones saves me hundreds of hours, and makes this project actually possible. Maybe if 2 and 3 were to change, I could look at moving to a full customization version in the future, but for *now* I am more focused on the game play mechanics being good
|
|