Recommend
13 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Fortress America» Forums » News

Subject: Rule Book released rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Todd Warnken
United States
Harrison
Ohio
flag msg tools
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
badge
Happy grandfather!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Rules of War:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3291
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott M.
United States
Winter Springs
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ohh shit..wow
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Shaw
United States
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Haven't read them, but for those who have, what are the differences that you can see between the original and the new?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dawson
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This should be released soon, then. I never played the original, but the rulebook gave me a first look at the new minis, and I have to say they look pretty awesome. B2-style monowing planes for the bombers, two-piece helicopters, THREE-piece lasers, and individual city minis. This game looks like a heck of a fun time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon W
United States
Aurora
CO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GreyLord wrote:
Haven't read them, but for those who have, what are the differences that you can see between the original and the new?

Haven't done a thorough read yet, but the "transport" ability of mobile units is one change (each mobile can carry one infantry one space during the first move phase). It also looks like they've cleaned up the "lone bomber" rules.

What I'm really interested in seeing are the partisan cards. The ones I've seen so far are reprints, except that they carry the curious phrase "then discard this card", which implies there may be cards that don't get discarded.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan "Spartan Spawn, Sworn, Raised for Warring!"
United States
Sellersburg
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
badge
"By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dawson_osu wrote:
This should be released soon, then. I never played the original, but the rulebook gave me a first look at the new minis, and I have to say they look pretty awesome. B2-style monowing planes for the bombers, two-piece helicopters, THREE-piece lasers, and individual city minis. This game looks like a heck of a fun time.


Dear goodness yes! I am so friggin excited about this game!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon W
United States
Aurora
CO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
waddball wrote:
What I'm really interested in seeing are the partisan cards. The ones I've seen so far are reprints, except that they carry the curious phrase "then discard this card", which implies there may be cards that don't get discarded.

Aha, no implication needed. From the rules:

Most partisan cards instruct the player to discard them immediately after being resolved.

Also, there are 31 cards now, not 30. I also noticed the new rules are the same as the old, where if you haven't taken casualties in a particular unit type, you're SOL on reinforcements. That always sucks when you draw bombers early....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Shinners
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
waddball wrote:
waddball wrote:
What I'm really interested in seeing are the partisan cards. The ones I've seen so far are reprints, except that they carry the curious phrase "then discard this card", which implies there may be cards that don't get discarded.

Aha, no implication needed. From the rules:

Most partisan cards instruct the player to discard them immediately after being resolved.

Also, there are 31 cards now, not 30. I also noticed the new rules are the same as the old, where if you haven't taken casualties in a particular unit type, you're SOL on reinforcements. That always sucks when you draw bombers early....


I think also, in general, it's a trend of FFG's new releases to contravene the necessity for FAQs - they're spelling everything out on the card that needs to be spelled out so that people don't have the rules-lawyer-y questions that normally come up.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bwian, just
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
atraangelis wrote:
ohh shit..wow

I'm surprised there hasn't been more on this part of the thread, personally.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cracky McCracken
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looks like about 40 of the pieces need assembled. That's not a good move FFG, players hated that about Battles of Westeros. They were a pain in the ass and ended up needing glued.

But, it doesn't bother me Get this thing published! Must buy!!!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian McCarthy
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cracky wrote:
Looks like about 40 of the pieces need assembled. That's not a good move FFG, players hated that about Battles of Westeros. They were a pain in the ass and ended up needing glued.

But, it doesn't bother me Get this thing published! Must buy!!!


In this case, there isn't a clear precedent, such as Battlelore, and fans of the game should be happy that the game comes with multi-part models. That just adds to the awesomeness.

So lets hope that there are no more kerfuffles. cool
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
Because Ameritrash drips with theme...
badge
Yep, that's my avatar.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hm, from the rulebook it seems that the Invader card option just makes the game more difficult for the US player. I had hoped that it introduces an advantage that evens things out.
I will probably use a balancing factor with this option if it unbalances the game. An additional laser at the beginning maybe.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Inguanzo
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They trimmed the backstory text way down, just a half page of large print. The language is non-judgemental, so you can decide for yourself if America went rogue. Also, there were never any solar power satellites. The actual lasers are on the ground, so the satellites are just mirrors.

The transport ability of the mobile units is HUGE. During the end game, it's nigh impossible for invaders to have infantry on the front lines when pushing into the north, because they're so slow. If mobile units can double the speed of infantry, then that changes everything.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon W
United States
Aurora
CO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hrhtomas wrote:
The transport ability of the mobile units is HUGE.

I agree, seems like an edge to the invaders. But the cards may have some adjustments as well, so I'll stay optimistic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff S
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It does seem like a big invader advantage, but I think maybe they were trying to make it more of an even 25% chance for each player to win - on the online site I used to play on their history showed the US winning about 40% of the games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon W
United States
Aurora
CO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sirjonsnow wrote:
It does seem like a big invader advantage, but I think maybe they were trying to make it more of an even 25% chance for each player to win - on the online site I used to play on their history showed the US winning about 40% of the games.

Wow, if so, that would make it much worse as a two-player game. Which is how I generally play it; I view FA as a 2p game with a nice option to split one of the sides as needed, not as a primarily 4p game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff S
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
waddball wrote:
sirjonsnow wrote:
It does seem like a big invader advantage, but I think maybe they were trying to make it more of an even 25% chance for each player to win - on the online site I used to play on their history showed the US winning about 40% of the games.

Wow, if so, that would make it much worse as a two-player game. Which is how I generally play it; I view FA as a 2p game with a nice option to split one of the sides as needed, not as a primarily 4p game.


I prefer 2p as well, playing a match as each side and keeping a point total as per the individual invader victory scoring system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stetler
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
waddball wrote:
Aha, no implication needed. From the rules:

Most partisan cards instruct the player to discard them immediately after being resolved.


Not surprising, as one partisan card in the old game, Clear Weather, has a latter game effect. Unlike other cards, this one should be kept in play as a reminder until the applicable phase has passed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stetler
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
waddball wrote:
hrhtomas wrote:
The transport ability of the mobile units is HUGE.

I agree, seems like an edge to the invaders. But the cards may have some adjustments as well, so I'll stay optimistic.


Also agree on the change to mobile units increases their utility immensely - and mostly to the advantage of the invaders.

5 partisan cards in the old set deploy mobile units, 2 of which also deploy partisans/infantry - and 1 of those deploys 2 of each. So combined with initial forces there would be instances where the American player could utilize mobile units to deploy additional forces and (just as important) combined arms for their city retake attacks. But for the most part the change will just drastically increase the Western invader's mobility, and all invaders' general ability to bring combined forces to bear.

waddball wrote:
Wow, if so, that would make it much worse as a two-player game. Which is how I generally play it; I view FA as a 2p game with a nice option to split one of the sides as needed, not as a primarily 4p game.


FA is definitely not a standard four way split on winning chances, it is as you state a two player game with a secondary win determination for more players. And even that IMO is not balanced - the Eastern invader gets the short end of the stick in that regard, with little chance of topping the Western or Southern invaders conquests. Compensation for, again IMO, having the more interesting gaming challenge.

Given the city changes on the map, which I've already commented on as being to the detriment of the American players already less than even chances, I think the mobile unit change would only further diminish their chances. And that would be a bad change, indicative of making a decision with a lack of experience with the game tactics. On the other hand, if FFG's intent is to make the game a *pure* 4 player game, where only the individual winner counts, then pressure would be removed from the American player by virtue of the invaders needing to watch each other's progress. I'd have concerns about such a drastic change in the nature of the game, but improving the overall group chances of the invaders would make sense in that context. The question would then be what compensates for the 2-3 player games, where inter-invader competition doesn't come into play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Inguanzo
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, transporting infantry helps the Americans too, especially at the beginning. There are some partisans who start so far from the front that I imagine their friends mocked them for starting a partisan band in the first place. Also, if America pairs each of its mobile units with an infantry during initial placement, the number of units it can rush to the front on turn one is greater. I guess you could say that transporting helps whichever player holds the most empty ground at any given point in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Inguanzo
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After reading the rules, the ten turn limit makes sense. If you use the invader cards variant, the invaders can keep getting reinforcements for up to 8 turns instead of only 5, and they keep getting cards until the decks run out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stetler
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hrhtomas wrote:
Also, if America pairs each of its mobile units with an infantry during initial placement, the number of units it can rush to the front on turn one is greater.


Funny, most of the time I play America there is more a rush *from* the front.

It is not often that I have problems getting infantry units where I need them after the initial placement, except in those cases where partisan cards open up an opportunity I couldn't plan for. I try to make my initial placement take full notice of the mobility of the units I deploy, so they get where I need them when. The mobile unit rule change will give some more options, but not often.

On the other hand the ability for the invaders to load up and deploy an infantry unit is *very* useful and will make a significant difference throughout the game. Early to mid game it allows direct deployment of infantry from the invasion zones to slighly inland cities that normally had some combined arms issues. Mid game to late game it will allow pushing infantry forward that were left behind to allow better units in, as well as freeing up blocked space to allow other units to first move into areas that used to be bottle necked by infantry. It will make bulking up city defenses easier, as well as setting up token occupations to restrict partisan card openings. The invaders should be able to get major mileage from this rule change.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Kendall
United States
Lebanon
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
The mobile-units change will make it possible for the Western Invader to advance infantry faster, but will also confront him/her with new decisions about whether to gamble on "ungarrisoned" territories in the middle game in order to concentrate forces at the front.

Leaving spaces unoccupied will make for a more freewheeling and unpredictable game, as more US Reinforcements will be able to appear. I'm thinking that the change might also do something to equalize Invader chances for victory, as the Eastern invader, in my experience, has always had a tougher time cracking the Appalachians than either the Southern or Western invaders have making penetrations.

I like most of the new miniatures; the "hovertank" looks undersized and anemic and I would much rather have simply seen a nice menacing battle tank of the M1 sort. The helos are very nice--looks like an Osprey derivative with lots of shooty things--and the laser weapons are really great; no more toppling tall towers with these babies. They look more like OGRES on steroids.

I'm pleased by the alternative rules allowing the Invaders to "secure" certain locales as Invasion Zones. This will freshen play tremendously.

All in all, being able to read the rules has changed my mind about buying the new edition. There's enough that's fresh to make it worthwhile. Clever update, FFG!

Now if only FFG would secure the rights to "Broadsides and Boarding Parties" and turn it into a 3D Age-of-Sail game with several types of sailing ships and multi-copy, multiplayer possibilities!!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.