Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Zombicide» Forums » Rules

Subject: Checking rules on ranged attacks rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rueben the sandwich
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So my entire group of 4 is in a room. Only one guy has a weapon, the shotgun. The way I read it, the guy would have to shoot through his three companions in the same room to kill the walker. Is that right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas King
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes. If they're all in the same zone, he has to shoot his friends first.

Though, to clarify, this only happens when the survivors share the same zone as your target (in this case, you, the survivors, and the zombies are all in the same zone). If your target is in another zone, separate from the other survivors, you will not hit the others, and will only hit the zombies.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Rose
United States
Linden
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If the zombie is in the same zone as your 4 survivors, I would think the 3 without the shotgun ought to be able to handle a walker in close combat. Or did you not allocate the starting melee weapons for some reason?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thiago Aranha
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Or they could just spend two actions to leave the zone and perform a search nearby. Gotta have some weapons on your group, man. A healthy mix of ranged and melee.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas King
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think he was just giving a hypothetical situation so he could understand the rules better

Obviously, one guy gunning down his friends to shoot a walker would be a terrible idea.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kenneth Wynne
United States
Allison Park
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Wynners Circle Games
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
having to kill your friends first in ranged combat is one of my main rules complaints. is everyone in the game that bad of a shot? Im sure there has to be some reason for this rule design-wise but im really unsure why this is the case. if your firing a shotgun in a crowd then i understand but when shooting a pistol or rifle I dont understand how you have 0 aim.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas King
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheWynner wrote:
having to kill your friends first in ranged combat is one of my main rules complaints. is everyone in the game that bad of a shot? Im sure there has to be some reason for this rule design-wise but im really unsure why this is the case. if your firing a shotgun in a crowd then i understand but when shooting a pistol or rifle I dont understand how you have 0 aim.

Here is a thread of 8 pages mostly of people arguing about the ranged rules, why it does or doesn't make sense thematically and gameplay-wise. Feel free to dig through and come to your own conclusion:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/828959/now-with-more-rul...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rueben the sandwich
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I played the tutorial map, which gives nobody starting weapons, but puts pistol, crowbar, and axe on top of the equipment deck.

Loophole master- The premise for this situation did happen, but it still felt really wonky. The choices were:
A) have every member of the group spend two move actions getting out of the room
B) have one guy with a weapon kill all of his friends in order to kill one walker.

If there were three zombies in there, nearly all survivors could not leave the room. They would have to get eaten, since nobody can search a room occupied with zombies, or the guy with the pistol could slowly execute them, with the help of the zombies.

My idea at this point is that the targeting priority only counts once for survivors on consecutive attacks in the same zone. So the hypothetical situation would play out like:

Player A shoots twice. On the first damage, he accidentally wounds a player. After that one damage, he can move on to the next priority, walkers. The priority of walker, fatties, and runners still function as normal.

In short, it would be survivors*>walkers>fatties>runners
*Only counts for one wound for consecutive attack targeting the same zone.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thiago Aranha
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
atomicteaspoon wrote:
I played the tutorial map, which gives nobody starting weapons, but puts pistol, crowbar, and axe on top of the equipment deck.

Loophole master- The premise for this situation did happen, but it still felt really wonky. The choices were:
A) have every member of the group spend two move actions getting out of the room
B) have one guy with a weapon kill all of his friends in order to kill one walker.

I don't understand how you even ended up in this situation. Did all of you leave the building and run towards the zombie without searching for weapons? How did you even leave the building without using the crowbar or axe to open the door, which could afterward have been used to kill the walker safely?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack J.

Michigan
msg tools
While searching its possible to find a zombie and have it come pop up in the first couple turns due to searching cards
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thiago Aranha
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But the first three cards are weapons in the tutorial, so you would necessarily be armed with melee weapons before any zombie could appear.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Rose
United States
Linden
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Loophole Master wrote:
But the first three cards are weapons in the tutorial, so you would necessarily be armed with melee weapons before any zombie could appear.


Which is why I was wondering how this happened...

Side question (I don't have the game yet, hopefully next week), Can the shotgun fire in the same zone as the firer (is it a 0 range capable weapon)?

Also, does one of the characters start with the shotgun?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Knepper
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jakecarol wrote:
Side question (I don't have the game yet, hopefully next week), Can the shotgun fire in the same zone as the firer (is it a 0 range capable weapon)?


Yes, shotgun is a 0-1 ranged weapon.

jakecarol wrote:
Also, does one of the characters start with the shotgun?


No.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
atomicteaspoon wrote:
My idea at this point is that the targeting priority only counts once for survivors on consecutive attacks in the same zone. So the hypothetical situation would play out like:

Player A shoots twice. On the first damage, he accidentally wounds a player. After that one damage, he can move on to the next priority, walkers. The priority of walker, fatties, and runners still function as normal.

In short, it would be survivors*>walkers>fatties>runners
*Only counts for one wound for consecutive attack targeting the same zone.


I can see your points, but I think you might be trying to change the game into a different game for the sake of fixing a corner case that feels particularly wonky to you.

The effect of the range targeting rule is to raise the tension level of the game. Once Zombies get into the same zone as the players, they must engage in melee combat using their weaker weapons. Zombies in the same zone as players thus becomes a more dangerous situation than zombies in the next zone. It's supposed to be a desperate situation and your choices are supposed to be limited.

Actually, it's even better than that. You are not restricted from firing your weapon, you have choice whether or not to fire your weapon. The choice comes with huge consequences which makes it an interesting choice. Interesting choices are what make games fun.

Anyway, you could change the targeting rules, but I'm not sure why you would stop with the change you suggest above. Doesn't it equally bother you that you can't target a fatty before you kill all the walkers? Or a runner before you kill the fatties and walkers? What's up with that? Are they walking in a conga line? Why can't you just shoot the zombie you want to shoot?

For that matter, what about splitting a zombie into two zombies because he can't decide which of two equal paths to take? Are these zombies or amoebas?

My point is that there are games like that, Phoenix Command (and supplements) has a hyper-realistic small-arms combat system, but those are those games, and this is this one.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rueben the sandwich
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Loophole master-
There were other fights where survivors lost weapons before this situation. It was also the second building they were caught in this scenario. Is it that hard to concede to the notion that this scenario is feasible and indicates a silly facet to the rules? Can you actually address the situation and not all the hypothetical prerequisites to this situation? I know you're trying to help, but it's actually coming off as annoying.

Jake- Even at 0 ranged, a ranged weapon still functions as ranged, as far as I've seen.

Dan- I don't really agree with treating this concept as a slippery slope to removing all mechanics that alter range. I'm not out to make this a hyper-realistic game by way of rules. However, the scenario is overwhelmingly goofy and unpleasant. If there was some other way to structure the rules to remove this silliness, then I'd be all about it. I'm hardly one to houserule a game into the ground, or at all for that matter. I'd could also just assume that ranged weapons used as 0 range count as melee. The crowbar and the pistol do the same amount of damage. I haven't played this game much, but I certainly don't want to rewrite the entire game. I hope any disagreement with the rules wouldn't imply that.

Edit: literacy
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Try just playing the game whilst taking this rule into account.

From my couple of plays of the game, I think you'll find it throws up more interesting tactical decisions than problems.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thiago Aranha
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
atomicteaspoon wrote:
There were other fights where survivors lost weapons before this situation. It was also the second building they were caught in this scenario. Is it that hard to concede to the notion that this scenario is feasible and indicates a silly facet to the rules? Can you actually address the situation and not all the hypothetical prerequisites to this situation? I know you're trying to help, but it's actually coming off as annoying.

Terribly sorry if I came off as annoying, really not my intention. I was just genuinely trying to understand how you could find yourself in such a situation where 4 survivors are stuck in a room with a zombie with only a single shotgun among them.

I agree that, depending on how you visualize the situation, the targeting priority rules can conjure up some ludicrous images. But the fact is that the game designers built most of the rules around a "worst-case scenario". So in this particular case you'd have to imagine a single zombie tackling three people at once, all rolling on the floor in a bundle, and a panicking survivor desperately firing a shotgun at that mess. Is it really any surprise if after 3 deafening shots ring out and the smoke clears, the poor survivor realizes the undead monster is the only one left standing?

Game-wise, there's really no reason why you should end up performing such a horrible action. As I said above, all survivors can easily spend two actions to leave the zone with the Zombie, and just walk away, with the armed survivor being left free to blow the zombie's brains off. Plus, you really should avoid at all costs going out to find zombies with only a single equipment card on you. If you have a single weapon card, you should have at least another card so you can lose that instead of the weapon if you get attacked.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lunar Sol
msg tools
mb
If you dig through the linked thread on this topic, you'll find me among the "absolutely hate it" camp. In practice though, it works well, speeds the game up, provides a lot of tension, interesting decisions, and makes designing a well balanced party with ranged and melee fighters crucial. I have to reluctantly admit the game is better for it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave P
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This rule affected my first game for about 2 turns, then after a little searching we had 2 groups of survivors running around (6 players) and had at least one melee and one ranged weapon in the group. By the time we were half way through the scenario we had most people with a ranged and a melee switching them in and out as well as a 2 people going straight melee, this allowed us a lot of options in combat, where ranged players would shoot out of the zone and the melee would kill the zombies int he zone we were in.

Overall I think it created an interesting mechanic for play. The way I look at it, this game should be hard, like real hard to win.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magic Pink
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
LunarSol wrote:
If you dig through the linked thread on this topic, you'll find me among the "absolutely hate it" camp. In practice though, it works well, speeds the game up, provides a lot of tension, interesting decisions, and makes designing a well balanced party with ranged and melee fighters crucial. I have to reluctantly admit the game is better for it.


We changed it to you only hit Survivors on rolls of one and it did the exact same thing plus made an ounce of sense. The rule as is provides ZERO decision as only an idiot would shoot a zone when it guarantees a player kill.

So yes, the ranged rules absolutely need to change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Rose
United States
Linden
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Magic Pink wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
If you dig through the linked thread on this topic, you'll find me among the "absolutely hate it" camp. In practice though, it works well, speeds the game up, provides a lot of tension, interesting decisions, and makes designing a well balanced party with ranged and melee fighters crucial. I have to reluctantly admit the game is better for it.


We changed it to you only hit Survivors on rolls of one and it did the exact same thing plus made an ounce of sense. The rule as is provides ZERO decision as only an idiot would shoot a zone when it guarantees a player kill.

So yes, the ranged rules absolutely need to change.


And that is absolutely an opinion vice a fact. Changing a 100% chance to a 16% chance obviously is going to have balance effects on the game and will encourage player behavior the rules as written strongly discourage.

Your game, make as house rules as you deem.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Houle
Canada
Granby
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That will be my house rule about the ranged attack:

After each hit, if the zone have:

1 survivor and 1 zombie = after a hit, you need a 1 on a d6 to hit the zombie
1 survivor and 2 zombies = You need a 1 or 2
1 survivor and 3 zombies = need 3 or less
...
2 survivors and 1 or 2 zombies = need 1
2 survivors and 3 or 4 zombies = 2 or less.
...

A six is always the survivor.
I know 6 suppose to be better and 1 bad, but its easier to count that way.

Lot of zombies should be easier to hit than just one on a survivor.

Sorry for my bad English
 
 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.