Albedo Combat Patrol

News:

  • Partizan is coming... 
    play ACP164 on May 19th in Nottingham!
  • Counterattack!  Come and join in the participation game at Hammerhead, Newark on March 2nd
  • Come see us at Salute!  London, April 6th.

Author Topic: Beta Testing Full Rules  (Read 121 times)

Offline davidburden

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
    • Converj - David's Blog
on: February 28, 2019, 02:03:16 PM


Finally managed a couple of play-throughs of the full rules beta (v3.7) , will post a short AAR to Facebook/my blog. I focused on the new bits, so things like spotting, numeric saves, dashing, grenade launchers. Didn't get as far as Zero-G (although tempted to try that next week) or vehicles. Anyway here are my observations, hope they help, and sorry they're not sooner:

1.12 - why does failing a reaction test result in stunned and missing the units next activation? Seems an  odd way to handle it. Oh and with the new fire and move rules can the critter fire whilst charging forward?
3.5.5. - talks about "HQ", assume that means the leader//unit
3.5.13 - really like the optional column order rule for where random order makes little practical sense, nice touch
3.6.3. (1.1.1) - sprinting works nicely
3.7.2 para 4d says "wound location indicator not used in quick start rules" - but this now in the main rules, and can't see anything else on hit location part from mentions at 3.15
3.7.11.3 - moving fire worked well
3.7.13.1 - didn't try flechette rules but is this para in conflict with 3.7.13.3 "Flechette rounds do not increase the amount of damage, so the Incapacitation result to an unprotected area would still result in just three wounds." vs "Any Incapacitating hit to the arms, legs, or lower torso is treated as a Wound instead." - intention is clear I think, but may need some word tidying.
3.7.20 - liked how the numeric penetration worked and the +4 for full effect. Linked to the issue of hit location should you test for hit location before assessing cover/protection - so a hit to body then takes into account body armour, and/or a chest high wall, whereas one to head would not? Certainly the way I'm going to play it.
3.7.20 Table 2/Table 3-3 - assume all these reference errors will get fixed in the edit!
3.8 (.1) - UGLs worked fine, but assume this section needs to reference the table 3-4 which is a lot later at the end of 3.8 , and couldn't find the table mentioned at Fig 6-3.
3.10 If the morale result is something like an uncontrolled charge (or hasty withdrawal) does the unit still activate as normal afterwards, or is this there activation?
3.14.2 Was hoping for spotting to take in a few more factors. As I read it type/amount of cover has no effect at all (just that don't have to take test if not in cover), nor does frame size (no sneaky mice!), or critter posture (lying/kneeling) or whether above or below you. Would all add to the richness but realise would complicate things to have another whole 1/2 column shift table on the cards. May play as  a local rule though. Assume "out of ammo" if spotting is an auto-fail (or night sight run out of battery!)
3.15 like the levels of resolution concept.

Couple of other points:
- Pity there's no mention of and effect of stance/pose as at a medium/high level of resolution this would make a lot of sense, or do you assume that figure is lying/kneeling if in cover or not moving?
- Linked to above, with no spot DM for a target above, and no DM for protection (or count as corner?) or stance (lying) then a sniper lying on a roof top taking pot shots at patrolling critters becomes far too easier a target to acquire, hit and damage.

Overall though the new rules flesh the basic rules out nicely, and with a few house rules will be pretty much a perfect set of skirmish rules.

See you at Salute hopefully.

David




Offline ACP_Chris

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Reply #1 on: March 06, 2019, 05:05:03 PM
Thanks for your feedback David,

We'll look into those points and get back to you, glad you are enjoying the game.
See you at Salute where hopefully we will have a couple of exciting new releases!



Offline ACP_Buck

  • Design Team
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Reply #2 on: March 08, 2019, 01:20:32 PM


Finally managed a couple of play-throughs of the full rules beta (v3.7) , will post a short AAR to Facebook/my blog. I focused on the new bits, so things like spotting, numeric saves, dashing, grenade launchers. Didn't get as far as Zero-G (although tempted to try that next week) or vehicles. Anyway here are my observations, hope they help, and sorry they're not sooner:

Thanks for taking the time to try the rules and provide feedback.  I will try to address your questions below and make appropriate adjustments to the rules before publication.

Quote
1.12 - why does failing a reaction test result in stunned and missing the units next activation? Seems an  odd way to handle it.

"This figure has essentially acted ‘early’ so it will spend its next action removing the stun marker.  If the result is not less than the figure’s Reaction attribute, the figure did not react and is not stunned; however, if the hit result is a five, the figure does not react, but is stunned anyway."  So the figure is only stunned if he actually activates or fails so badly that he gets stunned anyway.  So if my Reaction number was a three and I received a 4 when drawing to react, I would not react and would not be stunned.  If on the other hand, I drew a 5, I would not react and would be stunned anyway.  That last bit was added to have some risk associated with Reaction.  I really, really dislike opportunity fire in games.  I have seem games devolve into stalemates as players yell "opportunity fire" all the time, so no one actually acts, they only react.  Not fun to me.  So the idea behind Reaction is that you can try to interrupt enemy movement, but there is some chance the figure will spaz and not only fail to React but lose his next reaction. 

Why the stun mechanic at all?  In some games, you essentially give up your action to opportunity fire later.  In Combat Patrol, IF you react you give up for next action.  The idea is that you have essentially acted out of sequence and early, but you don't get an extra action.  The other thing is that if you do react, you are stunned, so you don't get to keep opportunity firing as additional targets present themselves.  The figure cannot use reaction to get an infinite number of shots.

Quote
Oh and with the new fire and move rules can the critter fire whilst charging forward?
If a weapon has a rate of fire greater than 1, the critter can conduct moving fire.  You lose one off your rate of fire and you apply the shooter moving shift on the hit indicator.  It is always move and then fire.  In this way, if a critter with a weapon with a rate of fire of two wants to charge toward the enemy, screaming obscenities, and firing from the hip, he can do so.  He would only get one shot, not two.  Also, since this is move then shoot, the defender gets a chance to react.  There is the risk that the defender will be stunned as he reacts, so he will get a minus one in melee, but if he hits the charging critter, there won't be a melee.  Choices, choices.

Quote
3.5.5. - talks about "HQ", assume that means the leader//unit
Thanks, I will fix that.

Quote
3.5.13 - really like the optional column order rule for where random order makes little practical sense, nice touch
3.6.3. (1.1.1) - sprinting works nicely
Glad you like those rules.

Quote
3.7.2 para 4d says "wound location indicator not used in quick start rules" - but this now in the main rules, and can't see anything else on hit location part from mentions at 3.15
Good catch.  I fixed that.

Quote
3.7.11.3 - moving fire worked well
3.7.13.1 - didn't try flechette rules but is this para in conflict with 3.7.13.3 "Flechette rounds do not increase the amount of damage, so the Incapacitation result to an unprotected area would still result in just three wounds." vs "Any Incapacitating hit to the arms, legs, or lower torso is treated as a Wound instead." - intention is clear I think, but may need some word tidying.
I will look at cleaning that up.

Quote
3.7.20 - liked how the numeric penetration worked and the +4 for full effect. Linked to the issue of hit location should you test for hit location before assessing cover/protection - so a hit to body then takes into account body armour, and/or a chest high wall, whereas one to head would not? Certainly the way I'm going to play it.
Yes, that is the correct interpretation.

Quote
3.7.20 Table 2/Table 3-3 - assume all these reference errors will get fixed in the edit!
Yes, the version posted for review is one version back from the current one.  I THINK I have found and removed all the cross reference errors.

Quote
3.8 (.1) - UGLs worked fine, but assume this section needs to reference the table 3-4 which is a lot later at the end of 3.8 , and couldn't find the table mentioned at Fig 6-3.
3.10 If the morale result is something like an uncontrolled charge (or hasty withdrawal) does the unit still activate as normal afterwards, or is this there activation?
"After all morale markers have been removed, any figures which have not moved or fired as a result of morale checks may then perform actions as normal."  Since an uncontrolled charge is a move, that is the figures action for that activation.

Quote
3.14.2 Was hoping for spotting to take in a few more factors. As I read it type/amount of cover has no effect at all (just that don't have to take test if not in cover), nor does frame size (no sneaky mice!), or critter posture (lying/kneeling) or whether above or below you. Would all add to the richness but realise would complicate things to have another whole 1/2 column shift table on the cards. May play as  a local rule though.
I added a column to the Frame Size chart that affects spotting.  I don't know how to account for posture.   The rules assume that figures are always taking the most appropriate use of any available cover.

Quote
Assume "out of ammo" if spotting is an auto-fail (or night sight run out of battery!)
3.15 like the levels of resolution concept.
Resolution works pretty well in our games.  It allows you to have lots of minions and a few more interesting characters for a cinematic feel if that is what you want.

Quote
Couple of other points:
- Pity there's no mention of and effect of stance/pose as at a medium/high level of resolution this would make a lot of sense, or do you assume that figure is lying/kneeling if in cover or not moving?
That is correct.  The rules assume that figures are taking advantage of whatever cover is available, which might me lying in a small depression even, kneeling behind a rock, etc.
Quote
- Linked to above, with no spot DM for a target above, and no DM for protection (or count as corner?) or stance (lying) then a sniper lying on a roof top taking pot shots at patrolling critters becomes far too easier a target to acquire, hit and damage.
Yes, I just thought keeping track of pose would get gunky.  I leave that for a house rule.  If the sniper is on a roof, he wouldn't be automatically spotted like the critters in the open he is plinking off.

Quote
Overall though the new rules flesh the basic rules out nicely, and with a few house rules will be pretty much a perfect set of skirmish rules.
  Thanks again for reviewing the book.  I am glad you seem generally pleased with the rules.  I have been quite happy with what *I* think is an elegant and streamlined mechanic.  I hope it catches on.

Quote
See you at Salute hopefully.

David
I hope to get to Salute one day.  I attended Partizan a couple of years ago.  It is hard to justify a flight to the UK just for a gaming convention.