PDA

View Full Version : Rules of engagement, 5th ed



xalfej
16-03-2010, 07:41
This thread probably belongs over in the rules development forum, but its always a ghost town over there, if mods see fit. Feel free to move it over.
:)
I absolutely hate the rulebooks missions, as I am sure many of you out there are as well. Some of you may remember back towards the end of 3rd ed White Dwarf had a nifty little mission generator for people to use in their games. My gaming group used this for a while during 4th but it just kind of faded away. When i first heard about the mission book I was really looking forward to it.. until of course I looked at the store copy, which is when I got the idea to update this long outdated mission generator and try to bring it up to 5th ed standards.

For those of you that are unfamiliar with Rules of engagement. It is an objective based mission generator, where both sides roll to see what their objective is before the game starts. Both players (usually) have different missions to accomplish during the game, while trying to stop their opponent from completing theirs. Much of what I did was just copied from the old version, but I tried to add changes where changes needed to be made.

If you all wanted to try spicing up your game-life with a little something new feel free to give it a try, I would love feedback :)

http://rapidshare.com/files/363979230/Rules_of_Engagement.doc

~xalfej

Vaktathi
16-03-2010, 07:47
kewl, I'll take a look at it, I've been entertaining the idea of trying out missions with different objectives for each side.

totgeboren
16-03-2010, 08:19
Heh, I used these rules just this Sunday. My group use them all the time, we even tweaked them to random game-length too!
They are great fun, much better than the standard missions.

Baragash
16-03-2010, 10:14
Played these regularly in 4th, I think they're pretty good. :)

Starchild
16-03-2010, 15:15
I'm curious why RoE never made it into the 5th ed. rulebook. It's a good throwback to the old 2nd ed. missions, where each side has their own objective, which may or may not match the opponent's goal.

I like the idea of using RoE with Cities of Death: lots of amok and mayhem. :evilgrin:

Karhedron
16-03-2010, 15:36
I remeber those, they were pretty good (back in the days when WD actually included rules rather than just adverts :p). I particularly like the assymetrical objectives.

Thanks for reminding me of them, I may try and resurrect them at my LGS.

Lamoron
17-03-2010, 09:17
I'm curious why RoE never made it into the 5th ed. rulebook. Games Workshop was never big on doing complicated missions. I'm guessing they figured, that doing complicated missions would disrupt the tournament setting (even though they claim to make games for casual play only), and that gaming groups would create their own missions anyway. Then they made Battle Missions... It's somewhat funny, that this document produces far more interesting missions, all for the price of... well nothing...

Ozzit
17-03-2010, 14:23
why isnt vehicle troop choices allowed to be scoring?

Starchild
17-03-2010, 15:32
why isnt vehicle troop choices allowed to be scoring?It's an attempt to make the game more realistic.

In real warfare, vehicles don't physically hold objectives for several reasons: a) they're badly needed elsewhere; b) stationary vehicles are vulnerable targets; and c) vehicles can't secure objectives in dense terrain, such as in an urban or a jungle environment.

Deetwo
17-03-2010, 15:35
I'm guessing they figured, that doing complicated missions would disrupt the tournament setting

If they figured that, they'd be horribly wrong.. RoE makes tournaments a LOT more interesting really.

On a sidenote though, I think the rules in this document are a bit too 4th edition still.

bossfearless
17-03-2010, 16:12
It's akin to battle missions, but without the occasional wtf special rules or clear biases for one side or another. I like it, but it needs a bit of work and some additional clarification on certain bits. Such as in Bombardment, you don't have any criteria listed as to when vehicles are considered "under 50%." There's also no mention of whether units in reserve take bombardment hits (i.e., drop pods passing through flak on the way down). I do like the different deployment styles offered, and that every game will always feature a few objective markers in addition to whatever it is you're doing. The idea that most times the players will have different objectives is quite nice. I'm heading up to my LGS now, and I'll take a copy of this up and see how it plays if I get a game on (I might just paint).

Zurken
17-03-2010, 22:11
http://www.lincon.se/webbforum/viewtopic.php?t=302
(swedish forum though we allways write our rules in english, it was made during the 4th edition but I don't think it need much to update it)

The mission in the rule book suxx, so we allmost never play them. I only play them against beginners, otherwise I play missions from the latest tournament (wich is mostly based of the rule book but with better ballance and intressting twists).

MasterDecoy
17-03-2010, 22:27
just a warning, by rolling 2d6 for both mission and deployment, you will be playing the diagonal deployment with the fire base objectives more than any other type of game.

Decius
17-03-2010, 23:24
just a warning, by rolling 2d6 for both mission and deployment, you will be playing the diagonal deployment with the fire base objectives more than any other type of game.

I noticed that too, but there are ways to flatten out the odds (or even warp them to your liking). These rule are quite nice though. A bit of 5th edition tweaking et voila! C'est magnifique!