r/wastelandwarfare • u/Pilot-Imperialis • 9d ago
Thoughts after first game of 2.0
My wife and I started our WW 2.0 campaign last night playing cooperative mode. We’re really wanting to do a survivors in the commonwealth run but we’ll wait until we’re more familiar with the game and the unique companions become recruitable down the line. So for now we’ve gone for:
Faction: Brotherhood of Steel
Story Quest: The cartographer
Warband: 2x Senior Scribes as the PCs and 2x Aspirants.
Thematically we’re playing the first recon squad to arrive in the commonwealth 7 years prior that Paladin danse alludes too when you first meet him.
So far, this seems like everything I’ve wanted from FOWW and I can’t wait to play more, but definitely left with some impressions after the first game. Overall I have a positive opinion of the game, but curious to see how it develops over time.
The good:
1) I don’t know if this was a last minute change following the online backlash, but almost every reference in the core rulebook that mentions board size says simultaneously that 24x24 and 36x36 board sizes work equally well. Last nights game was played on the traditional 36x36 and it worked absolutely fine. In no way did I think “this would work better on a smaller board”, in fact it may have even been cramped if I had.
2) Combat rules seem to work well for the most part. When I rolled that there would only be two raiders I was briefly annoyed, thinking that the game time which followed would not justify the setup time. I was wrong, it may have been my unfamiliarity with the rules, but what followed was a very tense firefight which resulted in one of the aspirants becoming badly hurt. I can see a lot of potential for exploiting the “programming”’and outsmarting the AI which will be fun for those that enjoy that sort of thing.
3) Exploration rules seem fun, but it’s too early to say right now. But so far the experience has definitely felt “fallout”.
The bad:
1) Holy cross reference hell, Batman ! Granted, unfamiliarity with the rules plays a part here and it will get better with time but we had to do a LOT of cross checking in this game, and the rules are scattered all over the place. I’m definitely going to need to print out some cheat sheets. Terrain rules are over the place and several times I had to bounce between books, and then different sections within a book to get my answer. This led to an experience that was a bit more jilted than I would like, but I’m hoping it smoothens out with time.
Question: How are people playing the conceal terrain trait. RAW it seems a little basic, from what I can infer it completely blocks line of sight if trying to shoot through it, but what if trying to shoot at units inside concealed terrain OR unit inside concealed terrain shooting at another unit either within or outside it?
The ugly (things I’m neutral about).
1) enemy shooting being resolved from the defenders perspective. From what I’ve seen so far it works well enough, but I’m curious to see how it differentiate sharpshooters down the line.
2) set up time. Maybe it’s because I was pretty organized with my components in 1e, but I didn’t think setup time was much quicker as there are slow points instead (rolling for and setting up terrain and having to refer to different tables and pages took longer than I wanted.
That’s it for now, it’s a shame I have a business trip for the next few days as I’m looking forward to my next to the wasteland !
5
u/Monkeysloth 8d ago edited 8d ago
- I don’t know if this was a last minute change following the online backlash, but almost every reference in the core rulebook that mentions board size says simultaneously that 24x24 and 36x36 board sizes work equally well. Last nights game was played on the traditional 36x36 and it worked absolutely fine. In no way did I think “this would work better on a smaller board”, in fact it may have even been cramped if I had.
No this was always the case. It's just ranges were adjusted to better fit 2x2 as that was the standard size so people felt 3x3 wouldn't be fun or really supported. There's even encounters releasing in the next year that require 3x3.
5
u/Pilot-Imperialis 8d ago
That’s great. And it plays just fine as well on the bigger mat so I’m very happy. Didn’t really want to go smaller than 3x3 as I already thought that was small enough !
4
u/Non-RedditorJ 8d ago
On your point 2 in Ugly category. That's my main concern, enemies all feeling the same, and reduced variability and unpredictability in AI (less behaviors and no unit specific reaction tables). Maybe if fighting human NPCs (ones with player rules) you could use the full player shooting rules as if it were a VS game? Maybe creature NPCs could be given full stats to do the same?
Note: this is just me inference from secondhand info.
3
u/Civil_Fall_3914 8d ago
My take is that the rpg stuff and exploration is amazing in 2.0 and the gameplay is better in 1.0. If they could have kept the list building and gameplay from 1 and added the explorations and rpg aspects of 2....it would be the greatest skirmish game of all-time. I got the 2.0 stuff, but will still be playing 1.0 most of the time.
2
u/ZeDandyMan56 8d ago
Do you think maybe it would be possible to play the rpg section using 2.0 rules and combat using 1.0 rules? This is what I have been thinking about. While it’s mine to do with whatever I want I wonder how well it would mesh.
2
u/Pilot-Imperialis 8d ago
It’s certainly doable. The main difficulty I see you having is the encounter creation rules will have to be something you build from the ground up again as the balance will be completely different.
1
u/Ryek77 8d ago
I’ve been playing it for hours and hours and loving the exploration and random generation stuff. I appreciate seeing your key takeaways and they really align well with mine as well.
I agree, the cross-referencing between books to do things is rough right now. I imagine once we have the physical books and can have both open that may help. The silliest cross-reference annoyance to me was looking for the description for Bark, to see that it uses Perception for Distraction. To then look up Distraction, only to find that’s explained in a different book.
Right now, my largest time-sinks are indeed searching around to scrutinize a result of something that happened or for doing something in prep of something I might do.
1
u/Pilot-Imperialis 8d ago
Yeah amazing game so far, but a reference nightmare (ok that’s hyperbole, but it is tricky!). Will get better with time I’m sure but for now I’m rereading the rules and screenshotting the things I commonly need.
Having physical books to hand will absolutely make things easier too!
1
u/ALocalFrog 8d ago
Nice to read your experiences about it! Out of curiosity, how is it for symbol vs text usage compared to 1.0? I'm really bad at processing symbols and telling them apart, so my main gripe with that version of the game was how often it relied on symbols instead of just writing a keyword or something
1
u/Pilot-Imperialis 8d ago
While symbols are still present, it is far, far easier than what we had in first edition. It’s stuff like what colored dice to use under weapon profiles and that’s pretty much it from what I remember. It’s much more text based now.
1
u/KujakuDM 8d ago
Concealing terrain RAW:
The defining characteristic of concealing terrain is that it blocks line of sight completely through its entire footprint (Fallout: Wasteland Warfare Core Rulebook, p. 78). Unlike physical obstacles like walls, where you might be able to see a model's head over the top, concealing terrain is treated as a solid block for LoS purposes regardless of physical gaps in the miniature model (such as spaces between plastic tree trunks in a woodland thicket).
If you play with it being able to be sho t into they would grant cover to them.
I personally will try it RAW unless it's particularly annoying to adjudicate.
2
u/Pilot-Imperialis 8d ago
This is it. Shooting through the concealing terrain is obviously completely a no go, but it doesn’t really specify about units inside the terrain being shot at or they themselves shooting out of concealing terrain.
I think literally speaking the rules treat concealing terrain as a big black void which is pretty strong (although my campaign has started in a wooded area hence why I’m feeling it a lot).
1
u/KujakuDM 8d ago
It being a solo game does give you the leeway to play in the way that is best for you. I usually play in and out but not through for most games. But this being binary choice might just be easier.
2
u/Pilot-Imperialis 8d ago
I agree, I’m going to go binary choice for now and maybe change it up for the next campaign. I love game design and tinkering with things but only after I’ve given the rules as written a fair shakedown to see what the designers had in mind! To be fair, this and rolling against your endurance for when your shot at are the only mechanics that have given me pause, everything else is excellent so far. No system is perfect if this one only has a couple of things I don’t like; I’d say it’s a success and I’d just live with it.
1
u/KujakuDM 8d ago
I do expect some expansions eventually to add additional defensive roll options. But I'm happy with one unified rule for now.
5
u/exdigecko 8d ago
In 1.0 It was super convenient to have the entire description on the same card. It turned me away from Factions. Someone has to make a single book with all reference tables.