Jump to content

Doctor Badass

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Doctor Badass

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
  1. ??! said: But considering your question, there is another important point: You don't have a choice! Using the Revised ruleset, you may not choose any Equipment tokens that you like, but you have to use one of the equipment packs given in the rule book. I think that might be the most important reason: balancing. I suppose that does make sense… I'll play a few more games first, keeping in mind melee's strong points before deciding whether or not to houserule things. Right now I have the impression it might be best to just leave things the way they are ;-) Thanks for sharing your views!
  2. PsychoWolf said: I think they are not completely useless. Of course they won't be used very often, but in case of a failed Bull Rush a Hand-to-Hand Weapon really is worth his price (equipment slot.) Also for Shogunate characters their Melee attacks are much more powerful than their Pistols. I must admit that in case of a failed Bull Rush, you are right. However, in 10+ games played so far the necessity for attempting a Bull Rush has not yet surfaced. I also haven't played Shogunate yet, so I wasn't aware. The fact that these guys swing around huge swords honed to a razor edge should justify them being more powerful than a pistol - so that seems well done. Perhaps I should ask the following instead: has anyone here houseruled melee attacks in their games to make them more useful? If so, why and how did you change the rules? Of course I might just be the only one bothered by this (in which case I'll have to review my opinion on melee, perhaps) but I imagine there are others out there…
  3. Can someone please explain to me why, in the revised ruleset, one would bother to equip a character with both melee and ranged weapons? i've played quite a few games already, but so far the usefulness of a back-up weapon eludes me. As I understand, melee attacks allow you to target adjacent opponents out-of-path, while ranged attacks do not. While that might come in handy once in a blue moon, it doesn't seem worth the equipment slot such an item takes up. I prefer blazing away with automatic fire at adjacent enemies any day! The old rules gave every weapon type a minumum range; melee could attack adjacent circles, pistols needed one circle space between the target, automatics required two and heavy guns required three. I'm the first one to admit the old rules stank to high heaven, but at least this bit -flawed as it is- makes melee attacks useful to have. Anyway, I was wondering if I'd missed something… In my humble opinion, a hybrid rule between old an new might be a solution. For instance, you could say only melee attacks and pistols can target opponents in adjacent circles, while melee attacks can also target out-of-path victims. Heavy and Automatic weapons can only fire at targets that are at least two circles away (i.e. one circle between attacker and target). I feel this somehow better reflects reality. After all, there was a reason why WWI troopers sharpened their shovels for close quarters combat, eschewing their long and unwieldy rifles. Thoughts from the community?
  • Create New...