Thoughts on M-Poc Mk II – Brawling
By Derek– January 24, 2013
Say hypothetically that there was a community-generated and maintained version of the Monsterpocalypse rules (let’s call it MonPoc Mk II for the sake of the argument). Further, suppose that ruleset was very similar to the existing rules as-written, but contained a few minor adjustments to both rules and figures (as opposed to new content or concepts) to improve overall enjoyment and figure/faction/agenda balance. Might not one of those improvements be to address the perceived inequity between Brawl and Blast attacks?
If so, I would suggest that a problem statement for this issue might be that “Brawl attacks are more A-die intensive yet provide no better results than equivalent Blast attacks; therefore, Brawl-centric Figures/Factions/Agendas are disadvantaged (and perhaps less fun to play) relative to Blast-centric Figures/Factions/Agendas.” There are at least three simple rules modifications that could be made in an attempt to (partially) close the gap between these two attack types:
- Monsters do gain Cover when adjacent to a Building or friendly Monster {de-buff Blast (situational) effectiveness}
- Blast attacks do not normally generate Power Dice for the Attacker unless granted by an Ability (ex. Power Gorge) {de-buff Blast (situational) results}
- Before making a Blast attack, spend Action Die from the appropriate Pool (that is, your Monster Pool for Monster attacks and your Unit Pool for Unit attacks) as follows: 1 action die if Short range (0-3); 2 action die if Long range (4-5); and 3 action die if beyond Long range (6-7) {increase (global) Blast A-die cost}
I’ll hang up and listen…(hoping my figure has Fireproof ability)…
Interesting thoughts. The implications of #2 would be gigantic making Multi-Shot and Power Gorge even more compelling.
I think #3 would swing things too far in the other direction as it would really gank combined unit attacks. Perhaps, for combined unit attacks, the attack as a whole costs the extra dice as you’ve outlined?
Exactly what I meant for #3, it would be for the (combined unit) attack itself not for each participating figure (unit and combined unit attacks still need to be feasible, although 2 unit damage/turn from Blast maybe could/should disappear). In this case, using 1-3 extra A-dice to make any blast attack is hopefully the rough equivalent of using that many A-dice to move your Brawl figure(s) into attack position.
Regarding #2, my original thinking was that even other triggers that destroy/crush units/buildings (ex. Chain Reaction, Explosion, Multi-Shot, etc.) wouldn’t “automatically” generate P-Die in a blast. It bears testing, but this might not be too “nerfy” as these triggers already have other inherent advantages for board control.
Both #1 and #2 are also highly situational (only apply if you are in a cover-situation or if you could affect multiple units), but might offset some of the other inherent advantages of Blasting (i.e. you can never by screened and prevented from Blasting, you don’t have to enter your opponent’s deployment zone, etc.). All of these also create tactical choice (manuever to closer range, picking different attack types for different desired results, etc.), build on existing game mechanics/precedents, and don’t add to the administrative overhead of gameplay.
However, any/all of these ideas are simply a basis for possible community playtesting of balance options that could be adjusted to help us find a “sweet spot” to encourage broader use of different figure/faction/agenda builds.
I don’t like this idea.
Because of these reasons:
1) I do believe unit turns should be able to do more than 1 damage.
Most forces I have made rely on unit damage to either stay ahead of the damage curve, or close the gap the opposing player has on me.
Without it, my forces would fall behind on the damage curve and not recover.
Let’s face it, monsters have different strengths, and are not made equal. That would be boring.
2) This point goes with number one. Dice Economy. Now in order to do damage/destroy units, I am forced to make more combined attacks to utilize my dice economy to it’s fullest.
And at that, I would only (mabey) get off one shot on a monster. Sniper Units, (which I like to use when playing Martians) would not be able to attack well.
Some people already don’t like Sniper. I do. This would make it almost worthless.
And setting up to debuff, so I could make a single unit attack to do damage, can take alot of finesse. It would not be worth it.
The blasting game would become a straight up boring shooter, in my opinion.
3) Speaking of Economy, let’s look at defense. There are a few blasters with a high defense, but some are squishy. Where as some brawlers, such as most moles have a high defense, that can be raised against blasting.
Now my blasting unit has to hit a 4, 5 or 6 defense unit, and spend more A-dice?
I think this shifts the tide of playability by way too much.
I have played an all brawling team on a couple of occations. I lost, but it was by one attack. And I’m the type to roll with low odds, because that’s just the way I roll. I find it more thrilling.
This game is fun (giant monsters and units), has an element of luck (the gamble of the dice), and tactics.
All tactical decisions are based on your dice economy. Who or what you do, move, attack…everything.
I believe that this would shift the balance of the game dramatically. And not for the better.
Buffs and debuffs also shift the economy.
I believe a better way would be to give brawlers a perk of -1 defense to their target.
I’m not up for change, but this would be less extreme and keep a sense of balance.
Again, this is just my opinion.
(my comment was based on #3, not the other 2)
Thanks for the clarification CD! Your points were numbered 1-3 and I thought they corresponded with the three ideas given, not all about #3!
Makes MUCH more sense now!
Effectively #3 increases the cost for spawning a blast unit. Really you are saying is that blasting units are under costed. You have not convinced me this the case. It is overkill to reduce them to a merely board control and then add a premium cost. This also kills many splashes.
It doesn’t make sense to me to take a core mechanic away when blasting. Most blast attacks are combined so I see no need to mess with this core mechanic.
AS far as MPII revamps, this is a direction I’ve not seen before. My initial thought is: blasting should be the better option over brawling. Meaning I don’t think we need to downsize blasting at all. Taking away P dice generation would cripple blast-heavy factions, and not every faction has good brawling options. It also would encourage over-use of flying units, which most brawling units normally can’t even attack.
If anything, brawling attacks should receive more boost dice than they currently have. I think the problem is that right now, they have the same boost dice. If every brawl attack were to receive some number of bonus boost dice, you might see more brawl attacks being made. My gut tells me that +*1 for every attacking unit would be too much, but it’s a place to start.
Doing this would mimic the effects of #1 and #3. More boost dice means able to hit higher defense. So you’d need fewer brawling units than you would to get the same odds using a blast attack. That also works to bring the A dice cost of the attacks more in line…fewer brawling units means fewer A dice spent on movement.
An alternative to #3 that I’ve seen passed around is that a unit making a brawl attack can use the same A dice in the attack that it used to advance that turn, if it advanced. It calls for a little bookkeeping, but again goes toward A dice parity between brawling and attacking, and creates more incentive to make that brawl attack. Although that may get to be too powerful: If you have 5 units on the map, you could move+attack with 5 A dice, leaving 5A for spawning/actions. I’m not sure the equivalent of a 15A dice turn is really balanced.
I don’t really like #1. It calls into question whether monsters should get shelter as well, and it’s out of line with the theme of the game.
#3 is interesting, and it does create a situation where you might want a unit at long range to lead the attack, but don’t have the extra A dice to pay for it, so you end up having to lead with a closer unit. I think I’d like it better if the costs were reduced by 1, so short range is 0, long range is 1, and extended long range is 2.
I hadn’t remembered the “using the A-Die you moved with” idea, Bobb. That’s awesome. Like a Charge attack.
I’m thinking more and more that the roll of the brawling unit is to landscape the board by taking out buildings. Giving the additional A-Die or B-Die would make them fill this role well and give them some oomph if they happened to be attacking an enemy unit/monster and that unit/monster happened to not be flying.
I echo the sentiments of Wappy and Bobb. I think #3 is over-compensating the problem, and do not think it should be included.
I think #1 is an interesting idea, and merits some consideration. It may even give some balance back to the bigger monsters, that is now only enjoyed by the morphers. I mean, the monster may be huge, but there is still parts of him that is being covered by buildings!
#2 is stellar. The thing I like most about this is that it ties in directly with the whole idea that monster only get the p-dice when they brawl a building, not when they blast it. This is one I would love to see playtested! Mayeb in our upcoming games day, I can convince Gingerkid and Cottondonkey to give it a try!
I’m not in favor of all normal-sized monsters getting cover…imagine Gorghadra getting cover from a Construction Site!…but I do think Force Field should work on monsters.
You’ve got me thinking more about #2. I think it goes too far, because monsters CAN get P dice from blasting a building, they just don’t get as many. I wonder if maybe limiting blast P dice generation to only 1P dice per attack, absent a trigger like Power Gorge? It would tone down multi-shot and radial attack…two tools that I rely on a lot, and I’m reluctant to let go, truth be told.
I still don’t see it as an issue of blasting being too good, but that brawling could be better.
Also, I think that when looking at MP revamps, the place to start is more fundamental. The game works in certain ways because of the way the game was available at retail upon release. Now that random boosters are a thing of the past, I think we should look at the way unit forces are assembled and how they play in the game.
The fix I recommend — “If a figure with long-range makes an advance, it may not make a blast attack this turn. A monster with long-range that steps but does not advance may make a blast attack this turn.”
This is a direct nerf to some of the game’s most dominant units (Bellower, Spikodon, Katana, Nautilus Blaster) and most range-abusive monsters (MZM, Ultra Voltis, Sky Sentinel, Mega Legionnaire, Phobos). It opens up a good reason to use Rocket Apes, Shadow Raiders, and units like them. It makes Howitzer Ape suck less compared to Bellower.
Threat range is reduced. Ability to organize under LEADERSHIP and immediately fire is eliminated. Monsters that cannot adopt a safe position with just steps must wait a turn to fire (perhaps holding back dice to do so), either giving an enemy monster a chance to get out of range or giving enemy units a chance to make the position unsafe to blast from.
Tested over a number of games, this is a house rule that I adopted some time back tends to level the playing field between blasting and brawling considerably. I don’t use it anymore, but it functioned well.
I kinda like this one. While it would be more fair to say long-range can still fire if the target is in short range, this would require some memory & accounting which Monpoc has done well to avoid.
Giving extra bdie to brawlers, lowering brawl defense or giving monsters cover will only make the pocket-blasty snipers more incentive to fear you & stay at range, extending the duration of the game and forcing the brawler over more. Forcing them to close the gap will reduce their ability to lure you over, and force them to pop out of their safe surrounding units more often.
If you go into games knowing the long range units are less potent, you will also be less likely to bring clusters of long-range units & mix up your forces a bit more.
Along with this — I would advocate the removal of Repair Vehicle (and MRV) or Meat Slave from the game when REPAIR/BLEED is used, as well as the removal of any unit that dies from SACRIFICE. You can still heal 5x if you want to bring 5 units, more if you are willing to bring an RV/MRV splash. It’s plenty, but it costs you something instead of just that 1 unit slot you won’t miss.
Well, if units are only there to facilitate your monster winning, and are usually cannon fodder for that goal, why not the ultimate sacrifice for the ultimate benefit?
I like this conversation, in that it we’re all recognizing the overall imbalance in our game toward long-range blastyness.
I like the thought of Monsters gaining cover from buildings in that it has the dual purpose of slightly debuffing blasting unit squads & also slightly debuffing the long-range blasty monsters.
I think I prefer giving a bonus to brawlers in one of the ways described above. Double-use of the a-dice for both move/attack is decent, but does open up the possibility for a 15 or more A-die turn (which really mucks with the dice economy in our game). I think I prefer the -1 defense against brawl attacks debuff, or a bonus b-die per attack (as with Logistics) or per attacker. My concern with a bonus b-die per attacker is that while it makes Carnidons slightly more interesting, it makes Gang-brawlers terrifying.
Regardless, when we eventually have to go all “Blood Bowl” & start running the game completely independent of Privateer (or have we done that already?) this is certainly an issue that I consider to be of high importance.
I’m not sold on any of these “Fixes”. All of it seems a bit extreme for me. I understand that some people love brawling, but there’s a reason knives lose in a gun fight. Crippling blasters and amping up brawlers would destroy Martian units. They have one brawling unit and it’s not that good. I really don’t have a problem with the brawling rules for units. Brawling for monsters is what needs help. I think that mostly has to do with many of the good brawling monsters being pedestrian, and not with the brawling rules.
I’m usually very pro fixing pedestrians, but unfortunately things like U.Tyrranix, U.Osheroth & Xixorax are pedestrian. None of them really need fixing in that regard.
That said, any anti-blast fix would of course also benefit abovementioned beasts.
That is the big problem with some of these ideas. Some monsters are going to become unplayable, while others are just going to get ridiculously strong. While I agree that the game needs some tuning to make things more balanced. Big changes don’t correct balance they just tip the scales in the other direction.
I’ve been thinking a lot about climb lately. I just hate abilities that don’t really do anything. I’ve been playing a pc game similar to monpoc that doesn’t have limitations of the board and it’s made me think that Climb should be allowed to end it’s movement on buildings. This could be done on Vassel or just with a plastic base under the building.
@MrFroggies — My own suggested fix affects Martians minimally. Most of the monsters would still operate their blasting game with reasonable capability (particularly with Radar secure), and they only have a few long-range units. Invaders arguably gain as much as they lose, being great monster-vs-monster but vulnerable to enemy units whittling them down. Plus their flying squishy units are a lot harder to suppress when they are so much harder to pick off before they advance.
Although I guess long range units are much more useful then defending a powerbase.
A Marauder or Nautilus assault would require them moving into position, thereby being unable to shoot, and spending the enemy’s unit turn as sitting ducks – in range of their long range units or short range units moving up and shooting. The Marauder/Naut, would never have pulled off a shot, and would just be almost-free Def 2 pdie.
To counter this the Martian player would hope to use these useful long-range units in defense, and would hope to lure the enemy over to his side, which may not always be a viable tactic.
With bases being harder to get to, I forsee SSS become more potent. Firstly they’ll just forego the Katana trio for something like Squix, C-types with a grunt katana for red high impact of even Shadow Raiders, which use UN to disrupt your base while they get to milk theirs.
Protector blastyness is also almost unaffected with G1s and Tornadus/Fire Kamis capable of bolting across the map and nailing you deep in enemy territory.
If anything, unit-wise I think Terrasaurs would probably take the biggest hit, due to their lack of all terrain.
…unfortunately I’m only coming up with problems. All the solutions I can think of to rebalance the fight (note not singular monsters, that would literally require alterations to individual Figures), are prone to making the snipers more fearful, and less likely to commit. I keep thinking one rather needs some objective that makes monsters and units WANT to be in the thick of the fight, or maybe even the centre of the map.
I just can’t figure out if that something should something simple such as a health token, king-of-the-hill victory condition, taking damage from some unseen force for being near the edges (electrical barrier/artillery or some such) or RAMPAGE-style-buildings-contain-goodies (which again favours certain apes/Xix).
Rambling here I know.
Marauder and Nautilus would secure radar, targeting anything that came into their blast range. They’d hang back beyond enemy unit range and never get shot at. They can’t currently do this, since enemy long-range blasters easily move up and take them out.
Bases are still not hard to disrupt. TOW, HOIST, and Tornadus still works. MULTI-SHOT from Cthulabite or glass Earth Kami still works. Command or Transport/Nest (+advance) still works. Given the blow to some of the SSS powerhouse monsters, slightly tougher bases isn’t a big deal.
Tornadus is still useful to everyone. Plant your blast support units, advance only Tornadus and HOIST. You get range 9 from your blast platform, which is plenty deep into enemy territory.
There’s an adjustment. Long-range units are no longer dominant choices. You might not want any. You might want fewer at any rate. But it operates.
Delighted just to see that there is informed dialog on this topic; no game is “dead” if there is a passionate player base and the game is still being played. Many of the games in my collection haven’t even been in print in years, have outlived their original publisher, and never saw more than a couple of expansions (if any). Monsterpocalypse is already a great game, but maybe it could be even better now that we have the advantage of hindsight after 5+ sets?
Also delighted to see critical thinking in this case. I’m not actually sure that Brawl is disadvantaged (or that any of the ideas I put forward are the best solutions if it is), but it’s a meta-hypothesis and a solution set that could be tested (other topics could include pedestrian monsters, monster vs. unit turn healing, force construction, victory conditions, etc.).
In the spirit of self-disclosure, I own and love both Brawl and Blast oriented monsters and factions (including the nefarious Martian Menace…Deimos-9 was my first Alpha/Ultra/Mega). The implications of any change in a game so wonderfully nuanced are certainly nuanced as well. For example, what really happens in case #2 to Martians which do rely heavily on unit blast but are also low defense (and so easily give up P-die to opponent blast) and have unit access an “extra” P-die generating trigger (Power Gorge)? It may well be that no fix is required, or this fix is too radical/wrong, but it might be fun to test some different ideas (I may just have to go set up a test game…).
Ultimately, this path could/should also lead us to individual abilities and/or individual figures and tweaking figure information (make or break, make or break!). I would only argue that we should first consider any possible changes to general aspects of gameplay, then specific abilities that apply across figures, and finally individual agendas/factions/figures.
In the end, I’m really happy to just be thinking and talking about MP again, and I hope at least a few of you feel the same way.
Thanks
Speaking of core rules, does anyone think the Spawn/Move/Attack limitation couldn’t be lifted? I mean sure maybe keep it for Monsters for Powerup/Move/Attack but for units?
I know there are some strategies that would be created but would it be really over powered? I just always find that getting the order of events exactly right was a big part of why turns took so long.
It would be absurd for blast units. You could fire, then retreat your units out of brawl range. Brawl units really wouldn’t be helped all that much… they will almost never have a target before they move. Makes the brawl vs blast divide WORSE.
True, then you may have to have special rule like you can’t blast and then move.
A little off subject of the whole make brawl better but something that could help make unit turns faster and the early power base more interesting(getting discount earlier). Just a little easier for new players to have to plan their turns less.
For making brawling better what about for range units being unable to blast if base to base with any enemies. So even if the Brawler misses/can’t attack they still disable the enemy unit.
Honestly, I don’t like many of the ideas as presented… Ideally, I want to keep the basic rules of Monsterpocalypse simple, and making broad changes like what has been presented is difficult to justify.
The main issue right now is that blasting units are too good compared to brawling units. Blasting units have more options for triggers, more effective use of their triggers, and doesn’t need another ability just to hit anything with flight in the game.
Beyond going and tweaking every unit in the game to rebalance this, I don’t think there’s a simple solution to this problem.
The only thing I could think of to consider is increasing the benefit of cover to +2 DEF instead of +1… But that probably opens up a slew of other problems
After taking my latest turn, I had similar thoughts…the game as is, warts and all, is still fantastic. Sure, there are lots of things that could be done to change it, but then it’d be a different game. maybe the warts get bigger, maybe the don’t. hard to tell without really getting into the weeds.
The problem is, I don’t think you can approach Monpoc 2.0 with fixes in mind. I think you need to go in with the mindset to change as little as possible, because so much of what is there works. Blasting being better than brawling copies what real life would carry with it, but it only matters because of some sense of artificial game balance. When a thug brings a knife to a gun battle, he doesn’t ask the other side to not shoot him until he’s able to get a few swings in.
I agree. I think blasting as-is works fine. It is brawling that needs a boost, not a nerf to blasting. And by a boost, I mean that in the new units or tweaks to units sense.
Who wouldn’t want Raptix with Power Gorge (brawl)? Or Carnidon with Demolish & Demolition? Or new units with abilities like those?