BF EVO : RISE OF THE ZOMBIES - NEW MOD IN MIND

[soulman]

Hello all, something popped into my mind so i thought i write it down, and it keeps me away from the hot topic of "the minis look "

Now that people have seen the basic rules etc, and with S&P 40, giving us SST ADVENTURE GAME , We can start to see a more one to man system for BF and any small one to one ideas..

We could start with Zombies, since its only one enemy, and then move on to XCOM....

So i start....

ZOMBIE STATS

Zombies have 1 action only ( the slow type )
MOVE :4
CC : 1D6
WOUND : 3+ ( WAS CALLED TARGET )
KILL : 7+
ARMOUR : 3+
*A zombie cannot be suppressed


As for humans on the tabletop, its a mix of BF and SST AD Game, all humans have a ACCURACY score (ACC )

A trained shooter wound be ACC 4+
Untrained person with gunn ACC 5+

RULES FOR SHOOTING
Well its a D6 roll to roll over your shooting skill, if you roll a 1 its a " ammo check " if you roll above your ACC you have hit your target.

Roll the weapons dice, if you roll over the WOUND score, the enemy may have armour and can make a armour save, if you roll the KILL score its dead....No armour save.

Simple as that, have not looked at cover, and where the change may go, into wound/kill as normal..?

WHATS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ZOMBIE STATS.

I was thinking of havbing a KILL of 6+, to give you the one in six chance of a luckly head shot, but i like the idea of a skill called " Headshot " which drops the KILL score by 1 point down to 6..?

Whats your thoughts on the zombies stats, we could remove the SST AD GAME ACC score but this adds flavour to the types od people running away or fighting the zombies...

Should the WOUND and ARMOUR scores be different..?
Or should the humans get a +1 to roll of ACC, because the zombies are slow and easy to hit at short range maybe 10".

Over to you, sort this out, and then on to Xcom......

 

[Kenrick Dargoth]

I just want to write that MP is giving You a great pre-painted versions of zombies :twisted:





yes i'm mean :wink:

 

[Locutus9956]

I just want to write that MP is giving You a great pre-painted versions of zombies

'you' should not be capitalised unless it starts a sentence

'a great pre-painted version'

or just 'great painted versions' (without the 'a')

a is singular versions is plural, but theyre both refering to the same thing/things.

Sorry to be an anal retentive gimboid but you did ASK for people to correct your spelling/grammar :wink:

Anyway back on topic, given what Matt's been saying now Im willing to wait and see the models up close before I really judge them but going on the photos yeasterday you have a very valid (sadly) point

All that said, I like this idea, especially the XCom part, that would be too awsome for words

 

[Paladin]

raise the armor score to 5/6 so they fail more often, but give them the "ignore first 3 armor fail checks" like tanks to give them the won't stop coming at you feel.

 

[soulman]

Thanks P for the input, i like to keep my zombies at the level of not worring about how many hits, i love to see 30+ zombies in a town, with 5-8 heroes etc.

The failed armour rolls would be great for the "Queen alien " from Aliens of course.....

Something to look at also....

If we nail down the basic rules, then ALIENS woulds be good, the motion tracker, could be 10" reaction range etc.....

Cheers P

 

[Helstrom]

@ Locutus: You should capitalise the first letter in each sentence (unless the sentence starts with a number), and end each sentence with a full stop, exclamation mark, or question mark.(*)

a is singular versions is plural, but theyre both refering to the same thing/things.

To avoid confusion, you should have put both 'a' and 'versions' in quote marks. There should also have been a comma after 'singular'. 'They're' is written with an apostrophe and 'referring' has a double 'r'.

Anyway back on topic, given what Matt's been saying now Im willing to wait and see the models up close before I really judge them but going on the photos yeasterday you have a very valid (sadly) point

Commas should have been placed after 'anyway' and 'judge them' at least. 'Yesterday' is not written with 'ea' and the word is lost in this sentence; 'photos yesterday' does not make sense. It should probably have been 'photos posted yesterday', or something along those lines. '(sadly)' should have been placed elsewhere so as to not disturb the flow of the sentence; 'you (sadly) have a very valid point', or '(sadly) you have a very valid point' could both have worked, as well as several other places.


I just can't resist :wink:


(*) As far I know there is no official ruling on the grammatical status of smilies, however it seems to be common use that a smiley can also function as a full stop, exclamation mark, or question mark.

 

[Kenrick Dargoth]

Sorry to be an anal retentive gimboid but you did ASK for people to correct your spelling/grammar :wink:

[...]

All that said, I like this idea, especially the XCom part, that would be too awsome for words

1)I am more than happy. I have CAE but only mark "C" :? and I make many mistakes, so I really like when someone shows them to me.

That You is from Polish. When you wan to show that you respect someone you capitalise it. It's mostly uesd in letters, but some people use it on forums/communicators too. It's a mark of good behavior. :lol:

2)X-com (if you mean the game from the early 90') rocks

 

[Locutus9956]

Thanks Helstrom, I do know all that but am lazy and type too fast (and don't bother to proof read my posts.

And yes that's X-Com, aka UFO Enemy Unknow, Terror From the Deep and all that lot. To this date some of the best PC games ever made!

 

[Locutus9956]

Oh also @ Helstrom:

In my original post the start of the first sentence is a direct quoted comment from above and was specifically refering to the fact that it should NOT have been capitalised so starting that sentence with it capitalised would have been silly. The next line is a quotation as is and the next line is actually more or less a continuation of the previous one (I only spaced them out to make them clearer bullet points so to speak

They weren't really intended as proper sentences anyway, merely throwaway comments (frankly I've never considered correct gramatical structure to really matter for quick statements such as on web forums, though I do try to pay a little more attention when I go on an extended rant (such as now)

Every other sentence in the post is correct gramatically (if we assume that smilies can count as punctuation (the last sentence is a bit long but not gramatically incorrect as such). As to the quotations and the spelling of they're and yesterday, those was just a typos (as I said before I type too fast and am generally posting while working so not really paying too much attention anyway ). And I flat out disagree about (sadly), the emphasis was intended to imply that it was a sad state of affairs the point was VALID and placing it elswhere would not convey this correctly as far as I'm concerned. It both examples you gave it seems to imply that I am saddened that he has a point at all, not so much that is a valid one

And yes that's a huge paragraph but I'm tired and can't be arsed to check for mistakes in this one

(p.s. I'm not actually getting stressy about this whole thing or taking offence. Just carrying on the grammar conversation as this thread was still far too on topic for this forum )

pps. One last thing, the 'photos yesterday' refers specifically to the photos in their state yesterday if you were to look at the photos yesterday. They have since been replaced so 'posted yesterday' or simply 'photos' could be misleading

 

[Soulmage]

[sarcasm]I so come to the Mongoose forums to read about people's grammar. [/sarcasm]

Who cares?!?!?!?!

 

[catbarf]

Wait... What zombie miniatures?

 

[Helstrom]

[sarcasm]I so come to the Mongoose forums to read about people's grammar. [/sarcasm]

Who cares?!?!?!?!

HE STARTED IT!

Okay, okay, English lessons over, kids. I hope you all learned something!

Locutus, if you ever need my back-up to bring a thread wildly off-topic again, drop me a PM

 

[asgelb]

All that said, I like this idea, especially the XCom part, that would be too awsome for words

Awesome is spelled with an e after the w. ;-) And shouldn't there be a period or two in place of all those commas? Just having some fun.

I'm usually not a "grammar corrector" unless its for the obvious or when people write or say "anyways".

 

[Kenrick Dargoth]

I think that grammar/spelling correction is good. I quite often correct someone (but rather on Polish forum, I'm never sure if the mistake in english is really a mistake ). I belive that we sould work to boost our konwledge about language we are using.

Cheers!

 

[Sgt. Brassones]

Soulmage: Forget about ignoring the first three hits. Do you relise how much book keeping that would be with 40-60 zombies on the table? I'd say give them a 6+ save but they ignore Piercing. You know, rip an arm off and they just keep coming! :shock: BTW Zombiesmith has a 20% off sale right now on the full set of 30 zombies. www.zombiesmith.com

 

[Larac]

I think using Traits would fit the rules better. Perhaps,

Unnatural Tougness: The Armor Save for an Undead model, is not affected by Percing,and other traits that reduce the Armor Save.

This is to show most hits that would produce shock in a normal person do not affect a model with Unnatural Tougness.

Certian Fire Based Weapons may be able to bypass the Undead Trait, like Flame Throwers.

So if you have a Armor Save of 5-6 unless it is a weapon with the Fire Trait or Holy Trait the Armor Save is not modified.

Good Gaming
Lee

 

[Cerebral Cortex of the Da]

There should be two stats for the zombies.... 1 for the quick kill million zombie mob type and then another set for the "oh sh^t, I just did that in pants cause this Motherf-er won't die".

Then when playing against someone they could choose which types of zombies to include, or you could have the mob game and the "oh sh^t" game.

Thoughts?

CCotD'

 

[Sgt. Brassones]

I think using Traits would fit the rules better. Perhaps,

Unnatural Tougness: The Armor Save for an Undead model, is not affected by Percing,and other traits that reduce the Armor Save.

This is to show most hits that would produce shock in a normal person do not affect a model with Unnatural Tougness.

Certian Fire Based Weapons may be able to bypass the Undead Trait, like Flame Throwers.

So if you have a Armor Save of 5-6 unless it is a weapon with the Fire Trait or Holy Trait the Armor Save is not modified.

Good Gaming
Lee

Dude, flaming a zombie would just make it more dangerous. Now not only is it dead and feeling no pain but its burning with the intensity of scalding bacon fat. :shock:

 

[Cerebral Cortex of the Da]

I think using Traits would fit the rules better. Perhaps,

Unnatural Tougness: The Armor Save for an Undead model, is not affected by Percing,and other traits that reduce the Armor Save.

This is to show most hits that would produce shock in a normal person do not affect a model with Unnatural Tougness.

Certian Fire Based Weapons may be able to bypass the Undead Trait, like Flame Throwers.

So if you have a Armor Save of 5-6 unless it is a weapon with the Fire Trait or Holy Trait the Armor Save is not modified.

Good Gaming
Lee

Dude, flaming a zombie would just make it more dangerous. Now not only is it dead and feeling no pain but its burning with the intensity of scalding bacon fat. :shock:

And it's mobile..... Hmmm what's that smell.... OMG the court house is burning and there are people walking out of it all slow and stinky like.... Hey stay away from that lantern and the cow...... Crap, there's goes Chicago again.

Or... No Mom you can't have a hug.... I'm allergic to fire and I don't want my brains sucked out my ear....

But it would eventually be consumed by the flames. Maybe some rules for choking on the smell of burning flesh and hair.......

CCotD'

 

[soulman]

Thanks all for getting back on topic, for the zombies, any weapon with a - to the armour roll wil not be used, so a .50 mg, which is 3d6 and -1 to AR, is just 3d6.

I like to Keep the KILL at 7+, so they always have a armour roll, unless you have the head shot skill and it drops to 6+.

Once we can say yes to the slow zombie stats, and basic rules, we can move on to fast zombies, and all the types we see in films etc.

Has everybody seen the SST ADVENTURE GAME RULES..?

So should zombies be
WOUND 4+
KILL 7+
ARMOUR 3+

Of course armour will go up to 4+ for cutting weapons like axes etc.

Or would you like a higher WOUND, so you don`t keep needing to roll armour rolls, makes it quicker, for people with loads of zombie figs..
IE/
WOUND 5+
KILL 7+
ARMOUR 5+

Which means hes harder to wound then a human ( wound 4+ )
Cannot be killed, humans has ( kill 6+ )
And armour is the same as modern day soldiers...?

AMMO TYPE
9MM ammo is " weak " which is a +1 to armour roll
5.56/7.62 is standed.

Sort this out and we can work on" fear and terror "

I have already made stats for " xcom "
Alan