Do you think Battle mode should receive "a more refined" ruling?

Regarding this topics:

Yes, that seems not intended but legal (obviously, you are not going to put your own objectives the furthest :sweat_smile: , even more if you are playing a tournament, so you take the official ruling which allows you to do that, sadly), so, there are some situations and things that should be stated, at least in battle mode, to be more “competitive”, the development of the competitive play cannot be left to an agreement between players, and changing again between other players… I think.

Same happens with the other topic about modding “equipped weapons”, like Marcus Punch, it seems a bit incoherent from a RPG development/perspective, but the actual ruling allows you to mod that Punch with melee mods, because Marcus has access to them even in Battle mode, and he is equipped with his own “melee weapon” (yes, unarmed weapon like the videogame, but here is treated as melee weapon, so melee mods in… not the case with Deathclaw crush, it is not a melee weapon, so it does not get mods or even it does not get the black die STR bonus, and maybe it should roll it due the “heavy” hit at melee…).

By the way, after a long time, I think this mode should receive more special or default scenarios, with the needing of using “computer” and “lockpick”, but careful with the creature faction players :sweat_smile: . Actually, the only skill you really need in battle mode is “Search”.

What do you think about battle mode? Have you found any odd rule or “hole”? Do you think it should be updated with other scenarios or different kinds of objectives? Maybe another way to earn VP’s?


Short answer? Yes.

Battle Mode has a lot of holes, not just in objectives and vague rules, but in list building. For instance, Hecaton has been playing around with Grenade Launchers that shoot 3-4 times a round. I can do a similar thing in NCR with a Marksman. Does anyone like 5 shots a turn from a Veteran Marksman?

Or things like the Minigun, Flamer, Fat Man, most grenades, most melee weapons (take Machete Gladius or Power Fist for pretty much everything), something like 80% of handguns and rifles, most armor, most armor mods…hell, most things in the game are poor competitive choices as well.

I understand the game was designed for a play at home by yourself style of game, but that’s not really a great way to sell it. For most people it’s a social hobby, and most of that is going to be competitive, even if it’s not a tournament setting. That is the arena that should drive balance changes, rules clarification, etc.

So yes, we need more refined scenarios, more refined points costs, more refined list building, more refined rules in general.

When you are playing at home by yourself you can change anything you like to fit your style.


Yes, I think it needs to improve, it seems a bit abandoned (from some time ago, it just got and updated point list with a different design, before it was more restricted, showing directly wich equipment the models were allowed to buy), if you want to have a game wich you can say it has a Competitive mode, it should be really well refined about ruling and points/items access, and well balanced, regardless of the rest of modes the game has.
I personally think this mode needs a models caps by points (so a Creature faction player could not bring 30 minis in a 500 caps game!), and some item costs (like stun baton unplayable due its cost, or cattle prod, the best option within the cheapest weapons… who could even think about buying an stun baton at 25, when Cattle Prod is just 3?).
I hope to see a revision on this for the next wave, it really needs that.

I agree completely. There really needs to be a complete overall of the point costs, unit allowances, etc. These days games like WH40k have proven that a game’s long term health is often linked to how well it plays competitively. While there may never be a strong tournament scene for this game, if it does not have a well balanced battle mode it will ultimately suffer.

1 Like

There are plans afoot, but they are a little ways away.

The core concept for Wasteland Warfare is not a PvP tourney game. Its not what the design intent was and its not the direction the company wants to take it at present.

But as I say, there are things that will fill that void further down the line.

1 Like

I don’t want to be rude, but if the company did not want that design, why spend the time or effort to release it years ago? Maybe, if the core game is not intended for that, it should have other modes instead of a competitive one (I prefer the narrative one personally), or maybe it could have been released later, with a more refined rules. I am waiting for Homestead, the idea seems pretty good. And Vault tec for a dungeon crawler mode or something like that…
About the rules above, there are still “holes” in the rules wich could affect the game anyway, it does not need to be battle mode (like mixing melee weapons and “unarmed” weapons in the same icon, so the mods apply to them same way, like Marcus punch)

As I say, things are afoot.

The divergent approach in the early days was due to several different people coming into the company from different backgrounds and a slight wooliness around brief.

As the writer of the original battlemode I am of course biased towards PvP play, but at present its not a higher priority due to other products taking development bandwidth.

Once there is more news we will be sure to post and catch everyone up.


What is the core concept then? Because I don’t really see too much two-player stuff being supported.

You know a Necromunda-style campaign would be very popular.

1 Like

I do, yes.

I’m not going to go into details about the what’s and where’s of the game development, but the current focus is on narrative adventuring. This could be solo, this could be co-op, but its not laser focussed on PvP tournament play and the lack of a traditional “necromunda” style campaign was a deliberate choice.

Wasteland Warfare is almost a giant sandbox, that anyone can reach into and do “something” with. That gives it a huge amount of flexibility and possibility but that does come at the risk of some slightly rough edges and modules/ideas getting left to gather dust for a while.

We are now well into the life cycle of the game and things are pretty bedded in, but that doesn’t mean we are not working on things that PvP and escalation style campaign style modules for the future.

However, if there is one lesson I have been keen for Modiphius to learn is that announcing before we are ready is a terrible idea. So, I’m keeping things close to my chest for now but when the time comes there will be plenty of new things to reveal.

The Battlemode topic continues to be an internal discussion and we are looking at the notes on the second version that was written to work out what’s left to make it fit for consumption.

Hope that helps give some idea of what has gone before, as to the future, we’ll be talking more as we are ready.


For the most part it’s just applying points costs differently to each mode. A Battlemode price list and limitations on certain things would resolve a lot of things.

Coming from RPGs, you don’t need really need a lot of rules for solo play, you can just make a decision on your own. When you play with other people and want some fairness you need rules.

Well, 2-3 years ago, battle mode had a different system, more restricted from my point of view, the equipment was specifically “selected” (one by one) for each specific model. Maybe more “closed” to the huge quantity of cards the game has, but I think it could have more “precision”, you don’t really need a huge list to look for equipment. But, for example, chems were too expensive there…

So I get that the rules system is very flexible, and obviously it plugs into your rpg system very well, but for those of us trying to have weekly game nights and build a community we’re kind of adrift. We’re stuck on battlemode atm, because it’s the easiest way to say “let’s sit down and play a game.” I would love some less competitive 2player frameworks for the game; fundamentally I find solo play pointless and co op a bit of a novelty.

All I can say is I know, the dev team know and there will be things in the future.

But I cannot and will not say what or when as I don’t want people to be endlessly asking why something announced isn’t out yet.

Rules dev is a tricky beast at the best of times and when you add in the licensed nature of the product and needing approvals, its better to say little and surprise people than promise the moon and fall short.

1 Like

All I can say is I know, the dev team know and there will be things in the future.

Well that’s good at least.

I guess we can house rule things in the meantime and provide feedback. I’m just happy to see the dev team active, providing feedback, and taking part in discussion. That means a lot.


we will be having championships in Poland this month, running on home rules (mostly unit limit, equipment ban/limit per team) so will be able to share our expirences how it went right after.
the first of 4 is gonna take place on 21.11.21


Sounds good to me. Feedback really does help guide future choices.

1 Like

Any chance you could share those on here? We’re planning a similar thing and it would be nice to compare.

1 Like

Grenade Launchers won’t be banned. They will be mandatory.

They will be moved to the Heavy Weapon slot :laughing: