So I made a post about this on the subreddit, but I wanted to make an official post here to get an official answer. After the release of the Mongrel and Alpha Mongrel cards, Monkeysloth made a post here on my behalf asking if they were supposed to be dogs instead of creatures since the Aplha had the dog handler ability. The answer was that mongrels were supposed to be both creatures and dogs. That has made me wonder if Mutant Hounds are supposed to be considered creatures and dogs now too. Mutant hounds are available units in creature lists, so it would make sense that a dog that is used with creatures would be affected by both creature and dog abilities the same as the mongrels are.
Hey @AtomicInquisition,
Just a heads up for the future - it’d be best to submit rules questions to the Fallout Rules Questions board. Happy to field this one here though.
This one is a slight slip up on my behalf - I got the Dog Handler icon in the bottom left of the Alpha Mongrel card mixed up with the Dog Unit Type Icon, which, of course, goes in the top right hand corner of a card.
This means that Super Mutant Hounds are fine as they are (well, as far as an FEV thing can be anyway) whereas Mongrels should have their Creature Unit Type Icon replaced with that for the Dog Unit Type Icon.
Thanks and sorry for the mix up! Models really shouldn’t be multiple unit types at once!
Ah, sorry. Still a bit confused on how this forum works. So could you clarify a couple things here, because that answer brings up a few other questions. So first, mongrels and mutant hounds are supposed to be only dogs, and NOT creatures correct? And you said that you got the dog handler icon confused with the dog type icon, so does that mean that the Alpha Mongrel isnt supposed to be a dog handler?
- Mongrels and Hounds are Dog Units. I am aware this might cause issues with how the Battle Mode List functions but it is worth keeping in mind that these cards are to function with the main Fallout: Wasteland Warfare narrative experience. Battle Mode (presuming this is where the question comes from, as in your first post you mention creature lists) is a secondary function and the list would ultimately need to work to function with the cards, rather than the other way round. If they are on the list and are not Creature Type Units themselves, that is ultimately fine - Creature Faction is one thing and the Unit Type another.
- An Alpha Mongrel is meant to have Dog Handler.
Thanks!
Wait what?
The box that is being used to sell Mongrel’s says they’re “Creatures” so what does that even mean? What am I as a player supposed to expect when buying this product? Would you sell a box labeled as part of the BoS that couldn’t be used with the Brotherhood?
For a unit to be in the creature faction, according to your own rules, it has to be of the creature type or a unit that can take creature controller as the leader. How am I supposed to use these in regular (I don’t play battlemode) creature faction if they’re not the creature type? Yet they’re being sold as part of the creature faction?
I think what he is saying is that Mongrels are part of the creature faction, but not a creature “type”. What that means is, you can play them as part of your creatures list, but they can’t equip creature items, and are not affected by cteature perks. However, they are affected by dog perks and abilities (such as dog handler) and can equip dog type items.
@AtomicInquisition has it.
It also worth pointing out that those reference cards that refer to Creature Controller and the like are exactly that - they are for reference more so than rigidly defined factions. The names on the boxes are to point players towards thematic army builds from the source material but there is really nothing stopping you from playing Mongrels alongside your Raiders and the like.
If it works for your story, then go with it - that’s the root of F:WW!
Yes that is what Dom is saying.
What I’m pointing out is that they cannot be part of the creature faction without being of the creature type by the faction rules themselves. So since the product is advertised as being “Creatures” what does that mean for these as in Narrative play you cannot use this box for either of the definitions given (type or faction).
Yes for Narrative you can skip the creature faction and just uses these with other factions as the creature faction is kind of Meh unless you really like the thematic concept of one person running around with a bunch of monsters but that’s besides the point.
Maybe Creature faction just needs to be reworked all together? Lots of people like to play them without a controller. Maybe there should be a break down of categories for units in the cap cost list that lets people know what units can be in a faction and get it’s bonus without having that faction listed on it’s card? I don’t know what the right way to handle this is but I do know we’re being sold a set that cannot be used how it’s own packaging says it can be.
See this is the problem as you’re using the same thing for faction, type and now thematic purpose. I understand that FWW is a sandbox game and the rules don’t really matter but most of your customers are not online reading these discussions and realizing that so the get stuff and get confused and frustrated and stop being interested in the game.
Or they come to reddit, discord or Facebook and complain and the community is left having to explain all this which is, in all honestly, a bit of a mess as it doesn’t scream sandbox game to me but that marketing, design and rules don’t really talk to each other. Which can still lead to people just not wanting to get more involved in the game.
I can agree with some of Monkeysloth’s points here @Modiphius-Dom, but I completely understand what you’re trying to say. I think the problem here is that you guys wrote yourself into a corner with the creature faction when you guys first started. It seems as though creatures were initially just meant to be third party enemies to make scenarios more interesting. Then it seems like you guys created the creature controller and creature factions rules to just give people an option to play creatures. And now it seems like you want to open up the creature faction to be played like any other faction with less restrictions, but the thing is, the old restrictions are still in the rulebook and on the app, so that causes confusion.
Another issue Ive noticed during this conversation is that battlemode is kinda just a side project that has some inconsistencies with narrative mode. I think that the “competitive” mode of any game should be clear and defined, and narrative mode should be less restrictive but have the battlemode to refer to for structure. It seems to become more restrictive in narrative mode in some ways, or at least thats how it is being displayed, and thats backwards. But i also understand that in the beginning this game was not meant to be competitive, and battlemode is rekatively new. I also understand that some restrictions in narrative can be ignored for fun (that’s kinda the point of narrative mode). I dont know if this is the intent moving forward for you guys, but i personally hope that battlemode will end up taking priorty, so that it can set the standard for rules for the whole game, and narrative would have the same structure with less restrictions. Right now, its kinda like narrative has one set of rules, and battlemode has a completely separate set of rules, and they are inconsistent with each other.
Fist off I want to say I hope I’m not coming off too harsh on @Modiphius-Dom. I realize there’s only so much he has control over on how FWW is presented to the players and I do appreciate how much he’s willing to engage people here and get long standing rule issues resolve (like the turrets). I’m just someone who’s paid to find issues and fix them (software engineer) or write up proposals to get them fixed, and I’ve been in that mode for a bit and it’s hard to turn it off sometimes. So I apologize if my language was/is a bit too forward as obviously I’m just a fan and not someone working on a project for modiphius.
Blockquote
Another issue Ive noticed during this conversation is that battlemode is kinda just a side project that has some inconsistencies with narrative mode. I think that the “competitive” mode of any game should be clear and defined, and narrative mode should be less restrictive but have the battlemode to refer to for structure. It seems to become more restrictive in narrative mode in some ways, or at least thats how it is being displayed, and thats backwards. But i also understand that in the beginning this game was not meant to be competitive, and battlemode is rekatively new. I also understand that some restrictions in narrative can be ignored for fun (that’s kinda the point of narrative mode). I dont know if this is the intent moving forward for you guys, but i personally hope that battlemode will end up taking priorty, so that it can set the standard for rules for the whole game, and narrative would have the same structure with less restrictions. Right now, its kinda like narrative has one set of rules, and battlemode has a completely separate set of rules, and they are inconsistent with each other.
The game itself has some great raw concepts behind it for what the team is trying to do.
The rulebook just having the base rules and nothing else allowing other rules to be swapped out for force building (campaign book vs battlemode for example) or how you run scenarios (campaign book or In to the Wasteland) or even just slap RPG stuff on top. Like cards being layered on top of each other with rules that built up the experience (core rules/RPG/settlement mode/Into the Wasteland is a valid stack).
So Battlemode doesn’t conflict with the base rules, it’s just a layer on top of the core rules like narrative mode is (which is the campaign book). Battlemode is a side thing as it’s basically that. A side project of Jon’s (that’s how he refers to it) but it still works as one of those layers on top of the base rules. This is why it can do it’s own thing as it’s not contradicting anything in the core rules it’s just a type of rules layer that is mutely exclusive with narrative (campaign book).
The issue is really nothing is there in the rules to explain that’s what they’re doing so it’s confusing. “There are no rules requiring you to use factions” is true as it’s not in the base rules. Battlemode requires that but that’s a separate rule layer. But most tabletop gamers are use to rules stating what they can do and if something isn’t in the rules it’s not something that can be done either. FWW is kind of the opposite to a degree. It has it’s basic rules but if something isn’t there you can do it or make something up but unless you’re clear about that’s your intent gamers won’t take it that way and be confused. The way an RPG is presented is the most similar thing to FWW in a lot of ways but they always tend to have a section explaining the rules are guidelines and can be ignored as needed or new ones implemented. FWW is missing something like that at the start of the rules.
Dealing with a lot of new players on reddit one of the more common questions is basically “where’s the game?” or “what do I do?” from new wargamers (and even veteran ones) as they read the core rules that tells them how to play the game but not what the “game is” as in scenarios and so on. They’re only experience is boardgames generally and so FWW is really confusing in it’s presentation (this also bit ES:CTA for similar reasons).