MFZ: Rapid Attack (Un)Official Errata and FAQ

[MittenNinja]

Just wanted to centralize a lot of answers to some common questions and rules clarifications. So here goes! If there is anything you would like to add to this ( or noticed I have missed) please let me know and I'll add them! I will also add more as things come up!

1. SSRs ( ) are not systems. They cannot be destroyed or lost like systems, and do not count as a ranged weapon system in regards for gaining the bonus for not having any ranged weapons.

2. When referring to split systems, a for example, they are counted as a specific system "type". Thusly, a / / / build is legal (albeit inefficient) and do not grant you a or a . (Source)

3. You cannot attack your own frames.

4. The free granted from not having any ranged weapons allows you to move over cover as of you had a .

[PD2525]

3. You cannot attack your own frames.

A moment of silence for all the fun but ultimately stupid tactics this allowed for.

ok, back now.

Is the idea that you can't put a station in immediate capture position a rule or errata yet? I was checking the book and I don't remember, but I can imagine in games greater than 2 players that someone could place a station right next to a non primary defender and cause score recalculation the moment the game leaves setup. The idea of throwing someone's score off so they immediately start as the defender could be broken.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Is the idea that you can't put a station in immediate capture position a rule or errata yet? I was checking the book and I don't remember, but I can imagine in games greater than 2 players that someone could place a station right next to a non primary defender and cause score recalculation the moment the game leaves setup. The idea of throwing someone's score off so they immediately start as the defender could be broken.

You can only get yourself from middle position to last this way. It doesn't change the leader because no one can set up inside the defender's defensive perimeter.

[MittenNinja]

But the middle guy could jump from middle to lead by taking one of the last guy's stations.

Defender AV=7 with 5 assets. Score = 35
Secondary attacker AV=6 with 5 assets. Score = 30
Primary attacker AV=3 with 7 assets. Score = 21

The secondary attacker snatches one of the primary's in the above fashion and takes the lead.

[PD2525]

You can only get yourself from middle position to last this way. It doesn't change the leader because no one can set up inside the defender's defensive perimeter.

But the middle guy could jump from middle to lead by taking one of the last guy's stations.

Defender AV=7 with 5 assets. Score = 35
Secondary attacker AV=6 with 5 assets. Score = 30
Primary attacker AV=3 with 7 assets. Score = 21

The secondary attacker snatches one of the primary's in the above fashion and takes the lead.

That "second to lead" position is exactly what I was thinking. My concern with that possibility is that in an official tournament setting (something where the winner gains more than bragging rights), an alliance like that early on can skew a game in one players favor (and theoretically his partner in crime once they split the winnings), removing a chunk of the strategy and competition.

[Batzorig]

That "second to lead" position is exactly what I was thinking. My concern with that possibility is that in an official tournament setting (something where the winner gains more than bragging rights), an alliance like that early on can skew a game in one players favor (and theoretically his partner in crime once they split the winnings), removing a chunk of the strategy and competition.

I don't think there's any way to write rules for a 3-player game of MFZ that doesn't fall apart if you assume 2 people are always working together. Even if the lead doesn't shift immediately, two players focusing on only one opponent (notably, the one with the weakest company if he is the defender) will win almost every game.

[Foghammer]

I think that the ability to form an alliance or a "team" and decide to split winnings at the end is kind of indicative of the game's setting though... I mean, sportsmanship aside, this IS a game about warfare on a small scale (pun intended). All's fair in love and war, and it's always a political game at the end of the day. All assuming that there will ever be a tournament large enough for a prize worthy of splitting.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Take a fall for a backroom payoff in a tournament is obviosuly cheating and that's usually explicit in tournament rules. A tourney organizer can reinforce this with an indivisible award — say, a trophy. It's also extremely poor sportsmanship, because you're not playing by the same rules as the rest of the players.

The rules assume you're trying to win. Says so on the first page of the rules. So, assuming we're all trying to win (by dint of an indivisible award — let's say it's a frame built by Eduty, worth far more than the handful of pieces that compose it), what do we have?

We'll call the players D, S, and P, for their initial standings.

S has immediately taken the pressure off D before they have taken so much as a single hit. If P starts shooting at D, then S will win the trophy. I see it happen all the time at con games — someone attacks their best friend, sibling, or partner at the table, while the leader can't believe their astonishing luck, and just bring the rain to make sure neither of them gains a clear advantage.

What you're describing is contrary to the rules of the game (in a game, you agree to objectives and actions you can take to obtain them as creative constraints), contrary to any reasonable tournament rules (even though the RAW don't include tourney rules), and obviously poor ethical behavior.

On the other hand! Maybe, for some reason, this is a good idea! Maybe S figures it'll be easier to take out P later in the game, having an ally against S, who is, after all, stronger! It's risky, but I can see it being worth a shot!

We don't need a rule to protect players from making extremely risky strategic decisions. We do need rules to get everyone playing the same game. Fortunately, that's what we've got.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I think that the ability to form an alliance or a "team" and decide to split winnings at the end is kind of indicative of the game's setting though... I mean, sportsmanship aside, this IS a game about warfare on a small scale (pun intended). All's fair in love and war, and it's always a political game at the end of the day. All assuming that there will ever be a tournament large enough for a prize worthy of splitting.

This is true of two-player games, too. Boxing is famous for it.

[addking]

regarding frequently asked questions - I'd mention the 'free' green d8, and if it allows movement thru cover or not. Also using a white as a green. We've seen that in a few posts in the last couple years.

[Foghammer]

I think that the ability to form an alliance or a "team" and decide to split winnings at the end is kind of indicative of the game's setting though... I mean, sportsmanship aside, this IS a game about warfare on a small scale (pun intended). All's fair in love and war, and it's always a political game at the end of the day. All assuming that there will ever be a tournament large enough for a prize worthy of splitting.

This is true of two-player games, too. Boxing is famous for it.

Yeah, and I realize it's not seen in a positive light in the majority of situations, but sometimes I try to look at the metagame through the lens of the factions the players are portraying. A side effect of trying to figure out to build a serial campaign out of these rules...

I would never condone cheating, but with the campaign building perspective it didn't seem too out of line. (Last off-topic post from me, promise.)

[MittenNinja]

regarding frequently asked questions - I'd mention the 'free' green d8, and if it allows movement thru cover or not. Also using a white as a green. We've seen that in a few posts in the last couple years.

Good call. I'll get that added.

[Ced23Ric]

regarding frequently asked questions - I'd mention the 'free' green d8, and if it allows movement thru cover or not. Also using a white as a green. We've seen that in a few posts in the last couple years.

From that PDF we made:

Sprinting

If a frame has neither direct-fire or artil­lery weapon systems installed, he re­ceives a bonus d8 for his movement, which allows him to traverse cover, too.

Adds one green d8.
May move through cover.
Indestructible.

Examples: n/a – Sprinting is a payoff for going weapons-light.

Since Sprinting is not a system, it cannot be destroyed. If a frame which has ranged weaponry loses those due to dam­age, he automatically gains this bonus.

[Blorf]

If there is anything you would like to add to this ( or noticed I have missed) please let me know and I'll add them!

Some of the stuff from my first real thread might be of use here.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=3537&p=29433#p29433

[Zero Revenge]

When I was writing for Steve Jackson Games
-JW

Oooo, what did you work on?

[woodwardiocom]

When I was writing for Steve Jackson Games...

Oooo, what did you work on?

A bunch of stuff, most notably GURPS Ogre, GURPS Banestorm,Transhuman Space: In The Well and the Hellboy RPG. (Sole author on two of those, co-author with Phil Masters on two.) I also did a bunch of work for the Trinity RPG from White Wolf, back when. I'm quite proud of most of it, and kinda embarrassed by bits and pieces...

-JW

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Oh, hey! I've got a bunch of your books! In the Well is the kind of thing that SF needs to think about a lot more — particularly when it comes to RPGs. Pleased to meet you!

[woodwardiocom]

Oh, hey! I've got a bunch of your books! In the Well is the kind of thing that SF needs to think about a lot more — particularly when it comes to RPGs. Pleased to meet you!

Thank you kindly! David Pulver deserves most of the credit for the Transhuman Space series; I basically only did Mars, in his Solar System.

You and I were actually on a panel together at Arisia. I recall fanboying over you a bit...

-JW

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Oh! Jebus! Hi! Yeah! How the hell did I not put your name together?

That was a fun panel. Let's plan a little bit next time and get it rowdier in there.

[Mantisking]

We're drifting here. Take it to Off Topic if you want to continue the conversation.