I don't own Tannhauser, but I've been interested in it for a while.  One of the biggest reasons why I haven't picked it up yet is the lack of maps.  To me, more maps = more variety = more playability.

This thread, and threads like it are very informative so I hope more people post their thoughts about the upcoming reworking of the rules.

That said, to add my own suggestion, I would love to see more maps released for the game.  They don't even need to come in bigger expansions.  Plenty of other games, like Power Grid, have released just new map expansions.  The simple act of adding a new double-sided map extends the life of the game tremendously and would entice "on the fence" players like myself to give Tannhauser a try.

Plageman said:

True.

jabrams007 said:

The next expansion, Daedalus, is a double sided map pack, problem solved!

Let's hope this is a sign that FFG is addressing realistic expectations.

Also, I must add that I think the current grenade rules are one of the more solid concepts in Tannhauser.

No, it's not realistic that you can't throw it into occupied square, true.

You can, however, throw it in front  of, or behind a target, and it effects multiple targets, even on other paths. There needs to be some defensive strategy to counter grenades, even if it's unrealistic, in my opinion.

In my experience, grenades are one of the trickiest weapons and I like the way they are handled.

supervike said:

I just started playing the game a few days ago so excuse me if i dont know what i am talking about. But, it seems that plot is a bit thin on the ground... i know that it will be awesome once i get to creating scenarios, but it would be nice to have a book of connected scenarios that outline a main plot and compose a line that utilizes all the objectives so that a first game runs through a main story line. Or does this exist already online somewhere and i havent seen it perhaps????

DoctorDR said:

A little research basically just answered my own question but it would be nice to get some more involved scenarios in the box...

I'd like those silly ranks to be fixed. Giving a bonus to deployment? Pfft. But, we do have tokens of the month to replace them.

Now, a bonus to initiative? That'd be interesting. 

madslaust said:

That would be cool.

Mentioned previously was a over watch action. That would be neat. As an action set a character to over watch, when an enemy unit crosses his path he can fire with his lowest ratings.

The Sundance Kid said:

I agree that I'm not a fan of the deployment bonus as its too much of a one shot deal that I find contributes little the the overall game.  Initiative bonuses would be a better deal.

I like the idea of an "over watch" action.  I just played my first couple of games of Space Hulk and I thought that action worked very well and could transfer to this game easily.   On his first time playing, a friend of mine was baffled by how my Reich soldiers could run into a room, slash a Union guys throat, and jump out of the room without anyone else seeing/acting/firing a shot.  Over watch would definitely curb that kind of rampant hit and run.  Of course that sounds like it might favor the Union side more.

One thing I'd like to see on the maps is connectors to each circle that indicates how one can move along paths.  I realize that some people have but together some nifty player aids but it'd be easier to have info on the actual map.

Would this be the same space monkey Mafia from the Arcane Legions forum?

I just got Space Hulk as well.

it is a blast.

spacemonkeymafia said:

I do see how over watch can be a bit lop sided in favor of the union

to balance this

Only give Brown the super heavey I can kill on 10s ability.

Remove that from MacNeal and thealpha trooper.

2nd use it as a stand alone action, a unit can not fire and go on over watch, kind of symbolizes a unit off guard re-loading his gun.

The Sundance Kid said:

I am the same!

As for the overwatch, I would not like remove standard equipment from the favored side.  I'd rather see overwatch fit into the Tannhauser mechanics.  Maybe limiting the ability to activate it as you say can balance the ability.  One could make it a token like "Go, go, go!" or "Keep Moving!" only more generic so that it is accessible to multiple factions.

spacemonkeymafia said:

There wouldn't be any removal of equipment. I suggested a updated rules for the smaller flash machine guns.

As it stands they are a bit too powerful with the dumb luck factor. An additional wound I could see, but an automatic kill is a bitt too much.

Using it as an action put a guy to over watch "cover me" type deal would be a good concept.

I could see reasons for and against of using the lowest combat value on a over watch attack.

For: The character is cought off guard

Against: The character is alert when put onto over watch.

over watch could also bring all new abilities for new squads.

Regarding the 2 issues being discussed... I for one like the fact that combat is deadly in this game. It keeps it quick and I feel is justified.

Imagine entering (having your figure move onto a new path) a 15 foot hallway where you know there is a person with a machine gun (an opposing figure) has been waiting and not taking any action. You have no body armor. You move straight at them, stop 5 feet away and shoot them with your pistol. They are wounded. This is how Tannhauser currently works.

Imagine if you the opposing figure was allowed to place an "overwatch" token next to it if it hadn't used an action that turn. This would change the game entirely. The moment an enemy entered your LOS you could shoot.

The autokill is good because these are not power armor troops. They are in regular uniforms...

The overwatch idea could work great, but it would change the game a lot (I feel for the better) and would need playtesting. Perhaps only allow a half move if you want to go into overwatch might help balance.

While not opposed to the idea of 'Overwatch' in principle.  I do believe that in the case of tannhauser it may lead to 'turtling'

In my view overwatch works best in games with assymetric forces - examples include 'Space Hulk' and 'Tide of Iron'

I also have Deja Vu on this - did I discuss this with someone at the 'Tannbunker'?

Nhoj

Here's a thought - what if spending a VP made a figure 'counterattack ready'

What I'm thinking is that if such a figure were attacked then a counterattack roll would be simultaneous.  At full value.  If the figure wished to retain the 'counter' in order to use it against subsequent attacks then the c-attack would be at lowest printed combat value.  This would allow some defence but at the cost of a precious VP.

I'm thinking on my feet here but such a tactic might prevent the scenario that the Doc pointed out - but still with some risk to any characters involved in either the attacking or defending side.

Thoughts?

Nhoj