We're a long way down the route of designing it and I suppose I'm asking this question to ensure we've not misread what players really want to keep and would be interested in seeing adjusted. I can't comment on what we've done in detail, but I'm really pleased so far and I've been pretty outspoken about my feelings on 2.0 v 1.0 (although I'm happy playing 2.0, 1.0 is my preferred tipple).

Let the discussion flow :)

don't want alot of change,1st ed. minis was solid as was.

As the current admin for Eternal Campaigns 1.0, I will support whatever version of DDM 1.0 that comes out.

That being said, I have alot of 1.0 games under my belt over that last couple of years along with some other EC players. I believe that we can be a good "sounding board" for any proposed changes in DDM 1.0. I am willing to sign any NDA required to help test out anything. One of the things that we will need to start doing is seeing how these changes will affect EC 1.0 and prepare the rule changes accordingly.

In general, I like 1.0 the way it is. I am not opposed to changes, if they make sense and are overall balanced.

Some core things I don't think need to be drastically changed are as follows, but like I said, I am not going to drop 1.0, but will adapt.

I like morale checks and think they should stay in some form.

I like commander effects in the 1.0 system.

I like the 1.0 targeting rules as opposed to the 2.0 system.

I like the 1.0 charging rules as opposed to the 2.0 system.

I am not opposed to restatting minis. As you may or may not know, we restatted the 2.0 minis and created a whole new set for EC with everything posted on www.eternalcampaign.com.

Anyway, any testing help that the EC community can provide, let me know. You can send me a PM or usually find me on Vassal most CST evenings.

I likes me some Original Edition too...

Here are my thoughts (you asked!)

• Don't restat any mini's that have already been released (HB-DoD). Any. None.

Even if that means there are "unplayable mini's" out there. With set rotation gone there are going to be tons of new minis to play with and that will keep the rules interactions to a minimum. People are going to want to point at the no immune lightning Blue Wyrmling... Oh well, there are lots of other mini's in the sea. I think it is far more important that people are not walking around with useless cards. If people can use what they have, you'll be more likely to draw players. The most important part. I do support "careful clarifictions" as has been done with current edition. With new, guild cards to follow. (same stats though). With creative stating of NEW (unreleased) mini's, many of those unplayable mini's could see new life.

• Any changes should be "under the hood".

In other words, streamline what is there and work with the stats that have already been released. Kinda the same point I know, but it's an important one.

• Keep MC's.

It is the major difference between the two systems. It could use some tweaking, but it's gotta stay.

• Use the Wardrum revision rules as the basis.

Tiles and overbearing commander rules (speed 2, really?) should stay in the past. They were fun, but the Wardrum revision (the latest rulebook I think) was the best.

• Finish the rules first. Then put out cards.

Not the other way around. That just makes sense.

• Pay the developers and designers.

Um, did I say that out loud?

• Trust the developers and designers.

I did say that one out loud. They do a ton of work and get shit for credit, and nothing to $. Sure, you'd have done it differently, but I can guarantee you, they have put more critical thought into the design process that you did. Thems just facts. No offense intended.

• Keep Current Editions rules additions to a minimum. Zero would be good.

There should not be a hybrid version. Blurring the distinction is counterintuitive. That means keeping initiative as is, keep MC (see above) keep faction flavor, don't add saves, keep multiple attacks... you know... keep it 3.5riffic...

• Keep the factions the same.

Derp. (I learned that one last night from TianZi.) It means "It's obvious you idiot." :)

Thanks for all the work folks! Can't wait to see it!

A lot of this is rehash from the previous thread:

I'd like to see restats of old sets. With streamlined rules, power will invariably shift and it's too restrictive to work within the confines of such poorly stated figures of the past.

New card designs for all new 1.0 cards, to tell them apart from the old outdated stats. This could make a "classic" vs "new" 1.0 variable game.

Barring that; I would move that there be an A-B 1.0 tournament format.

"A" play Guild cards only as 15 sets of already designed cards existed before the new Guild design model would make the game unbalanced to include "official booster cards".

"B" play Booster & Guild cards mix.

I understand not wanting to revise 15 sets of cards, it's a lot of time and work, so move forward with new stats as 2.0 is able to do - and ignore the earlier 15 sets of existing stats to create game balance. Also format "B" offers some pretty crazy potential for games.

The winner of initiative chooses whom goes first, the player to go first only activates 1 figure.

Also, the lines rules should be reviewed. As far as the line rules, I find targeting the closest opponent extremely unintuitive in this instance, because it restricts a caster from blasting 3 opponents directly in front of them that are doing a conga line with no cover. You should be able to target any map corner within range of the spell, walls and obstructions along that path stop the spells effect beyond its intersection. I am not saying adopt the 2.0 rules which allow you to blast unseen targets.

I don't want to see 100% accurate blind shots happening. Line of sight should be determined to the target square of a line, but I don't think you should have to target the closest opponent's square.

Target nearest: It's good, but as Alepulp mentioned I'd like to allow any area of the area affect to contact the nearest target - 99% of the time a fireballs forward hemisphere is never hitting anything and is wasted.

greyhaze said:
stuff

Well, we'll just have to disagree on all points. Hopefully, my initiative is higher than yours and I win! ;)

Seriously, It's good to see folks are passionate about the game.

HYPOTHETICAL TALKING POINT:

What if targeting "nearest" was kept,
but,

what if being under command allowed you to target

either "nearest" or
"a creature with no cover."

(Similar to SWM.)

This seems a huge change, but I'd be interested in any responses. it seems that it would alleviate issues with lines, and even archers in some cases.

I honestly think that making fundamental changes to the way 1.0 works is a mistake, but I'm not the target audience, so take that for what it's worth.

Tried said:
(Similar to SWM.)

I play SWM, and I always find that system complicated...

I agree with JQ (not because he is JQ though...), I'd rather not have anything original edition changed, streamlined sure, but not changed. And I am the target audience. :)

Tried: I was thinking the SWM targetting rules too a while back.

Restats for some old minis and those pieces clearly made under the controversial rule "we cannot make every miniature playable" (see Phoelarch, Halfling enchanter). As an alternative, new units (restats) should try to make some old, neglected minis viable (via warband building, commander effects or abilities)

Summons turned into "minions", or at least make summoning a little more viable

Mount rules adjusted and streamlined (2.0 seems fine, with minor tweaks)

I'd add the shifting rule (after all, it's in the 3.5 ruleset) and maybe targeting of lines as per 2.0

Everything else seems just fine!

I am only thinking of Eternal Campaigns with this remark, but if targeting rules change, we will have to do some major nerfing of powers. We have a selective shot 2 feat that works fine, but perfect targeting is tough to defend against at higher EC levels.

simage (EC 1.0 admin) said:
I am only thinking of Eternal Campaigns with this remark, but if targeting rules change, we will have to do some major nerfing of powers. We have a selective shot 2 feat that works fine, but perfect targeting is tough to defend against at higher EC levels.

If you refer to my line, I meant targeting of lines (such as lightning bolt, etc.), not ranged attacks, which work just fine as they are now. The current rules are ok by me, so it was only a suggestion. I didn't mean to cause any misunderstanding, sorry!

I think the original line effect was done because it would be too easy to hit alot of people with a line effect and almost impossible to defend against on most maps. But, I have never tried to play it using the current 2.0 style. I may test it out during some of our EC games to see what impact it has. I haven't heard of too many 2.0 issues with the new line effects being to overpowered.

I would like to agree with warchanters list (all excellent points), except maybe on the shifting rule. Unless many figures are restated, which might be something the designers want to avoid, allowing shifting really changes the way the game plays. Not that I am against shifting, it's just a big change.

Sorry for being inactive for so long... I have finally gotten my hordelings account reset.

I'm glad to see everyone's input on this topic, and think that we are definitely in sync with what most people are saying.

At this time, I have no plans on restating older minis.

For now, we have done alot of work and research into existing miniatures and are working on a design document.

I am also working from the premise that there should be no major rules changes - the rulebook should be updated to include errata and provide clearer examples.

Gregg Dieckhaus

gdieckhaus said:
Sorry for being inactive for so long... I have finally gotten my hordelings account reset.

I'm glad to see everyone's input on this topic, and think that we are definitely in sync with what most people are saying.

At this time, I have no plans on restating older minis.

For now, we have done alot of work and research into existing miniatures and are working on a design document.

I am also working from the premise that there should be no major rules changes - the rulebook should be updated to include errata and provide clearer examples.

Gregg Dieckhaus

Hot!

Thanks for the work, this all sounds great!

based on what I've seen on this thread and on others, I think the 1.0 updating work will satisfy most people. But, please continue letting us know what you'd like to see and ideas for improvements, or things that musn't change.

I would say keep 95% of 1.0 just the way it is.

Only thing I would like to see is movement and range counting changed to 2.0 version. Just takes out the counting and recounting to make sure you have the movement or range.

My thoughts; it's important to unify ability names, like Harbinger's Troll Reach Attack or Eye of Grummsh's Vicious Attack. Same with new vs old magic missile, just change the new one name.

Instead of change old stats we can use new commander abilities like one that guarantes minimun speed 6 under command.

My appologies about my english.