In reverse order for the sake of arguments.
Yes, one can only trigger one CUF per person per attack. But a hex is a big place and it's feasible to anticipate that more persons (to use the somewhat awkward term of the rules) of one side occupy the same hex than suffered a CUF roll. Or as the rules put it:

D'accord to all three items: the intention of the rule, the critique on terminology and the consequences of the rules. Conflict should and indeed must generate decisions for role-playing games to work. And fighting conflicts should generate the starkest decisions to be made. It's quite literally about live and death for characters, son the consequences should carry on into the world after the action.

Opposed Rolls & Outstanding Success
 

So, with opposed skill checks and whatnot, is it essentially whoever has the most target icons showing on their dice wins?

Is there also some sort of outstanding success or failure mechanic if X more targets are showing than on the opponents' dice? I seem to recall seeing something about an outstanding success mechanic somewhere in the 4e rules but, of course, now I can't find it.

-

There aren't any rules for triumphant successes or abysmal failures in T2K4. You have the push mechanic, for bending your luck at the (possible) cost of damaging gear or taking stress or (physical) strain yourself, but beyond that, it's either pass or fail.

Personally, I still always interpret it otherwise. For many tasks, 4 successes paints a much different picture than 1 and I narrate it that way. For other tasks, I sometimes make it clear before the role what the stakes are, ie "One success here and you'll get him to walk away... but you're gonna need more than that to really convince him of anything" or "any successes and you'll climb the wall -- more than that and you get it done quickly and quietly" and so on.

Sort Of
 

I found the bit that I referred to in the OP. It's not an outstanding success mechanic, per se, but it's close. It apparently only applies in certain situations, though, so not for opposed rolls, in general. Off the top of my head, I can't remember a situation where it does apply so, if you know of one, please share.

MULTIPLE SUCCESSES: A roll of 10 or higher on a single die
(only possible with a D10 or D12 of course) counts as
two successes. This means you can potentially roll up to
four successes with a single skill roll (two successes on
each die), if you are both skilled and lucky. With bonus
beyond the first one you can achieve additional effects, if explicitly stated in the rules.

-

I find the Killing Blow (see below) rule to be a little odd in that it attempts to strictly limit player agency by forcing a roll to execute an action based on solely on willpower. I agree that there should be some sort of a psychological penalty for doing something so taboo (e.g. the +1 stress point seems reasonable), but blocking the action based on a failed roll just seems unnecessarily restrictive and arbitrary. Taking the Killer specialty seems like an expensive way to avoid these restrictions.

KILLING BLOW
A person who is incapacitated by damage is defenseless. If it’s a human being and you want to kill them outright, you must fail an EMP roll (roll one base die only). If the roll succeeds, you simply cannot force yourself to commit the deed. Even if the roll fails and you do kill the victim, you suffer 1 point of stress – killing in cold blood is not easy. If you have the Killer specialty (page 49) you can kill defenseless enemies without these negative effects.

At the risk of sounding sanguine and immoral, does the mechanic of having to pass an EMP roll before being allowed to deliver a killing blow seem reasonable to you?

Not to say that, as a player, I would ever want my PC to do this, but there might be circumstances where it's justifiable (a "mercy killing" to end the suffering of an untreatable, badly wounded enemy, for example). By the same token, as a Ref, I would make sure that if my players' PCs committed any unlawful killings, there would be IG consequences to contend with down the line (the OPFOR would commit even more resources to hunting them down, for example).

The Killing Blow rule seems even more odd given the following rule in the Ranged Combat section.

DEFENSELESS TARGET: If your target is in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you, you gain a +3 bonus.

So, the rules give you a bonus to physically take action against an incapacitated NPC, but then forces an EMP roll to actually carry it out. Why so many hoops? I don't quite get it.

-

I'm pretty sure these two rules are not necessarily about the same types of targets. The first one is about targets that are "incapacitated by damage" and thus defenseless. The other one is about a target that is "in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you".

Thus, the second type can still be very much a threat. And the second rule is about how easy it's technically to hit them, but shooting an immobile, incapacitated person is still emotionally hard.

No, it doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'm aware of instances where this situation has come up in games and I'm not disputing that it can potentially be a difficult topic but player agency should be primary. I don't think you're sanguine or immoral, I think for me the challenge is how the group deal with the consequences, both IC and OOC.

By the same token I've never been a fan of games that use a "Coolness Under Fire" stat to limit / control what actions a character may or may not take. I'm not disputing the realism of these rules, I'm just not in favour of mechanisms that artificially restrict player agency - for me I see little enjoyment in playing a game where I'm told the only thing that my character can do is hug the bottom of a trench and pray because I failed a CUF roll (I'm equally opposed to 'inspirational leader' type rules that do the opposite - it's still an imposed restriction of player agency).

Agency v. Realism
 

You're right, but both rules could still apply in a Killing Blow situation. For example, an unconscious enemy in the same hex is both immobile and unaware of you, so the targeting bonus rule applies. I don't see how the Defenseless Target rule wouldn't apply, as it is written.

I'm conflicted about CUF mechanics. On the one hand, I agree with you completely about player agency. I believe that players should be able to willfully expose their PCs to enemy fire if they want to. Natural consequences will likely follow from such a decision.

On the other hand, I like the concept of CUF as a mechanic. I think it's way too easy for a player playing a game to decide to take IC life-or-death risks with his/her fictional avatar. If a PC dies, it's not that hard to roll up a new one, or walk away from the game. IRL, if one willfully takes a risk that will likely result in getting shot, the consequences are much more serious. IRL, the decision to expose oneself to incoming fire is much harder, and the vast majority of people will choose self-preservation over valor. In this instance, a CUF mechanic does limit player agency, but, at the same time, it adds a layer of realism.

So I guess, when it comes to whether or not to use CUF, it depends on whether Ref and/or players value agency or realism more. That's a conversation that I think Refs and players should before starting a campaign.

-

I somewhat agree. I do like that the rule tries to prevent murder-hoboism. I don't like that it places a firm prohibition on what the character does.

Here's a quick hack that preserves player agency but is still appropriately brutal:
- If you fail your EMP roll*, then you can kill the victim as you wished. You take the 1 stress.
- If you pass the EMP roll (and thus fail at being able to kill them in cold blood), you can still choose to do it anyway. However you now must take 1d6 stress, and if this incapacitates you, then you roll to pick up a trauma response as normal! You thought it would be easy to kill someone up close, huh?


* note that this is the actual rule. You have to FAIL the empathy check, not pass it!

Best of Both Worlds
 

I like it. IMHO, this is a better approach than the official one, as it allows for both player agency and IC consequences.

What are your thoughts on CUF mechanics, in general, and 4e's, in particular?

-

I see the problem with player agency and agree that it is a sub-optimal solution to a problem that actually does exist. It's not far fetched to think that a party might get pinned down totally in one round and wiped out or forced to surrender in the next, without having the chance to act at all.

This might, of course, offer new chances to role-play, e. g. a surrender scene or a flight etc. However, this might not be an enjoyable part of the game as it's quite literally forced upon the players as much as their characters.

However, since I decided to use the Bravo Zulu rules option from the Discord server, which basically introduces a limited amount of "dramatic change tokens" for enhanced player agency, I will allow the use of one of these Bravo Zulu points to immediately break out of suppression. It gives the players a choice to trade a rare resource and regain agency for their character.

I found these rules on the Discord server.

Surrender or Dice!
 

Agreed. I don't have a ton of experience playing T2k, but in the 10 or so campaigns that I've been a part of, both as a Ref and as a player, I've never been a part of a mass surrender (and very few hasty retreats).

As it is, IRL. If one expects a high degree of realism in one's military-themed RPG's, then surrender or flight should be more than just a theoretical possibility. CUF ups the ante.

This "dramatic change token" option is interesting. It sounds a bit like D&D 5e's Inspiration Points mechanic (which I was thinking of porting to 4e if I ever run it). Would you be able to post the pertinent Bravo Zulu rules here? Or post a link, at least?

-

@Raellus
It's linked in the Discord oriented towards 4E under the resource library. The link that pops up there leads here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...ional_Rule.pdf

Contact me, if it doesn't work. I'm reluctant to share it openly in another form, since it's not my work, but was uploaded by a user by the handle "Abulia".

Thanks!
 

The link works. The PDF looks like an official 4e product. Very cool.

-

That's from their template for Workshop publications.

I'm late to the discussion guys, but i've been reading up reviews on the new 4E rules by Free Legion. Most of the reviews i've been able to find focus on two things, only one of which is helpful.

They focus on the time line (not helpful, I'll make my own up if i don't like it thanks).

they focus on the quality of the product. Great sketches, great quality, all reasonably helpful feedback.

What they don't really get around to is if the game is any good. It sounds like a whole new rule set, and it sounds like its a reasonably good one. Are you guys enjoying the new game?

I use the CUF rules that TW2K13 has written modded to V2.2 for this as well. I allow the PC to roll [WILL + CUF] to perform the deed (there still may be psychological consequences). There are some things that need to be determined before the roll can be made though...

1) The intended target/targets is/are: Violent and the PC has witnessed them causing harm to innocent civilians or the PC's own party. = EASY test.

2) The intended targets are RUMOURED to have committed atrocities and have attacked the PC's party with extreme violence. = ROUTINE test.

3) The intended targets were very hostile and have attacked the PC's party and the fight has just concluded. = AVERAGE test

4) The PCs came into a fight (possibly to help a 3rd party) with the intended targets but had no interactions prior to this fight. = FAIRLY DIFFICULT test

5) The PCs have no prior contact but are being told that the intended targets have committed atrocities. = DIFFICULT test

6) The targets are innocent civilians or unresisting wounded soldiers that the PCs did not just fight or interact with. = FORMIDABLE test

7) The targets are innocent children (or puppies/kittens) = IMPOSSIBLE test

I believe, as someone who has exchanged fire with a 10-year-old skinny in Africa and pointed a gun at perps on three separate occasions in the civilian world, that the psychological implications of such acts are much greater than many people believe they are. Those implications are often every bit as damaging as physical wounds, so I instituted this mechanic as a "blend" between reality and player agency.

I don't know IF I even hit that kid, but I DO KNOW that after the ambush on our convoy ended, he was laying in the street... DEAD... with 3 holes in his chest and that any one, or even all three of those bullets COULD BE MINE! That uncertainty is both a blessing and a curse. I don't really KNOW that I killed a kid, but I cannot say that I didn't either. I can STILL close my eyes today and see him as clearly as if it were yesterday firing that AK with the stock tucked under his arm. For those of you who have read my past postings, this was the same (and sole) ambush we had where the RPG rocket skipped off of the ground, went under our HEMMET, and blew a hole in the stone wall across the street as we were entering the Moge near 4 Circle North (heading to the Port from Kismayo on the South). God Bless the 2nd MEU for responding to our call for assistance fast and in force.

Man, that's a story! Sorry you had to go through that. What you describe is the same reason for firing squads... it's so the executioner has some doubt/deniability about whether THEY are the one that did the killing.

It's fine. I only ran 2 sessions (plus chargen), without vehicles and light on the foraging & survival, so that's the grain of salt to take it with.

I'm also in an intermittent v2.2 game online, so the main comparison I will make is that v4 is faster to play. The few firefights I ran were over pretty quickly, getting shot is pretty harsh.

I think there's a bit to be uncovered (I think I mentioned this above): a GM can-- without any real work-- run NPCs in squad-like batches, further simplifying the mental paperwork for themselves. A lot of suppression of groups can happen, vice trying to pick off individual opposition.

Both combat and the rest of the rules are aimed at simplicity and speed of play. I hear it's more gritty and crunchy than Free League's other games, but it's not as heavy as GDW's rules.

I'd agree with all of that. I've been running a narrative-heavy game for about the last year (30 sessions or so), starting from the alpha rules. So there have been some changes in that time, some of them suggested by me! But overall the rules are pretty focused on speed but not completely at the expense of depth, and the overall results (in combat anyway) seem as plausible as any I've seen. It still takes half a session to run a decent-sized combat, which is not my favorite thing -- but at least it's not a full session!

I'd agree with what's been said already regarding whether the new edition being any good or not. There's a couple of noteworthy topics and differences:

1. The older versions felt much more open-ended and narrative driven - I think the older versions just felt like you could go anywhere, do anything. The sky was the limit. I don't know if it's the rules for strategic play, the hex map, the encounter cards, or the limited knowledge about what's happening in the rest of the world, but so far it feels like the new edition is slightly restricting in that regard. As a result, I'm using the world setting and more open narratives/modules of past editions.
2. The actual game mechanics - The new edition is pretty solid and dependable in providing reliable and consistent results. Combat seems streamlined over previous editions while still feeling realistic enough. It does tend to move a little more quickly while still being fairly gritty, which is nice. 3. Char Gen is, IMO, better than previous editions. Sure you lose some attributes and skills, but the efficiency gains in gameplay are worth it, at least to me. I like the new skill resolution process as well, it's a bit more abstracted, but it works.
4. The new edition is admittedly less gritty and more abstracted in other areas as well. Encumbrance is abstracted. Gear is often abstracted. The firing of bursts and automatic fire is abstracted. I imagine this will hit differently for different players. Veterans and gearheads might not like it, but for new players and folks that don't know the difference between an AK-74 and an AKM, I think the new stuff works. And for those that prefer to dig in deep on equipment, you can swap for the old lists really, really easily.
5. Some sections of the new version, I'm not sure should have been included. For instance, the base building mechanics, and solo rules, while nice additions, feel a bit rushed and underwhelming. I would have preferred some lengthier sections on these topics if they wanted to do them well. Of course, at least the new version HAS these topics.

All in all, I'm really happy with my purchase and with the 4th edition as a product. It's different, and it's going to feel different than old editions. Some stuff isn't as good, other things are better. I do think FL did a good job of capturing the spirit of the game though, all things considered. I'd recommend it.

I believe the solo rules WERE a last-minute addition, as it overlapped closely with announcement of The One Ring KS, and Shawn Tomkin's involvement. I also think it's unfortunate that they're stuck way in the back and labeled "solo" as they're super useful even for fully-crewed games. I use the stuff in there more often than the encounter cards!

As for combat, I find the rules to be less crunchy and precise, but actually far more realistic in both approach and outcome. At least when it comes to infantry combat. The vehicle rules are a tiny bit half-baked, admittedly.

This is my impression as well. I haven't had a chance to actually use the system yet due to other project priorities, but from reading it, it feels like the dev team had a very specific outline with a list of "game must do this" priorities, and any mode of play not on that list was not worthy of word count. It's tight design for a game that, for all its hexcrawl promise, doesn't actually seem built for true sandbox play. It's more... scripted.

- C.

I believe that it's the hex crawl system and the encounter cards. If you remove that and just use the v4 system with a "normal" RPG campaign where the GM has a scenario with a plot then it works really well as a game. I'm still learning the system but it feels faster in combat than previous versions of the game so that is good for me.

I just ordered T2000 v4, boxed set, from my local online supplier.

I wonder if i am able to get the electronic version of the rule and players handbooks for free? Like some sites suggest.

on the free league site, it says if you buy the physical copy of T2K, you get a free pdf of the rule books also.

On the free league site if you buy their Alien game hard copy rulebook, you also get access to a free pdf.

By buying the hardcopy from milsims.com.au i was wondering if, similar to the free league site, you somehow get access to the free pdf of the books. I've bought local to get the item quicker and, to support local store. But by doing so i might miss out on the pdfs. I didn't know if anyone else had bought box sets (anywhere in the world) and knew if you got the free pdfs via some proof of purchase code. Or if it was only free if you purchased direct from free league website.

So, part two of your suggestion Targon. Legitimate means.

KC, you are in luck. I purchased my copy of the box set from Milsims on release day, when it was on back-order and a few days after I received an email with links to download the pdf from the Bits And Mortar site. I wasn't expecting it, so it was a nice surprise and I got to read them for a few weeks before the game arrived in Australia.
If you don't get one in the next couple of days I'd give the Milsims store a ring and inquire about it

Or just contact FL with your receipt and they will probably hook you up. I was able to do this with one of their other games.

Initiative. just draw cards and lowest goes first? How does that sit with you?

I like that it adds a level of randomness that likely exists in combat.

I don't know if i like a high ranking character drawing a high card a few turns in a row, and always going last. I thought skills and experience should count for more.

I'll need to run some small combat sessions to see how this suits me.

I'm not keen on the intiative mechanic myself as it's a rather arbitrary system. I'm trying to figure out an alternative, homebrew method myself and one thing that I'm working out how to incorporate is the Press or Hold mechanic from the V3 rules. I really liked that concept as it feels more "realistic" to me, though I must stress that I don't personally have any military experience.

Has anyone else started to try to work out an alternative initiative system to the simple card draw?

A quick and dirty method would be to roll the AGL and EMPATHY dice to represent both physical speed (AGL) and your "insight" into what the opposing party is planning to do (EMPATHY). The highest roll goes first and the lower die of the two rolled is compared when the higher dice are tied.

I wonder if CUF might not be the better option as that kinda covers things like knowing how to handle being shot at.

My system was developed for Mutant year zero. There was no CUF in that version of the game engine and I have only done the most cursory reading of my nephew's Twilight pdf. The point is that there's nothing stopping you from substituting a characteristic roll for initiative.

I hate initiative rolls in most games. Replacing it with a card draw certainly hasn't improved it, and I've basically abandoned the RAW way of doing it since session two.

What I use instead is various hacks of these ideas, to T2k:

https://www.traaa.sh/no-initiative-a...for-mothership
(his list of WHY is like I wrote it myself)

And this, which is also so-simple-it's-genius:
https://i.imgur.com/WvfxHhx.png

(sorry it's so large!)

If it really comes down to it and I need to know "does X go before Y?" then I do a skill or CUF roll to resolve it.

There is a specialty that let's you draw two cards, then choose on which to act. Notice: You seem to keep both, but you only act once, in either initiative slot.

It solves some of the issues of random initiative, but it creates new ones. For example, now it's really important when it's your turn to draw cards, since the pool of cards is very limited. Also, you might want to draw initiative for NPCs in groups of similar NPCs, or otherwise initiative cards will run out fast. Especially, when multiple combatants have this specialty.

I certainly like that.

I'm not fond of it, having used the full 54-card deck in Savage Worlds, and prefer that. Randomness is good, but only 10 cards seems limiting.