Lunar Adept
New member
So, I've seen quite a few complaints about the targeting priorities with ranged weapons, specifically the way it hits survivors in a zone prior to hitting the zombies in that zone. I've seen these complains both here, a certain other board gaming forum, and on the kickstarter comments. However, I'd like to speak up on its behalf, as well as cover a few of the house rules I've seen that cover it.
Actually, first I'll be reviewing the house rules I've seen.
These both have the same issue, however the second one does not have it as badly. Specifically, the fact that you have a chance to hit your buddy. This will seem strange, but I view it as vastly preferable to have a 100% chance of friendly fire than just a partial chance. I'll illustrate why with an example:
Let's say that Jimmy Jones is in the same zone as a walker, and is wounded. Jimmy Jones has already moved. The only hope poor Jimmy has is if Sarah Snow in the next zone comes to his rescue. Sarah is uninjured, and is equipped with a pan and a pistol. However, Sarah's player wishes to remain uninjured, so she decides rather than run in with her pan and use the two actions remaining after moving attempting to hit with a 6+ item (and even if she misses twice she'll still be able to take the hit for Jimmy) she instead uses her pistol.
As much as I agree that the rule is rather silly in the context of thinking about whether or not you would have at least a chance of hitting something other than your buddy, I think making it guaranteed that you'll hit your buddy is a good way to stop people from making stupid risks in a (and this is especially important) cooperative game with player elimination if those risks fail to pay off. The "hitting your buddy in all cases but sniper and the sniper rifle" rule is there partially to limit ranged combat but more importantly to gameplay because it will lead to far less in the way of hurt feelings around the table than a "hitting your buddy in a 1 in 6 or something like that, thus making trying that shot fine 'because my luck is great don't worry oh shit you're dead'" rule.
And if you view my example as silly because it has just 1 zombie and so clearly you'd run in to save Jimmy... first off, there might be someone at your table who would chance it. Second, if there were 30 walkers in there with Jimmy, you don't want to risk hitting Jimmy even if killing zombies couldn't save him. At that point, Jimmy is royally screwed and at least all 30 will spend their turn chowing down. Don't look, just run!
If you don't want to deal with shooting into melee, try to plan ahead better.
If your issue is that the player order being unchangeable on a given round leads to somebody getting stranded with ranged weapons at the end of turn order, maybe house rule it so that the table can agree once each round to let one person break the turn order and move earlier than they usually would or something, thus letting your non-sniper ranged fighter to shoot prior to your melee guys rushing in. You could still have it so the first player token moves first, but that after that somebody could jump the line. (after that turn order would resume as it would have if he hadn't jumped in, skipping him when it comes to him. For example, A B C D and E are at the table, and will move in that order. A takes his turn, as the first player, then the table all agree to let D jump the line because he has only SMGs to use and they want those used before B and C run into a zone to attack. After D playing his actions, B moves, then C, then E. So D doesn't get two turns, he just moves earlier than he otherwise would.)
TL,DR: It may be a silly rule from a thematic standpoint, but it's more for gameplay reasons and to avoid bad rolls leading to bad feelings around the table (and you don't want to come away from a co-op game feeling you died from your buddy getting greedy about his own health). If you want to fix some of the issues it causes when combined with the other rules, consider the possible house rule option I put forward in the last paragraph. Just my two cents on the issue. Thanks for your time!
Actually, first I'll be reviewing the house rules I've seen.
- One of them is that if you miss shots that you fire into a zone with a survivor (other than you) and a zombie, the missed shots hit the survivor.
- Another is where when you fired into the aforementioned situation, if you roll the minimum required (i.e. if you roll a 3 on sawed offs or rifles, a 4 on shotguns or pistols, a 5 on SMGs, etc.) that it will hit the survivor.
These both have the same issue, however the second one does not have it as badly. Specifically, the fact that you have a chance to hit your buddy. This will seem strange, but I view it as vastly preferable to have a 100% chance of friendly fire than just a partial chance. I'll illustrate why with an example:
Let's say that Jimmy Jones is in the same zone as a walker, and is wounded. Jimmy Jones has already moved. The only hope poor Jimmy has is if Sarah Snow in the next zone comes to his rescue. Sarah is uninjured, and is equipped with a pan and a pistol. However, Sarah's player wishes to remain uninjured, so she decides rather than run in with her pan and use the two actions remaining after moving attempting to hit with a 6+ item (and even if she misses twice she'll still be able to take the hit for Jimmy) she instead uses her pistol.
- Under the first house rule, if she misses she'll hit and kill Jimmy if she misses, specifically on a 1, 2, or 3. So by using her pistol rather than running in with the pan, Sarah has a 50% chance to kill Jimmy herself rather than save him.
- With the second house rule, if she rolls a 4 (since it's the pistol and hits on a 4+) she kills Jimmy. On the plus side, she does get 3 actions this way. Running the numbers (assuming I did it right), she has a 1 in 8 (~12.5%) chance to miss both the walker and Jimmy on all 3 shots, a 7 in 24 (~29.2%) chance to put a bullet right through Jimmy's poor head, and a 7 in 12 (~58.3%) chance to save Jimmy at some point in the course of those shots.
- If she'd just run in and use her pan for her last two actions, she'd have a 25 in 36 (~69.4%) chance to miss and get hurt. She only has a 11 in 36 (~30.6%) of killing the walker with the pan. However, Jimmy has no chance of dying, since Sarah will take the wound for him.
As much as I agree that the rule is rather silly in the context of thinking about whether or not you would have at least a chance of hitting something other than your buddy, I think making it guaranteed that you'll hit your buddy is a good way to stop people from making stupid risks in a (and this is especially important) cooperative game with player elimination if those risks fail to pay off. The "hitting your buddy in all cases but sniper and the sniper rifle" rule is there partially to limit ranged combat but more importantly to gameplay because it will lead to far less in the way of hurt feelings around the table than a "hitting your buddy in a 1 in 6 or something like that, thus making trying that shot fine 'because my luck is great don't worry oh shit you're dead'" rule.
And if you view my example as silly because it has just 1 zombie and so clearly you'd run in to save Jimmy... first off, there might be someone at your table who would chance it. Second, if there were 30 walkers in there with Jimmy, you don't want to risk hitting Jimmy even if killing zombies couldn't save him. At that point, Jimmy is royally screwed and at least all 30 will spend their turn chowing down. Don't look, just run!
If you don't want to deal with shooting into melee, try to plan ahead better.
If your issue is that the player order being unchangeable on a given round leads to somebody getting stranded with ranged weapons at the end of turn order, maybe house rule it so that the table can agree once each round to let one person break the turn order and move earlier than they usually would or something, thus letting your non-sniper ranged fighter to shoot prior to your melee guys rushing in. You could still have it so the first player token moves first, but that after that somebody could jump the line. (after that turn order would resume as it would have if he hadn't jumped in, skipping him when it comes to him. For example, A B C D and E are at the table, and will move in that order. A takes his turn, as the first player, then the table all agree to let D jump the line because he has only SMGs to use and they want those used before B and C run into a zone to attack. After D playing his actions, B moves, then C, then E. So D doesn't get two turns, he just moves earlier than he otherwise would.)
TL,DR: It may be a silly rule from a thematic standpoint, but it's more for gameplay reasons and to avoid bad rolls leading to bad feelings around the table (and you don't want to come away from a co-op game feeling you died from your buddy getting greedy about his own health). If you want to fix some of the issues it causes when combined with the other rules, consider the possible house rule option I put forward in the last paragraph. Just my two cents on the issue. Thanks for your time!
