I hope good turn sequence rules.
- Some popular games has really bad system when one player starts and does everything and then other player does everything. That gives too much value who starts first and who gets the last turn. It causes "unnatural" strategies but they works in the game.
- Some other games both moves first, then both shoots, then both charges etc. That smoothen the system a lot. Much better. Who get the initiative is not too important.
- Some games has systems when characters are activated one by one. Also pretty good.
The point is personally I feel the first system is the most horrible. Anything else and I'm happy.
Also an opportunity fire system would be nice to get :)
Personally i"m hoping for a well thought out approach to the V.A.T.S while people now a days see it as the cool slowdown attack back in the day it was a very costly and tactical move that could both help you but very badly screw you over if you missed,another thing i think we should look at is if this game will return to skills because without them we could have trouble building characters
One more time! Good campaign and adventure system! Rich characters and fear of losing them. Fallout is about adventuring & surviving in post-apocalyptic atmosphere. There is too much games which have no point to play because every battle is same and same troops every battle. Check is made for that type gaming. That I play for win. Miniature games are for fun.
Oh and measuring when player want's. I don't want to guess any distances. It's not matter of strategy. It's just annoying.
I'm with you on the pre-measuring. In whatever game I've used it (Games Workshop games, Warmachine/Hordes/Iron Kingdoms), it has been a hassle, and I've had people complaining about my reliance on Hirst Arts Castlemolds terrain (because it's built out of blocks that tend toward 1" or 1.5" increments) or else my modular terrain boards (which are usually in pretty regular size blocks, so I can more easily remove and store them, or swap them around for a slight change to the terrain layout). Just let everyone measure ahead of time and that's one less headache for me to worry about.
I'm fond of the Warzone approach to actions as well (well, I was more into 1st edition than 2nd...), vs. certain other games where EVERYBODY moves, then EVERYBODY attacks, and then we let the opposing wizards duke it out -- then repeat the cycle. The warzone "action" model was far more conducive to the introduction of new types of battlefields, new special rules for terrain, and particular scenarios where you might deal with things such as opening/closing a bulkhead door, hacking a computer terminal, spending multiple actions enacting repairs on some wrecked vehicle while the enemy is still advancing (so how many of your troops do you devote toward making repairs, vs. fighting off the enemy?), and so forth.
But in an attempt to bring this back to topic: If factions are going to be released in fits and starts after the core game comes out, I sincerely hope to avoid any kind of "faction creep." There was at least the PERCEPTION in certain miniatures games that whatever new force/army book came out for Certain Popular Miniatures Games, it was going to be THE BEST ONE YET. It would have specialist new models who would be able to defeat whatever model combo turned out to be overpowered in the previous book release. It would also have its own overpowered/underpriced heroes, models, synergistic combos, or whatnot, and if only you'd jump on board with the new faction, you'd be sure to win ... until the NEXT army/faction book comes out with something better, of course.
if you ran into Frannk Horrigan at that point just say "GG" and start a new game