Jump to content

reddwarf

Member
  • Content Count

    2,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

reddwarf last won the day on March 21 2015

reddwarf had the most liked content!

About reddwarf

  • Rank
    Sircan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,174 profile views
  1. For those interested there are a few Dindrenzi concepts at the bottom of this blog entry, including a fighter that reminds me of a B-wing: https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/8/warcradle-studios-diary-4
  2. I don't know about changing Split Fire, but making Scatter weapons work the way you describe would be flavorful and very faction specific. I've always liked the idea of Retractable Plating for them as well-just adds to that old-school man o' war vibe they have with the long rows of broadside ports. No objections to the Aquan/Sorylian movement changes either, though it's really no particular opinion at all. I never seemed to have much problem being slow to engage, though my boards tend to actually hit the recommended terrain amounts, which makes a bigger difference to Sorylians than just about anyone else. Especially with liberal use of certain TAC's, gravity slingshots, and shunting, I just haven't found it to be much of a problem though I know others do.
  3. Odd to me that Warcradle is talking about the Directorate and how the ships should have a theme. I think they are one of the more consistent factions in terms of how models look, and (personally) I would break them up a bit. Compared to say, Aquans, for example, they are a model of consistency in aesthetics. Not sure how you really come up with a "corporate" theme, either. I would be nervous about making ships look like lizards or spiders. An Abrams tank doesn't look particularly humanoid, because it's built for function. Sorylian cylinders and Terran triangles and Dindrenzi guns with engines and Relthoza's more "vertical" orientation are enough distinction for me-they all look like spaceships, not the race that built them, and their extant fluff (however limited) justifying much of it. Part of Spartan's problem was in creating so many factions that it became difficult to keep them distinct, but the core 6 aren't in bad shape in terms of a distinctive look. As for the Directorate, I've long thought they should have 2 distinct "lines" of models. Cheap corporate **** (lousy ships, but low points and large squadrons), and luxury goods (expensive ships in terms of points and small squadrons, but really good). Heck, you can call "Directorate" the cheap stuff (the Walmart of FSA), while Works Raptor, Omnidyne, etc become the "luxury brands". In my mind that sort of thing would extend and deepen the fluff without altering it to something unrecognizable. Of course, full disclosure, I'm one of those who kind of liked the Grand Alliance/WW2 feel of FSA, but it sounds like that will be at least loosened. Ah well. Now what would be REALLY cool is for some genius to come up with rules that work across "eras", so you can have Aquans and Terrans fighting in the battles when they first encountered each other, or fighting as allies in the current war, etc...The real trick would be giving the ships balanced stats for each era, but also work for scenarios where rebels or separatists (or desperate orgs trying to stem a surprise attack like Terrans at the start of the main war) pull out big numbers of old or mothballed ships to to throw at smaller groups of "modern" era ships. Note-I have no real idea how to actually accomplish this Sorry, just sort of rambling since I'm not here much these days.
  4. Very promising, in many ways. I'd also like to see a movement system that doesn't rely on a large template (if anything, the ones in Dwars look worse than Spartan's in terms of employing in the middle of a cluster of models on a table). Also not really a fan of symbolic dice-I instinctively see it as nothing but an attempt to get more money out of me. Doesn't really matter though since you can always use a standard d6 instead. From the stat cards it looks like they've mostly removed the hassle of tracking individual damage levels and having that impact all your attack and defense dice. In fact, at least on the stat cards I looked at, offense never degrades at all. It's mostly secondary things like movement that change as you move from Battle Ready to Crippled. That's a significant increase in deadliness, and completely does away with zombie ships (good). Not sure I'm 100% on board with no attack reduction at all, but willing to try it out. Decent stab at SRS-certainly worth trying out. Curious to see Patron (Admiral?) effects. Supporting attack dice is way simpler than linking (good). Love the Victory/Valour concept. No fixed arc :( I know, I'm in the minority and it's a measurement hassle. I just like the "flavor" and fleet differentiation it created. Definitely excited to see how they translate this to FSA!
  5. I think (in regards to the "magic formula") that you have to take squadron size into account as well. No one will pay 280 points for a full squadron of Isonades (at least, this Aquan player wouldn't)-they aren't 20% better than every other cruiser squadron in the game. The truth is ships are almost never judged on an individual ship level, but on their game impact in full squadrons. Personally I hope Warcradle makes that explicit by doing away with partial squadrons, and giving a squadron cost for the full unit, in fleet building.
  6. Except we have debris fields significantly larger than d3". Though arguably they don't REALLY make sense as anything other than a way to add "terrain" to a battlefield.
  7. Alextroy and I were playing a different game a couple weeks back that had an interesting activation mechanic/tracker (Firefly Browncoats and Brigands). Translated to Firestorm, it might work something like this: Both sides start at tracker 0 and roll initiative. Winner goes first. Each squadron has an activation cost (for example, 2 for a T3 squadron, 4 for T2, and 6 for T1--note, numbers pulled out of my butt, they would probably be a ship stat rather than a tier level designation). First player to go activates a T1, and moves to 6 on the tracker. After that initial initiative determined move, the player with the lowest tracking # goes next. Ties go to the player who did not just activate. Example, after the first player moves the tracker is 6 to 0, so the second player activates a T3 squadron and moves to 2 on the tracker. After that activation, he still has the lowest score (6 to 2), so he goes again, choosing to activate a T2 squadron. After that activation the players are tied at 6 each, so play reverts to the first player. Just throwing it out there as something to ponder.
  8. My problem with the heavy and light variants of everything is that there isn't really enough "design space" in the existing rule set to really differentiate them, particularly when it comes to the DR/CR/HP set of stats. Especially at the small end. Putting a light, regular, and heavy frigate, plus 3 corvettes, into 3 or 4 DR, 4-6 CR, and 2-3 HP fills up really fast, even before you take faction traits into account. In the end it felt (to me) like a cynical way to sell more models, not something that actually adds much to the game. One of the reasons I'm somewhat interested in the combining mechanic rather than linking is you can compensate for higher AD group totals not just by lowering individual ship stats, but by expanding DR/CR levels which opens up that crowded space (all ships in the game currently fit between DR 3 and 8, and CR 4-14).
  9. Dear God. Frans, you need to sit down with someone and have a long talk about spending priorities
  10. Everyone involved in Rebellion loved Stoobert's movement, once they saw the video and played it. A major issue is we haven't come up with a great text explanation for a rulebook though. With just text and diagrams it comes off clunky and weird. As I recall the first time a Warcradle person looked at it in email it basically came back "huh" It "seems" way harder and more complex than it is if you just have the text, which is an actual problem when it has to be in a rulebook. I just love how it drastically speeds things up but keeps the emphasis on arcs and facing that is so critical to Firestorm. And yes, waypoints are for maneuvering around terrain but making sure you don't end up in a completely illogical facing (the requirement to keep the waypoint and your starting location in your aft), and that's basically it.
  11. That is unbelievably funny to those of us who remember what you thought at 2.0 rollout.
  12. The Directorate probably have the most complete tactica of any faction, permanently linked at the top of the Directorate page. The General Tactica post includes a lot on cyber ships and tactics, and then each ship has it's own specific post as well. Very briefly, you want the Anarchist battleship, Turmoil R&D cruisers, Hostility Drones, and Overseer with Tormentor accompaniments. In v2 the "default" option is to target Life Support (especially against Terrans) since it degrades opponents AD and PD, but there are also tricks like targeting engines on a tier 1 (if it has to turn to avoid terrain and you'd rather it hit the terrain instead :)) or on one ship of a Tier 2 squadron (since they have to stay in coherency that effectively trashes the Move of a whole unit).
  13. Spartan, you owe CorroPredo a plaque on your production floor: "This molding machine brought to you by CorroPredo"
  14. Illosians are are a Kickstarter bonus level if enough is made.
  15. I really did enjoy the universe timeline provided--very good read. I will (sorta) miss Saurians being a Sorylian offshoot, but overall a much appreciated and very cool expansion of background. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/921886974/firestorm-galaxy-expansion/posts/1965830
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.