Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team

reddwarf

Member
  • Posts

    2,140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Lex Orion in According to Richard Lawton expect news shortly   
    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. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from RuleBritannia in According to Richard Lawton expect news shortly   
    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
  3. Like
    reddwarf reacted to MinscS2 in Notes from Stuart, part 2   
    I was personally never bothered with the "2 Alliances duking it out"-thing. 
    Just because Ryushi and Xelocians would never attack each other *fluffwise* doesn't mean that the rules doesn't support them attacking each other on the table top.
    In the current (2.0) setting, there being 2 grand alliances makes sense: The races in the Kurak Alliance have their reasons for being part of the Kurak Alliance, and the races in the Zenian League have their reasons for not being part of the Kurak Alliance.

    Now the fluff may be retconned or changed by Warcradle (I get the impression that it will be), and if so I expect them to write up new fluff which supports the alliances and/or lack of alliances. Either way, as long as they don't prevent "friendly" factions from attacking eachother rulewise, I'm happy.
     
  4. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Spenetrator in Future FA rules   
    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.
  5. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from RuleBritannia in Future FA rules   
    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.
  6. Like
    reddwarf reacted to Kaptyn Krys in Future FA rules   
    I think it is also down to when the critical effects are resolved. Currently you resolve all of your ships effects in the Turn end step. The problem here is you can inflict critical effects on a ship after its activated, it then repairs at the end of the turn and is ready for its next activation without any repercussions. So not only are crit effects repaired easily but often the ship never really has to suffer it effects. Repairs are often "instantaneous" as it were. Squadrons are activated in turn, command checks are taken at the start of a turn etc, everything is built on an activation. Always jarred me a little to have all the crit repairs lumped together at the end of the turn, except for the Self Repair MAR which was at the end of an activation....!

    Id suggest moving the repair step to the end of the activation, so after moving and shooting and boarding, then you do the squadrons repairs (in what ever form that takes). This way if you are suffering from a critical effect the ship will actually have to put up with it for an activation. This way post activation crits are not ignored so readily and the crits will actually effect game play more. It also adds a pressure to deciding what to activate next, a healthy squadron or the squadron that has some PD down? if you activated them maybe you can repair the PD before they get hammered by torps?
  7. Like
    reddwarf reacted to Kaptyn Krys in Optional and Campaign rules Ideas   
    I'm also up for thinking more about a big multiplayer campaign system as well as more missions. I'd love to expand the Mission PDF I have floating around the forum as @Skyhawk kindly mentioned. (includes a rescue type mission Stoobert!) Ideally it would become a community effort. I'd did throw together a classic tree campaign using the mission in my pack too, though that's largely for 2 players building a narrative. 

    I've been playing a fair bit of 30K recently and quite like the dice rolls for 1) random mission objectives and 2) random set up types. Something I'd also like to add to my pack for a sort of build your own mission tool box.  I actually quite like the mix the Horus Heresy has of "general throw down randomly generate missions" vs "narrative/special missions" vs "zone mortalis"

    Kings of War has introduced a nice set of cards for determining:
    Objectives, secret  objectives, in addition to the normal mission objectives. You draw 2 cards and choose 1. It might be select a unit of yours to survive the game, select the 3 most expensive enemy units to destroy Conditions, earthquakes, storms, magical surges and the like. This could translate to FSA and is something I have considered but I feel might need a different game engine to work nicely. Imagine things like a solar storm, neutron sweep, fold space phenomena etc. Strategy, draw 3 or so before the game,  generally little tricks, could be a free cheap magic item, a nerve check re-roll, a nerve buff etc. In a similarish vein to the current TACS but more 1-off buffs. Me and my brothers did a 3 way KoW game a couple of weeks ago with a cental objective that when controlled gave us a strategy card and drew an new condition card for the table each turn. Worked quite nicely. 

    Faction specific objectives I could get behind as well as more faction specific TACs. 
  8. Like
    reddwarf reacted to Stoobert in What if you didn't halve dice when linking?   
    Status update: I've playtested this three four times now with different guys who are casual FSA players, owing a fleet or two, some of who now prefer other games.   Presumably thousands of people bought FSA, maybe tens of thousands, but they're largely silent and not part of the few-dozen diehards currently active on these forums.    They are customers nonetheless and their opinion no less valuable in fact maybe even more so...if we want to grow and revitalize FSA.  Therefore I'm trying to reach out to get their perspectives.   Everyone is entitled to an opinion, please understand I'm not taking that right away from anyone - I'm just sharing what these guys said.
    They all found simply combining AD together (3 ships  x  3 AD = 9AD) to be preferable to halving AD in the linking pool (1 ship at 5AD and 1/2 of 2 ships at 5AD = 10AD). 
    During these tests I've:
    1. used the same 2.0 stats, but if their ship/squad can combine fire, instructed them to use the AD value listed in RB1 or RB3, which is generally a few dice lower, as a simple rough estimate of the 'combinator' concept.  Ships which cannot combine, such as a Dend Battleship, continue to use RB2.
    2. dropped DR by 1 across the board, to a minimum of DR3 to compensate and make sure 1on1 engagements can still result in damage.  If you roll less dice, for example, you should still be able to meet the DR of a ship of roughly equal value at least half the time, that's my rule of thumb.
    Whether attacking as singles or in groups, the system was without complaint.   One was relieved, two commented that the former linking mechanic is simply not necessary.
  9. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Wolfgang Jannesen in Squadron Activation   
    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.
  10. Like
    reddwarf reacted to Pok in Firestorm fluff   
    I'd gladly see less "ancient prophesy" nonsense, and more of grand space opera focus.  And some serious curbing of the allied factions. We dont need ten subfactions all doing the same thing as main 6, just better.
  11. Thanks
    reddwarf reacted to Kaptyn Krys in Firestorm Scenario Pack   
    Hi Admirals,

    I had this on the back burner for a while. Initially it was an attempt to re-jig the 6 existing scenarios in the rule book to fit my plans for the Reading Warfare tournament. After doing a selection of symmetrical, tournament friendly missions I though I might as well do some others in a similar vein,  but the Spartan died and we all know the story. As Warcradle have no firm plans for Firestorm until the end of this year really I thought now would be a good time to sort this out. 

    Firestorm-Armada-Scenarios-CS.pdf

    The attached Doc contains 15 missions! I have split these up in various ways. Some are symmetrical, others asymmetrical. Some are balanced, some are purely narrative.  One requires civilian vessels and the is even my attempt at a solo play mission! 

    As a bonus I have even thrown together a narrative tree campaign for 2 players that makes use of many of the scenarios presented within to give you opportunity to build a story with your battles

    I welcome any feed back and view this as a living document. If you guys like it I may look at adapting the Planetfall Scenarios into a similar format.

    Time allowing ill come back to it later and tidy a few bits up, add some deployment diagrams etc but I thought I should just get this out there for people to play with to keep you going until the next edition. I'd love your ideas and suggestions for improvements and new scenarios. I also hope Warcradle might take a look and use them for inspiration going forwards. For me, a good selection of scenarios greatly enhances gameplay and re-playability. 
  12. Thanks
    reddwarf got a reaction from BigBoom87 in New player   
    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. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from CorroPredo in Your Firestorm Fleet Count   
    Spartan, you owe CorroPredo a plaque on your production floor:  "This molding machine brought to you by CorroPredo"
  14. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Doomkitten in 3rd Edition Faction Orders (Stuff here now!)   
    Not even sure where to start commenting on these, other than I hope it's a VERY early draft and will be significantly changed.  I've genuinely been trying not to go hugely negative in these v3 threads but this one flipped me over the line.
    First point:  Get rid of all the "rest of the game" effects.  They aren't "orders" in any sense of the term, they are enhancements that belong in the hard point/upgrade section of ships/squadrons.
    Second point:  These are a balancing nightmare.  For example, the various repair effects:  Dindrenzi and Aquan spend 40 (fleet) points to remove 2-7 markers from one squadron, the Relthoza 15 points to remove 1-3 markers from one squadron, and Sorylians 30 points to remove an unlimited # of markers from all squadrons.  Terrans and Directorate don't get an order to do that, but do get Regen on large models that works 1/3rd of the time for 30 points, or +2 shields on a squadron for 45 points (Terrans can also spend 45 points for a squadron to never take Disorder markers, which seem like they will be the most common ongoing effect).
    Third point:  Some of these are ridiculously good.  Aquans are the only faction who will be making extensive use of movement orders, thanks to Impossible Maneuver making them really cheap.  Directorate Blanket Fire is a ridiculously cheap F-you to critical defenses for entire classes of ships (and really screws some opponents, ala the Biohazard/Weapon Shielding problem)
    Fourth point:  Some can be an way too random:  the Sorylians can spend 30 points for Blessings of the Loremasters, and get points back equivalent to a final value from -10 (if they roll snake eyes) to +90.
    Fifth point:  Or possibly a sub-point, who knows.  Making these balanced and flavorful is hugely difficult for the 6 core factions (8 if you count Saurians and Pathogen).  You're going to have to repeat this for all the Marauder factions as well, meaning you'll end up with another huge set of charts and difficult to balance effects.
    I'd go on, but my doctor has warned me to watch my blood pressure.  Honestly the more I see of the entire command point mechanism, the more I dislike it.  I'm sure it's too late to eliminate the entire mechanism so I can grit my teeth on the standard orders, but these faction orders...no way.
    Silly point:  The Tau called, they want their marker lights back.
  15. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Shadowcatdecoy in 3rd Edition Weapons Systems   
    I'd be leery of anything that mixes dice types (such as heavy and exploding) in a single roll.  Means you have to differentiate the dice before rolling.  Easy for those of us who buy multiple cubes of d6's, less so for normal humans.
  16. Like
    reddwarf reacted to Meatshield in Directorate / Works Raptor Re-Stat Discussion   
    Anarchist vs Judgement a lot is getting bandied about, looking at the fleet guide however gives actual facts/data.
    -Slow and unwieldy:
    Base Judgement, Mv6, TL2
    Base Anarchist, Mv7, TL2
    Upgraded Judgement, Mv6-8, TL1
    Upgraded Anarchist, Mv7-8, TL2
     
    Judgement can become TL1, Anarchist cannot, this compliments the Judgement's weapons. Anarchist more likely to be faster by an inch owing to build priorities. At worst, at absolute worst its equal with Anarchist in terms of mobility due to TL upgrade, so claiming the Judgement is slothful also defines the Anarchist as slothful.
     
    -One weapon
    It actually has 2, that can link for equal to best in class AD across 20" of range (16-18AD). Or fire them unlinked at Mediums, the issue is lack of Bio coherency on both, v3 is addressing double degrading.
     
    -Takes huge chunks of damage easily.
    Base Judgement, SH1, DR6, CR11
    Base Anarchist, SH2, DR6, CR11
    Upgraded Judgement, SH2, DR6, CR11
    Upgraded Anarchist, SH2 or 1, DR6, CR11, Stealth at the cost of shields
    Statistically identical or has superior damage mitigation in its primary RB's but doesn't possess Stealth, again a wash, if the Judgement takes large chunks of damage easily the statistically identical Anarchist does to.
     
    -Worse Apollo
    An Apollo has guns that's it, take away the guns of both ships and what do they do?
    An Apollo shoots torps slightly better than a Judgement.
    A Judgement with no guns. Shoots torps of iffy value, lays mines, can continue to provide support with SRS utility.
     
    The Judgement costs 160pts base. The Anarchist 190pts base. Throw on +1SH, -1TL, +2 SRS. The Judgement now costs 205pts can turn sharper than the Anarchist has the same DR, CR and SH of the Anarchist and is bringing 3 Interceptors or Shuttles to the fleet. Meanwhile the Anarchist starts at 190pts, and only goes up, 205 if you use the base 3 SRS.
    The Judgement needs its torps adjusted, and coherency with weapons addressed. But it is not the original v2 BB that everyone hated, please stop glossing over the notable rework it gained partway through v2.
  17. Like
    reddwarf reacted to S.Neil in Disagreement with rules changes   
    Hi Guys,
    Just to be clear with this. 3.0 is not locked and we are evaluating your comments and some rules will be changed and your feedback embraced, be it Cloaks, Battle Shunt and so on.
    I have defined a number of changes in the rules and additions to the game I have requested. Not all are going to sit comfortably with all players, but while some of you think your comments are being ignored, I am telling you here that this is not the case. Additionally, I have already said that the full rules will be handed out for folk to play with before I print any books.
    There has been some good feedback and it has been clear that some of my rule changes have needed more consideration/tweaking with their impact.
    Cheers,
    Neil
     
     
  18. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Doomkitten in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    It's weird.  In my opinion the "big things" like movement, fire mechanics, and wings (basic game mechanics) are moving in the right direction (notable exception--Command Orders).  But so many "little" things strike me as wrong, and/or hugely faction altering for no real gain that it's hard.  Kinetic, Pinpoint, Cloaking, Boarding, Ambush, Shunting, Primary/Secondary/Tertiary...they keep adding up.
    Don't worry Spartan, I'll still try 3.0.  Just feeling pessimistic I guess.
  19. Like
    reddwarf reacted to Fluffhunter in Cloaks in 3.0   
    I'm surprised to see so many of you wanting to add another rock-paper-scissors interaction between fleets. Its something i really dislike as it creates a underdog vs topdog situation before the game even begins. Often making players less willing to play certain combinations of races because they either will feel unfairly handicapped or that their win was "dirty" because they had a pregame advantage. 
    This is especially damaging in small player groups (who wants an archenemy you always struggle against against simply because of your respective fleet choice) and for players with only one fleet (avoiding "unfair" match ups quickly sours your relationship to the rest of the playerbase). 

    If one faction is given an advantage against their chosen foe, their foe should receive a similarly powerful advantage. After all both sides have had time to specialize...
  20. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Fluffhunter in And now, a word to remember   
    It's a bit unclear if this is a "preview" of things that have already been decided, or a request for feedback.  Spartan Mike--you're getting the latter but I suspect it's supposed to be the former
  21. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from LBPB in 3rd Edition Faction Orders (Stuff here now!)   
    Not even sure where to start commenting on these, other than I hope it's a VERY early draft and will be significantly changed.  I've genuinely been trying not to go hugely negative in these v3 threads but this one flipped me over the line.
    First point:  Get rid of all the "rest of the game" effects.  They aren't "orders" in any sense of the term, they are enhancements that belong in the hard point/upgrade section of ships/squadrons.
    Second point:  These are a balancing nightmare.  For example, the various repair effects:  Dindrenzi and Aquan spend 40 (fleet) points to remove 2-7 markers from one squadron, the Relthoza 15 points to remove 1-3 markers from one squadron, and Sorylians 30 points to remove an unlimited # of markers from all squadrons.  Terrans and Directorate don't get an order to do that, but do get Regen on large models that works 1/3rd of the time for 30 points, or +2 shields on a squadron for 45 points (Terrans can also spend 45 points for a squadron to never take Disorder markers, which seem like they will be the most common ongoing effect).
    Third point:  Some of these are ridiculously good.  Aquans are the only faction who will be making extensive use of movement orders, thanks to Impossible Maneuver making them really cheap.  Directorate Blanket Fire is a ridiculously cheap F-you to critical defenses for entire classes of ships (and really screws some opponents, ala the Biohazard/Weapon Shielding problem)
    Fourth point:  Some can be an way too random:  the Sorylians can spend 30 points for Blessings of the Loremasters, and get points back equivalent to a final value from -10 (if they roll snake eyes) to +90.
    Fifth point:  Or possibly a sub-point, who knows.  Making these balanced and flavorful is hugely difficult for the 6 core factions (8 if you count Saurians and Pathogen).  You're going to have to repeat this for all the Marauder factions as well, meaning you'll end up with another huge set of charts and difficult to balance effects.
    I'd go on, but my doctor has warned me to watch my blood pressure.  Honestly the more I see of the entire command point mechanism, the more I dislike it.  I'm sure it's too late to eliminate the entire mechanism so I can grit my teeth on the standard orders, but these faction orders...no way.
    Silly point:  The Tau called, they want their marker lights back.
  22. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Venter in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    It's weird.  In my opinion the "big things" like movement, fire mechanics, and wings (basic game mechanics) are moving in the right direction (notable exception--Command Orders).  But so many "little" things strike me as wrong, and/or hugely faction altering for no real gain that it's hard.  Kinetic, Pinpoint, Cloaking, Boarding, Ambush, Shunting, Primary/Secondary/Tertiary...they keep adding up.
    Don't worry Spartan, I'll still try 3.0.  Just feeling pessimistic I guess.
  23. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Polaris in 3rd Edition Faction Orders (Stuff here now!)   
    Not even sure where to start commenting on these, other than I hope it's a VERY early draft and will be significantly changed.  I've genuinely been trying not to go hugely negative in these v3 threads but this one flipped me over the line.
    First point:  Get rid of all the "rest of the game" effects.  They aren't "orders" in any sense of the term, they are enhancements that belong in the hard point/upgrade section of ships/squadrons.
    Second point:  These are a balancing nightmare.  For example, the various repair effects:  Dindrenzi and Aquan spend 40 (fleet) points to remove 2-7 markers from one squadron, the Relthoza 15 points to remove 1-3 markers from one squadron, and Sorylians 30 points to remove an unlimited # of markers from all squadrons.  Terrans and Directorate don't get an order to do that, but do get Regen on large models that works 1/3rd of the time for 30 points, or +2 shields on a squadron for 45 points (Terrans can also spend 45 points for a squadron to never take Disorder markers, which seem like they will be the most common ongoing effect).
    Third point:  Some of these are ridiculously good.  Aquans are the only faction who will be making extensive use of movement orders, thanks to Impossible Maneuver making them really cheap.  Directorate Blanket Fire is a ridiculously cheap F-you to critical defenses for entire classes of ships (and really screws some opponents, ala the Biohazard/Weapon Shielding problem)
    Fourth point:  Some can be an way too random:  the Sorylians can spend 30 points for Blessings of the Loremasters, and get points back equivalent to a final value from -10 (if they roll snake eyes) to +90.
    Fifth point:  Or possibly a sub-point, who knows.  Making these balanced and flavorful is hugely difficult for the 6 core factions (8 if you count Saurians and Pathogen).  You're going to have to repeat this for all the Marauder factions as well, meaning you'll end up with another huge set of charts and difficult to balance effects.
    I'd go on, but my doctor has warned me to watch my blood pressure.  Honestly the more I see of the entire command point mechanism, the more I dislike it.  I'm sure it's too late to eliminate the entire mechanism so I can grit my teeth on the standard orders, but these faction orders...no way.
    Silly point:  The Tau called, they want their marker lights back.
  24. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from quiet01 in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    It's weird.  In my opinion the "big things" like movement, fire mechanics, and wings (basic game mechanics) are moving in the right direction (notable exception--Command Orders).  But so many "little" things strike me as wrong, and/or hugely faction altering for no real gain that it's hard.  Kinetic, Pinpoint, Cloaking, Boarding, Ambush, Shunting, Primary/Secondary/Tertiary...they keep adding up.
    Don't worry Spartan, I'll still try 3.0.  Just feeling pessimistic I guess.
  25. Like
    reddwarf got a reaction from Xireon in Time to reflect, and impending Radio Silence...   
    You've been a much needed breath of fresh air @Spartan_FA_Mike  Good job.
×
×
  • 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.