Jump to content

Bunnahabhain

Member
  • Content Count

    3,472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from BuckDharma in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  2. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Hubcap in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  3. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from McKinstry in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  4. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Falconer in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  5. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from projectmanhatten5 in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  6. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from thyphs in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  7. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Sebenko in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  8. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from NaH2PO4aq in Mag Explosion and SAWs   
    This is the main reason we decided when writing the rules that indiscriminate attacks shouldn't hit SAS. Giving just one faction a way to wipe out SAS at several times the range of any other did not seem like a good idea at all!
  9. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from rufus in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  10. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from NaH2PO4aq in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  11. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Oml in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    As one of the two Lead Authors of the rule book, I would like to say:
     
    - We did not intend for SAS to be hit by Indiscriminate attacks when writing the rules.
     
    - At one point in  writing DW 2.0, we tried it, and did not like it, so dropped the idea.
     
    - This will be covered in the FAQ, and it will say that Indiscriminate attacks DO NOT hit SAS.
     
     We have just had one long thread on the subject  of Indiscriminate Attacks vs SAS. I do not see how reviving this discussion in a second thread will do anyone any good, I cannot imagine it will change anyone's mind. 
     
    Please, unless you have Spartan in front of your user name, just leave this discussion here, and do not continue it.
     
    Thank you
     
    James, DW designer.
  12. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Barn0wl in Dreadnought Robot?   
    As Oppenheimer was quoting a Hindu religious text of some age, you don't need Sturginium to explain it....
     
    EDIT The Bhagavad Gita, also the source of his  'by the light of a 1000 suns' quote.  Using the most common English translations
     
    James
  13. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from SillyWabbit99 in Dreadnought Robot?   
    As Oppenheimer was quoting a Hindu religious text of some age, you don't need Sturginium to explain it....
     
    EDIT The Bhagavad Gita, also the source of his  'by the light of a 1000 suns' quote.  Using the most common English translations
     
    James
  14. Like
    Bunnahabhain reacted to Sebenko in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    Yeah, no. Essentially this guy was told he was wrong and just went up the chain until he got an answer he liked. Try using "But this super special gun can totally kill your SAWs from RB3, honest!" in an actual game. Not gonna happen.
  15. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from TurianBrandy in Orbat Update   
    The best example of the 'getting its points back' fallacy  is shown by taking two identical squadrons. One heavy bomber gets shot down before doing much, the other gets through and sinks the fleet carrier, netting you almost 300 points. So is it really good or really bad?
     
    Clearly, if a unit repeatedly fails to be useful time after time, no matter how you use it in game, then it isn't useful to you. However, you have to define 'useful' properly!
     
    James
  16. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Sebenko in Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher   
    Sebenko is totally correct on both points.
     
    James
  17. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Nazduruk_Bugzappa in Orbat Update   
    The best example of the 'getting its points back' fallacy  is shown by taking two identical squadrons. One heavy bomber gets shot down before doing much, the other gets through and sinks the fleet carrier, netting you almost 300 points. So is it really good or really bad?
     
    Clearly, if a unit repeatedly fails to be useful time after time, no matter how you use it in game, then it isn't useful to you. However, you have to define 'useful' properly!
     
    James
  18. Like
    Bunnahabhain reacted to Sebenko in Orbat Update   
    I think that idea is fundamentally flawed. It may be that it's because I'm a CoA player, but the idea of every ship needing to claim its points back seems to be an attitude of brute force. How do you judge the worth of a support unit? A time orb will never directly get its points back. How do you judge how many points it's earned? By the damage done by the units it teleports? How do you judge which units in that operation earned what points? If you value combat units by the points damage they cause, what happens when a unit does enough damage to a Borodino to remove the Ablative, and a cheaper ship removes the rest of the HP? Does that mean that the cheaper ship is better? They each caused half a Borodino's worth of damage, so by the logic of straight points, the cheaper ship was better. If you start saying "well ablative HP is worth more", you stand on very complex ground.
  19. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Sebenko in Replacing Tokens with Cards   
    I'd spread the icons out into regular rows, and use the spaces between the rows as tick boxes so you can write on those, and not have to find lighter icons.
     
    Something like
     
    Row of 2cm square icons
    1 cm wide row of empty boxes
    icons
    empty boxes
     
    etc
     
    I'd also add a squadron box- even if it is just the cruisers and above than will generally end up with these cards, it's easy to have multiple squadrons containing the same cruisers.
     
    James
  20. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Grey Mage in Replacing Tokens with Cards   
    I like the basic concept. Can I make a few suggestions as to how I'd tweak what you have there....
     
    Disordered is only one marker per squadron, and important to have on the board, (linking for offensive and defensive fire, boarding, etc, ...) so I'd leave it off the card.
     
    Commodore and low speed are both rare, and not things you'll be hunting for at short notice- I'd leave them off the card.
     
    Stratospheric and deep diving are both rare, and could be indicated by 2 marks on the appropriate icon.
     
    With  fewer icons, it will give the design room to breathe.
     
    James
  21. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Presidente in Replacing Tokens with Cards   
    I like the basic concept. Can I make a few suggestions as to how I'd tweak what you have there....
     
    Disordered is only one marker per squadron, and important to have on the board, (linking for offensive and defensive fire, boarding, etc, ...) so I'd leave it off the card.
     
    Commodore and low speed are both rare, and not things you'll be hunting for at short notice- I'd leave them off the card.
     
    Stratospheric and deep diving are both rare, and could be indicated by 2 marks on the appropriate icon.
     
    With  fewer icons, it will give the design room to breathe.
     
    James
  22. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Lerriano in Official Thread: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth   
    If you have Russian ones, you can always have a look for useful size flamethrowers to go in the Drop in spaces at the top...
     
      I did say  towers/ big bunker, and it isn't so much a rule as the models simply don't exist... Also I had forgotten about them
     
    James
  23. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Wolfchild in Yurei Terror Ship   
    If you let it board you, the Yurei is  rather strong, but if you board it, it is quite vulnerable. A full unit of corvettes stand a good chance of taking it, or failing that should strip off enough AP that it won't be able to board effectively itself.
     
    The Australian 'forced compliance' rule is good fun- the psychological effect of turning a ship against a former owner is often much greater than the actual impact in game, by the time damage, position etc, etc of the prize are accounted for.
     
    James
  24. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Lerriano in Official Thread: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth   
    Only the big 7 nations have nation specific towers and big bunker; none of the alliance nations do.
     
    If a scenario requires fortifications, you either have to change it to allow allied fortifications or use a major nation.
     
    James
  25. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Hubcap in dice calculations   
    Although I've long since memorised and used the results, I'd forgotten the proof of it!
     
    Maths and music are beautiful, universal languages!
     
    james
×
×
  • 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.