Jump to content

Endgame

Member
  • Posts

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Endgame

  1. Yeah, I think I need smaller tape for the strips on some of my ships. do they make 1mm tape? lol
  2. Here is one of the several posts from the thread linked earlier by Commodore Jones. Is it not what you were looking for? Also, Ryjak, how on earth do you get 22 factions? You're not breaking out the individual members of The Alliance of Kurak, the Zenian League as thier own factions, are you?
  3. Some Hawker questions 1) Do you ever take the Excelsior or Regent without the Cyber weapons? 2) How is the regent in general? It seems OK as a support carrier running 5x Interceptors and 3x support shuttles, or 6x Bombers + 2x Interceptors, but it doesn't really seem all that amazing to me. If I'm running an alliance fleet, would I generally be better taking most other options with wings, like a Ryushi carrier or a Tarakian battleship? 3) Are the Resolutes like, really fantastic cruisers? They seem almost like heavy cruisers both in firepower and durability.
  4. If the Valhalla box were available, I would have bought it in a second. Heck, if I see one somewhere for MSRP, I'd still consider picking one up, and I don't really know if I'd ever use a second Tyrant.
  5. Well, the patrol fleet has a lot of stuff in it that you didn't list. The Apollo is a RB 1 ship, so it fights closer in than the Tyrant. It can be made just as tough as the Tyrant, excluding the Shield Projector self, and you can give it Sector Shielding, which is a rule I have fun with. It doesn't have wings, available, though, and after upgrades its almost as expensive points wise as the tyrant. The Teuton is a versatile cruiser with the upgrades, but it costs a lot of points to tweak out the Teuton too, which really lowers its points to firepower ratio. I've been toying with it minimally upgraded (only beams) with an added shield cruiser. Armsmen are armsmen - they are solid ships, but if there is a lot of PD around, they are, essentially, just an expensive Wayfarer. If you want to run what you listed, you're probably better off getting individual squads. If you're looking to sneak shield cruisers into your list easily, you'll probably want to have at least one squad of teutons. The patrol box gets you the armsmen and teutons, so it really depends if you want the apollo.
  6. The tyrant has the option for 0-2 wayfarers. Since they can link to your Tyrant, that will give you extra firepower at the cost of PD (which the interceptors and PD upgrade make up for anyway). The extra firepower will be appreciated given that you've gone with the shield upgrades instead of the turret upgrades on the Harpoons and Peresus cruisers.
  7. Very jealous of the straight lines. Its much harder to do than I was anticipating!
  8. If only the 2 player Terran / Dindrendzi starter was still available. I would have bought that instead of just getting my tyrant mail order...
  9. Just to be clear, the upgrade for the Tyrant only effects the Tyrant. To brick up a bit, you can bring: Tyrant, +3 wings (Interceptors), Shield Projector (self) + season to taste (225 points) 3x Teutons w/ beams + Ageis +season to taste (215 points base) 4x Armsmen or 6x Wayfarers 120 4x Armsmen or 6x Wayfarers 120 and end up with a core of ships that has 3+ shield saves combined with interceptor coverage against torps. Personally, I'd add wayfarers to accompany the Tyrant, which puts you at 720 points - room for some upgrades at 800 points, or another squadron or two at 1200 points. Lots of options!
  10. The Tyrant is actually the Terran battleship that doesn't really need a Shield Cruiser, as you can duplicate the effect with an upgrade. Not to say it doesn't still work with the shield cruiser - you can run the Tyrant and keep it as a longer range ship and let the shield cruiser hang with your cruisers / frigates.
  11. I haven't used it myself. I keep getting turned off that I can't upgrade all the primaries to nukes (yeah, that would probably be too good), and / or that I can't get sector shielding on it or even just a +1 shield upgrade. Maybe I need to pickup the hawker set and give it a shot.
  12. Terrans are natural allies with Hawker. I don't know anything about Syndicate, but I don't think there is any connection there..
  13. I keep drooling on the RSN dread. DR 8 CR 12, 2 shields, and TL 1. If I ever start up league, I'll be all over a Ba'Kash core with toys added in, and the RSN dread sure seems like a sturdy toy.
  14. Shield cruisers can be included with other squadrons as well as a squadron on their own. You can work them in as part of a carrier group or as an accompaniment to a Teuton squadron. The trick is not only having them in your list, but in range of the ships you really want the bonus on as well. The Tyrant can include it on its own, though the Tyrant doesn't have sector shielding, so no juicy early game and late game 4 shield arcs.
  15. Generally speaking, if you're looking for super tanky, you probably want to look at Dreadnoughts and battle carriers over battleships and carriers. Also, most factions are variation on a theme, generally subtracting 1 DR for extra CR However... RSN dread has DR 8 CR 12, 1-2 Shields, and the option for 4 wings. No weapon shielding, though. The Battleship is right up there too with DR 7 CR 11 and 1 shield. The Ba'Kash Battle Carrier has HP 9, DR 7, CR 11 with Weapon Shielding and good wing value on their Battle Carrier. No Shields, though. Terrans have multiple ships that can reach 4 Shields in one arc with 3+ shield saves with weapon shielding, but their battleships are DR 6 CR 10 and turrets need weapon shielding to avoid quick degrading. The dread can hit 5 shields in one arc and DR 6 CR 12, but none of them have Wings. Tarakian have the same Terran DR / CR, and 3 shields (no sector shielding), but they can get self repair which makes the battleship quite tanky, assuming it doesn't take massive firepower over 1 or 2 turns. No dread option here, though. Since its part of the alliance fleet, though,You could always toss in a Xelocian or Terquai dread though for some extra firepower and durability, depending on the points.
  16. To return to my post of all of the problems, and how my proposed solution covers the issues. Please note, I'm really suggesting this as part of V3, as V3 (conceivably) will be a change to the core rules with associated testing. While you could bolt this onto V2, it would potentially require major overhauls to ship PD and Torpedo values, in addition to SRS and individual SRS token balance. ------- First, I'm proposing that you don't pay for squads per Wing / HP. You buy a single token at a set value. I don't want to break down into individual stats at this moment, so I'll start by proposing that all tokens cost 30 points. It looks like this: Interceptors - 1 wing slot Light Bombers - 2 wing slots Fighters - 3 Wing Slots Medium Bombers - 4 Wing Slots Fighter Bombers - 5 Wing Slots Heavy Bombers - 6 wing slots. This (generally) addresses issue 1, and 7. In specific, regarding 1), game design can better be handled if each squadron's stats are more alike - you don't have to balance a 1 wing interceptor token vs a 6 wing interceptor token and make sure both are equally useful, you just have to balance interceptors. Regarding 7). Having a fixed point size for interceptors means that every ship capable of taking interceptors isn't necessarily going to, given the point cost. Lets say a hypothetical Aquan or Relthoza fleet has 4 squads that can take wings. Interceptors could be taken by each of these squadrons (they only take 1 wing capacity slot), but that would cost 120 points in interceptors. A much larger point investment than taking 1 small 1-2 wing token with each squadron for a total of 20-40 points spent. ------ Second, I'm proposing that SRS use MARs like other models. In particular, I'm suggesting stripping out the PD bubble section of the rules and replacing it with the MAR: Combat Air Patrol (CAP). This squadron may join another squadron and link Point Defense with that squadron. This proposal creates solutions for issues 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12. In specific, regarding points 5 and 8, the point defense bubble rule is removed entirely. If you MUST have this rule in the game, it should be included as a MAR on escorts, as escorts have many more counter play options - in particular you can shoot them with primary weapons from other ships. However, I'd be OK if the PD bubble rules were flat out removed entirely. Regarding points 7, 10 and 12. Giving Interceptors and fighters the CAP rule allows you to retain the same spirit they have now (SRS that assist in PD) but the effects are limited to individual squadrons. As long as you don't give Bombers the CAP rule, you can give them whatever PD you want (retain the theme of the Flying Fortress bombers self defense against fighters) without worrying about how they will assist the fleet in torpedo PD. Regarding Point 9, you can add a MAR to any token that individually effects AD - I propose a MAR called Ordnance (X). After this Model / token makes an attack run, reduce its AD by X until it returns to base. This doesn't specifically address Interceptors, but instead it allows bombers and fighters to remain on the field at reduced ability. ------- Third I'm proposing that we use a stat line more like other models, and apply damage in a similar way. Lets look only at a suggestion for Fighter bombers in this case (all values entirely arbitrary - the individual values would be pending play testing): Fighter Bombers. Wing Capacity 5. MV 15, DR 3, CR 4, HP 6, SH 2, AD 12, PD 5. MAR: CAP. ORDNANCE (2) This proposal creates solutions for issues 2, 3, 4, 9, 11. In specific: regarding point 2 and point 11 - these Fighter Bombers would degrade from 12 AD (no damage) to 7 AD. 7 AD is still a threat to damage cruisers, unlike the current system where a 6 wing token reduced to 1 wing is only 2AD and generally useless. Regarding point 3 and 9, you could now use a unified PD system, generally in the vein of the current torpedo PD system. I think this would be a VERY good thing, as I don't think there is a terribly good reason to have 2 different rule sets for PD. Crits against SRS should require a RTB - this could even potentially address point 6 - allow tokens to move further from the carrier at the risk that they will have to RTB and not contribute for a large chunk of the game. Regarding point 4, I believe (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), DR and CR create a more predictable damage curve that just having wings be destroyed on 6s. ------ Fourth By only allowing SRS to link with Squadrons for PD vs torps, you also, essentially, get 2 values for PD. 1 value to use against torps, and 1 value to use against other SRS. This opens the SRS to extra counter play, espeically with some extra interesting MARS. Some suggestions may beke Escort (While in base contact with another friendly SRS token, you may allocate any number of enemy SRS AD to this token instead of the other token) and Intercept (when an enemy SRS squadron comes within 6" of this token, you may immediately move this token into base contact). Note, the MARs themselves don't matter as much as the fact that SRS would be more deadly to other SRS than some ship based PD may be.
  17. Personally, I liked the idea that support shuttles and assault boats just become MARs on the carriers. I don't think there is a ton of reason to have either as actual SRS unless you want to create contention for Wing slots in each carrier?
  18. I have an EotBS fleet sitting in storage that I could break out if there was a group playing again. Virginia stores are pretty tough for me, though, give its a long haul from Columbia MD to anywhere in VA. I found a group playing Firestorm up in Glenn Burnie, so I've been all about Firestorm lately, but I wouldn't be opposed to spinning up on DW again.
  19. Small Scale Skirmish games are really, really different target audiences too. I find FA to play more to the scale / time requirements of Warmachine or 40k. The target audience is also not really someone who wants to play 6-10 human size models like in Malifaux / Infinity, but more to someone who wants an alternative to Battlefleet Gothic or someone who enjoys age of sail games like Sails of Glory.
  20. I would actually argue that the erratic release schedule and at times questionable support are more reasons the game isn't more popular. Give Firestorm Warmachine / hordes level of support and it would be much more popular, even with the exact same rules.
  21. This makes sense if it really was frigate spam they were worried about. I find it highly more likely they felt that Dindrendzi should be a fleet of Big Ships, with minimal T3. That would make a lot more sense, though, if there was a higher allotment available to T2 or T1....
  22. I'd love you quote you and respond item by item Dr_Vector, but your post length is prohibitive! I'd like to more thoroughly break ALL the problems down into a post, as I can then reference how my proposals (or others) address each individual issue. Additionally, if we disagree with the problems, we won't be able to agree with the solutions either. For example, I suspect that not everyone will agree with my point 3 below... Problems with SRS in general 1) Small wing sizes are not universally useful across SRS types 2) Damage causes attack SRS to lose effectiveness too quickly 3) Do not follow the regular rules for PD. Since the game is not focused on SRS, they should follow a unified PD ruleset with Torps. 4) Damage to SRS is too random. A large SRS token can run past a full heavy cruiser squadron worth of PD (15-16 dice in some case) if your opponent can't roll any 6s while the same token can be reduced to uselessness by a lucky roll of 4 Firgates. 5) Point defense bubble allows SRS to protect multiple ships at a very low point cost. There is no counter play - this PD cannot be mitigated by opponent's ranged fire. 6) SRS can't move far from carrier, making Attack SRS essentially an extra RB 1 weapon. *Note* This may be a feature and not a bug. Problems with Interceptors in specific: 7) Very cheap point defense upgrade. 1 Interceptor is the same cost as most individual ships PD upgrades (5 points), and exceed the performance of all PD Escorts 8) Bubble of defense, already a problem per 4, is even larger than other SRS. 9) Only SRS that never have to return to base. Problems with fighters in specific: 10) Same PD as bombers, less than interceptors. 11) AD on fighters drops so quickly that even a 4 token squadron is unlikely to cause damage to most targets Problems with bombers 12) Provide PD boost. While Bombers thematically should be able to shoot at SRS, they should not contribute PD vs torps. I think the above should cover all of the issues with SRS, not just Interceptors, but please add to the list if I missed something.
  23. goal 1) remove PD mountain generated by current interceptor rules. Make interceptors like any other model. Give them a MAR called CAP - May join a squadron and link PD with squadron. This solves: A. Interceptors variable PD value giving them a HUGE PD boost at 6 wing strength, and an ultra value PD choice at 5 points for 2PD. You get a consistently costed X pd at Y points (say, 8 PD at 20 points for the token). B. PD value vs other wings can be different than Torp defense (due to linking via CAP), thus making Torps more relevant. C. Removal of PD bubble generated by Interceptors, thus making escorts more relevant. (If you must have a PD bubble, give it to escorts, IMO) goal 2) unified PD system. There is really no reason there should be multiple sections of rules for PD. With a little bit of work managing SRS stats, all PD can be handled the same way. If we give Wings a blanket a value of DR 2 CR 4, with current PD Rules, a 6 PD squadron (hammer squadron), deals, approximately 5 hits with torp PD. This deals 2 HP damage to the wing in the proposed system. In the current system, That same squad will destroy 1 wing on average rolls. AD wise, against bombers, in the proposed system, the bomber token loses 2 AD, in the current system, it loses 3AD. Lets look at an insane PD setup - 1x Resulka Dread with 3x Arrow Escorts for 20PD. This deals approximately 16 PD hits with Torp PD.This deals a quadruple Crit against the proposed system at CR 4, and completely destroys the bomber token. In the current system, around 3 wings are destroyed and the wing is probably driven off. IMO, Light and Medium bombers should be destroyed by an undamaged Dread with 3 undamaged escorts. If you must come closer to duplicating the current system, you could bump the CR to 6 on heavy bombers. A beauty of the proposed system, additional SRS choices gives more tweakability for balance. All told, the systems are fairly close in performance. Close enough there isn't much of a compelling to have a separate section of the rules just for SRS IMO. goal 3) give more options to small wing values than to just stack more interceptors. Having Light / medium / heavy bombers, and interceptors / fighters / Heavy fighter not only gives more points for balance tweaking, it also yields extra variety and something else to do with carriers with small wing sizes. You can still bring lots of interceptors (same as now) or you can bring something with a little offense at a wing value of 2 or 3.
  24. I agree with this 110%. The focus should be on the big ships, but since carriers exist, and the existing system has quite a few flaws, the new edition of the game should really take a look at it. In fact, if they only changed SRS by making them more like the core rules, simplified linking AD per the 3.0 thread, and adjusted a few balance pieces to match, that would probably be a really big win in the end.
  25. I agree that adding DR and CR to SRS makes PD more relevant, but perhaps not as much as you worry about. Ryushi are still gods compared to Directorate vs SRS because the extra PD offers more chances for 6s which yields more destroyed SRS tokens and more drive off effects. Also, each token is essentially equivalent to a HP, so you're already effectively working the HP angle in the current system. Just tweaking the existing system also means that low wing value ships still don't use anything other than interceptors - even if your 2 wing bomber token yields 8 or 10 AD, all it takes is 1 6 on PD to destroy the token. I think the risk of losing the token is so high that you would still only see small interceptor squads. In my propsal, using a Light Bomber squadron, you still have 6 HP that degrade gracefully and have an appropriate AD value, and they can be adjusted to have a separate MV from a heavier bomber squadron. Also, the DR, CR, and extra SRS types are something you would probably only try to tackle with a V3 of the rules. That would gives a full balance pass to rip the SRS section out of the rule book and make sure Directorate isn't too PD weak and Ryushi isn't too PD heavy. Do note that Directorate has mulitple options of ships with low Wing values, which, in my proposed system, could yield lots of Interceptor squadrons that would be better than 1 token interceptors of today. Terrans might be more of a worry - if you want wings, you're looking at either the Tyrant, or Zenith / Solar - not much option there. My biggest worry is that adding, say, 2 DR and 3 CR to SRS make them too easy to kill - you'll land double crits on them pretty easily with anything with escorts or larger squads. I don't think you want it to be too trivial to wipe out whole tokens, even if the focus of the game is the big ships.
×
×
  • 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.