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

Commodore Jones

Member
  • Posts

    2,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Commodore Jones

  1. Do you really want to risk your Tier 1 command vessels by getting close to Mines? They have to stay in Command Distance, while not unavoidable, it's possible that a failed sweep could lead to running your big wide-turning ship into Mines anyway. Not only that, Escorts are attached to the slowest ships in your fleet, giving your opponent plenty of opportunities to mine the hell out of the area. Maybe even more than you can safely sweep by the time you get there. Escort Carriers or Frigate Carriers and SRS have the safty of reach and speed/maneuverability over Escorts.
  2. How about this, give both Zenian and Kurak alliances a faction with an Escort Carrier/Cruiser that can be taken in squadrons of 1 to 3, so that any faction can take a ship or two or three loaded with whatever SRS type is needed for minesweeping duty. Even go Relthoza style, make them an Escort Frigate squad that can hold wings like the Nidus. That way you don't have to rewrite ship stats or even change entire fleet rosters by adding a mine-sweeper to every core faction. Just pick a single alliance faction on each side and give them one new ship and bingo! You have something any faction can take as an anti mine vessel.
  3. Yeah but Escorts don't have the reach to go out and trigger/detonate an enemy mine while your enemy is still in the blast radius of his own mine. >:D
  4. Like I've often said before, there's nothing wrong with Mines as they are except there is no way to counter them. Something as simple as adding back the ability of SRS to detonate-sweep mines or something similar would be far easier than coming up with all new rules to change things.
  5. Drive-by's were never an issue for me, I see absolutely nothing wrong with them (and I've been on the receiving end of plenty). I'm just disappointed that now area-control as a tactic has now been completely removed from the game. First with the removal of Wings/SRS free movement and being able to intercept ships/models, and now mines are gone. Every edition now seems like you're having more and more tactical options being removed. I'm disappointed.
  6. You might have something there. Since Mines are being replaced with Torpedoes now, wouldn't it have just been ultimately easier to allow Point Defense as a defense roll against Mines? That would just be a small paragraph added to existing rules, and you wouldn't have go and to alter numerous ships stats, remove and replace a whole part of the weapons chapter and all that ****.
  7. Well I finally started using my Facebook page and discovered how this $#!t sucks. Mines were fine, the only thing they needed in V2 was some way to counter! SRS detonation from V1.0, or maybe give Support Shuttles a mine-disarming ability or something. But complete removal!?!? Now look at what you whining wussy's have done!
  8. Ahh, so even in V3 nobody is ever going to use Targeted Strikes unless you're Aquan or Directorate, same as it is now.
  9. I like this! We're going to implement this in v2.0 right now! With one minor exception, the Disorder Marker gained this way will only affect the hit ship instead of the whole squadron.
  10. Sorry, just so used to people's first reaction to the issue is banning the Regroup TAC or banning being able to use it that way. I don't think the Hawker frigate is overpriced, it's well worth its cost. But it's not worth having drop a Carrier or Cruiser squad in exchange for a frigate squad just because you go from a 800 to 900 point build.
  11. Well some of have to do this given the price of our T3 ships. As a Hawker (and Tarakian) player there are common point spreads that force you to take the TAC-joining in order to meet your minimum squadron requirements. The immediate -1 to Battle Log is more than a fair price to pay for this, I'm sorry you have players who abuse it, but don't screw me into crippled or downgraded fleet builds just because you're lucky enough to have cheap T3's, and don't like some min-maxer's annoying habit!
  12. Haven't had the chance to try the new rules yet, but the new Drop Marker rules have me worried. As a Dindrenzi player I'm not sure I'll ever be able to zero-in even a single Drop Marker before they all go away at the end of the turn and then reset. What has your experience been with this? Remember, you're talking to the guy who's dice luck causes 11 out 12 basic Command Checks to fail, An extra die or two on Nexus Designator role don't mean much.
  13. We already use this in our own house rules mentioned earlier in the thread. They have evolved though play to this. All SRS types with a PD rating Link (with the minimum of 1 per SRS in the token) to provide PD cover to any friendly unit in the token's defensive range (6" for Interceptors, 4" for others) against Torpedo Fire and Boarding Assaults. Thus any 6-Wing Fighter, Bomber, Assaulter, or Interceptor token can provide the same 6 PD dice to a friendly ship's Defensive Fire. Interceptors however can declare an Intercept Action. Under these rules an Intercept Action can do one of two things, perform an Intercept Move and engage in a Dogfight against an incoming enemy SRS (standard per the rules pg 89-90) OR an Interceptor Token may use it's Intercept Action to Combine it's full PD with a friendly ship in it's defensive range that is the target of Torpedo Attack or Boarding Assault (So a 6-wing Interceptor token can provide it's full 12 PD to the defense of a ship). As per the book rules an Interceptor can only perform one Intercept Action per turn, however in this house rule an Intercept Action counts as an Interceptor's "Attack Run" and thus it MUST Return to Base after doing so just the same as Fighters, Bomber, and Assaulters after they make their Attack Runs. This puts Interceptors on a more equal footing in comparison to other SRS types. Now with all wing types have the same tactical choice, whether to keep them out on roving PD coverage duty, or utilize their fullest ability in an "attack run" and in exchange lose that coverage.
  14. In the times it came up playing this scenario we just gave it the median of 2 dice for cyber-defense.
  15. So have Beta testers already been selected? If so at least a rejection notice would have been nice.
  16. Or reinstate the V1.0 rule that allows Wings/SRS to sweep/detonate mines.
  17. This is what I'm afraid of, that 3.0 will turn into another V1.5, a rules-set that nobody likes and has 3 or 4 different house rules that no-one can agree on and it will destroy the current player base that has barely recovered from V1.5
  18. I'm still leery of this proposed Power Core system. Is there a chance we could get an Official Optional Rule in 3.0 to use the current Damage Reduction rules instead.
  19. You can already use Fighters to try and clear Interceptors by the current rules. It's the PD difference between the two that makes it almost futile, unless the Fighter player rolls really good and the Interceptor player rolls really bad. Even allowing Fighters to hit first on their PD roll to try and reduce the incoming return PD mountain probably wouldn't do very much.
  20. It kind of worked that way in V1.0 Wings could free roam and only gave limited PD against shots that were in line-of-sight, but could lend their full PD to ships/squadron the Wing attached to.
  21. I think you're both wrong. The only real problem with SRS the way they are now is that there is no effective way to counter Interceptors. Fighters, Bombers, Assaulters and Support Shuttles all work perfectly fine the way they are, Interceptors are the problem/broken issue. The dead-simplest solution in my opinion is to let Interceptors make a limited form of Attack Run/Dogfight, ONLY against other Interceptors. That way you have something of comparable effectiveness/power-level to counter an opponent who does Point Defense Mountain as a tactic, and since you're effectively making an Attack Run with your own Interceptors, they have to return to base so there's a form of checks-and-balances. Do you keep your own PD cover, or use those Interceptors to try and take down your opponent's PD cover?
  22. Actually Mines DID NOT work that way in V1.0 or with the errata document. If ships in the same squadron triggered the detonation range of a single mine, then all ships in that squad ate the mine's explosive damage, just like it does now.
  23. Interesting idea, I'd like to see more before I pass sentence on whether or not I like it. But right up front I don't like the idea of what should be basic maneuvers (belly up, shunt out, etc) being tied/limited by this. Cool, this has only been a minor problem with teaching the game to new players. Out of the 12+ people I've taught/demoed the game to, only two had issues/confusion over the numbered range bands. Sounds almost needlessly complex, and maybe even a bit overpowered. Have to see more to decide. Understandable, I can see the potential need for this, if done right. Don't like certain aspects of this. Fixing the non-effect crits is VERY good, I don't like the 3 HP damage on the table, especially in the most common slot. I especially don't like the the Focused thing and how it affects Cyber/Targeted strikes. Right now it seems like a randomized screw-over. I try attacking with Cyberwarfare now in V2 and I call it against Defensive Systems, ok fine, maybe I only get a Hazard Marker but I got to choose what I went for. At first glance this looks like 'you make a Cyberwarfare attack and then roll random to see what you get.' NO! F&@# that random B.S. (I may be completely wrong on this, but this is how it looks to me right now. This is the only the first whiff of the stench of what I hated most about V1.5, Taking Away My Options! ) Right now I lean more towards 1 and 2 with a slightly stronger favor to 1. If my dyscalculic math-retarded brain can handle to the current system, I don't see where the trouble comes in for new players. (I instantly took to the concept when I was first introduced to it back in V1.0, no problems). Option 2 (like in Planetfall) would be a good second choice, I've seen newbies to Planetfall grasp the concept of it quickly. Option 3, I'd have to see more on how it works to decide, but 4 is a hell no, it'd break the game. No, no, no, no, no, NO! HELL NO! This is what I hated about V1.5 all over again. You're Taking Away My Options!! I am now not allowed to choose how I load out my carriers anymore! And even worse, I now get shoved down my throat what I can/can't take!!! You're taking away my Support Shuttles, now I'm going back to being forced to take some specific ship I probably don't even want just to have 'em. Sorry, but I DO NOT like having to spend points on an entire ship/squadron just to have Medical Shuttles, it's complete bull$h!t! This whole fraking section is complete bull$h!t !!! This has got to be one of the most retarded cures for the SRS issues! This alone has already got me on the edge of a total no-go for this edition! And don't ANY of you DARE point the meta-munchkin finger at me!!! I am not a all-Bomber-munchkin, nor a PD Mountaineer, you can ask anyone in our gaming group, I mix it up, Fighters, Bombers, Support Shuttles, the occasional Assaulters when needed, Interceptors whenever I have the odd Wing slots leftover. I can see this, though not really keen on the removal of capture. I think that the current boarding assault system works just fine. You're going in specific system in mind, it just so happens that if you roll really good then you can capture the ship. The thing that currently makes ship capture too easy is the absurdly high rate of crew loss hits on the Critical Hit Table. As mentioned above in the Critical Hit, chart I absolutely don't like the random roll on the Focused Table. I'd rather take what we have now with inflicting just a Hazard Marker on a bad roll, than some random WTF!?! system is going down? To me Movement is fine just the way it is. I don't think there is anything 'klunky' about it, it's just a matter of the person/player being more efficient in their move. (and the examples of the skinny turn template help a bit too.) It's fine the way it is don't frak with it.
  24. This idea has also occurred in our game group, during a System Wars scenario ships and SRS launched three (successful) boarding assaults against the planet for the extra Battle Log, and the idea was thrown about of playing a special Planetfall scenario with an all infantry attack to represent this.
  25. Actually in our local meta most of us hate the effects of a failed Disorder Check, we mostly forget the rules because we don't want to use them. I for one hope they don't become more important. I totally agree, but lets hope the streamlining doesn't turn out to be the kind of disaster that v1.5 was.
×
×
  • 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.