Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BrotherZaah

  1. We go somewhere in the middle ground for casual play. We'll remove models from the flight stands, but stand cannot under any circumstances overlap. We veiw the stands as the "area of influence" of the ships within which collision is too great a risk - thats the fluff reasoning. The rule reason is that ships like the Apollo are much harder to maneuver than for example the Directorate battleship on the table top. The apollos turning circle - inclusive of the massive forward and rearward overhang of the model is bigger than some dreadnoughts. We maintain strict rules about the flight stands though as without them it would be far too easy to plough the aforementioned Apollo in between 2 or more ships and do what apollos do best. Further more, to ignore the rules completely, would completely negate an important aspect of the game - careful maneuvering. Without thinking about where your ships are going, and where they're going to be, the game is just a probability game and you're essentially playing numbewang with dice.
  2. Agreed, in small point games they're much more tactical. I use the same cards as you. (those being the only ones worth taking). Its all about timing, spending 3 TV on the move card more than pays off if you can use it to catch the last model of a 7 TV unit. Its all about working out what you'd gain v what you'd lose TV wise. Unless your relthozan, in which case you spam the outrageously undercosted repair card for all its worth.
  3. Its relative, the only other objective holders we have are Valkyries which are probably the biggest points sinks in the list after tank destroyers. So the infantry are at least harder to kill (marginally). The real question is whether to bother upgrading them with anything except an LT.
  4. Those are lovely ship models but what has impressed me more, and I'm sorry if its slightly off topic is the paint scheme on the Hawker ships in the background. Its amazingly well done.
  5. 1: How is discussing a possible future of the game "impatient" despite me literally saying in my last post i'm not expecting things to change overnight or at all? If you don't like what i'm saying that's fine but if you're going to try to label me (which you shouldn't be) as something then at least pick something that makes sense. 2: You're again totally missing the point of my posts. I don't want new units. I want new tactics. They're not the same thing. I'm assuming you havn't been bothered to read all my previous posts on this topic. But to summarise for you its this: I don't want other races tech, or other races MARs. I don't care if im outranged, or someones faster than me or can ignore terrain, or someone has stealth or whatever, none of that matters, as that what makes each faction unique. I've simply been saying that Skydrop is an alternate deployment method that listed as a basic rule in the rulebook. Its not faction specfic because at least half the factions have it to some extent so I'd like to see the other races get access to it or another way of deploying models to make things more interesting. 3: I'm not complaining either. At no point have I said Terrans suck or any such assertion in fact i've always said they're good at the single tactic they can do. I'm simply trying to discuss with fellow players whether they share the concern that 1 tactic is boring or not and what could be done about it. 4: You say that the game isn't designed to have all factions have access to everything and then you say that there's more helixes to come. So how can you say that the game has "clearly not" been designed that way when we only have half the available helixes. You're contradicting yourself whilst also completely ignoring the fact that i've repeatedly said that its not about getting access to different weapons and tech and MARs its about having the same basic tactical options as everyone else. 5: I do hear Dindrenzi player complaining about no shields etc. but that's not the point because (again) I'm not talking about Tech or MARs. Denying a faction in Planetfall from access to skydrop is the same as denying a faction access to shunt and/or flank deployment in Armada. 6: Do you think i'd still be here trying to explain to someone who obviously isn't reading what i'm writing what the discussion is about if i was "impatient" or if I hadn't tried all available helix options? (Bad) RTS Analogy. No you didn't mean about how to take them out because you completely and totally missed the point of this entire discussion. I however am talking about different ways to take targets out both in the analogy and in this discussion. Thats GDI wanting the same tactical options as NOD (which in the game they do get) not the same units. Tactics are not units. Units execute tactics. As it stands Terran units can execute 1 tactic. Run forward and shoot. Adding long range firepower is simply helping to ensure that tactic works, its not a new tactic. Why are all the Vanguards so completely opposed to the ideas in this thread. They're not even being helpful when they disagree. I've now had three basically say I and other players are wrong to think a lack of tactical options is boring but offer absolutely nothing In the way of explanation as to why other than "That just the way it is (despite me pointing out that thats just the way it is at the moment) or even less helpfully suggesting we buy a new army and then badly trying to label me as "impatient" when I've shown i'm quite obviously not.
  6. Sigh, again. this isn't about skydrop its about a lack of alternate tactics. Scenarios might help depending on what they bring. Dindrenzi can make different lists that focus on different tactics because they have an alternate deployment method. Predominantly ground based, or predominantly skydrop. Or a bit of both. The units that skydrop can be used for so many effects and tactics i've already listed previously in this thread. Terrans and none skydrop/alternate deployment races don't have any of that. You also can't use a single instance of a units use to say that a unit is ok overall. Thats the same a knee jerk reaction saying they're pants after one game. Overall, for me aside from the odd above average run of luck Baldrs are in no way worth the points or TV they cost. You could buy a unit of Baldrs or another Tyr with points left over. Its a no brainer. I (like the vast majority of players) don't have the luxury to play as many games as someone who owns a gaming shop. I get a finite amount of game time per week. Now, with that in mind, I can spend it doing the same thing again in Planetfall and hope that abnormal luck makes it somewhat interesting, or I can go and try a new game or play an old game I havn't played for a while which is different and therefore more interesting. (Luckily for spartan that'll likely be DW or FS:A) but how many will simply go back to another companys games? Its easily avoidable attrition. The purpose of this discussion is to make the game better for everyone going forward not just Terrans, but all factions. Its not about making them better, or worse, Its simply giving all players more (and equal) options. (I'm still shocked that people think that repetitive gameplay is a good idea.) This discussion is to level the playing field for all factions. it can't and won't change overnight but if discussions like these lead to future releases being more than different models for the same purpose then perhaps we can avoid the attrition mentioned above and the game stands less chance of stagnating. (PS your RTS analogy makes zero sense in the context of this thread. GDI had multiple ways of taking out the obelisks. Airstrikes, Orcas, Commandos, ion cannon, tank rush, infantry rush airdropping units in chinooks, sneaky apcs, commandos with C4. For the analogy to make any sense in relation to this thread GDI would only have been able to run tanks at the obelisks, again. and again. and again. and again. every mission for the entire campaign. (whilst nod still had access to all their options. yes, it would work. But it would be incredibly incredibly boring to do that twice a week for 6 months.)
  7. Adding flavour to skydropping hirdmen isnt hard. Give the units able to do it access to only breacher teams and a LT and call them helldivers and put them in the assault helix to reinforce the idea that only terran assault units use skydrop. or allow the rumoured flying APC to skydrop, that makes them different to Dindrenzi drop pods but then has balance issue all of it own. i mentioned in a previous post its about alternate deployments. My suggestions aside from skydrop on the assault helix which is the easiest option to implement are: In order of plausibility. Flanking deployment that works similar to Firestorm Armada. Though to use my own arguement against myself, why would Terrans do that and Dindrenzi (for example) not? Tunneling units Teleporting similar to Covenant of Antarctica orb. Again hard to explain fluff wise, but then so is selling the idea that the Terrans (of whom the dindrenzi are a splinter group) wouldnt already have come up with the idea of a skydrop. An actual orbital lander. It have to be a massive kit, and would be unweildy and hard to balance. But its a suggestion.
  8. When a large proportion of enemy units have higher speed and ER's approaching Terran LR's then it takes monstrous stupidity on behalf of the opposition player to take anything except long range (and thus hugely reduced attack dice) from a Terran unit, whilst in the majority of cases still being able to reply with full firepower, often stationary and sometimes stationary and then hit and running. But thats part of playing Terrans. i don't mind that. My issue isnt about Over or under-poweredness i'd still demand access to Skydrop or alternative deployment tactics even if they werent as good as they currently are purely to bring tactics into the Terran gameplay. No, my issue is this: why should i keep doing the same thing over and over for the enjoyment of my opponent? the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. I've played all the people in my area, with all the factions they have multiple times. We know now how to beat each other and what match ups favour who etc. the question is, what now? according to some on this thread, thats it thanks for your money and time but either buy a new army or accept that certain arbitrarily picked factions just get more options by default regardless of how unbalanced that is. Sure i'll get alternate models to do the same thing with but its still the same thing. But doing it their way, the only logical conclusion for that is to move on to other games purely for something new to do. That's something I will happily go to bat in the forums and wherever I need to to avoid because this is an excellent game, with amazing models and it deserves more than eventually being dismissed as "Terrans Sorylians and Directorate only do X, Aquans Dindrenzi and Relthozan can do X and Y so you should play them" Tactical inflexibility may be a Terran Trait (which is open to debate but not in this thread) but for the sake of the game mechanics and game balance as a whole, fluff like this needs to be overlooked to a certain degree. To use a popular example: The same way Space Marines in 40k are nowhere near as good as they are in the storys. I'm failing to see how giving all races at least limited access to all the basic deployment methods is anything except a good thing for the game. This concept transcends Terran issues (of which there are thankfully, few) and is more of a game issue as its not just Terrans that suffer from 1 dimensional gameplay. I just can't work out where people see the benefit of restricting certain races to certain tactics and thus limiting players enjoyment of the game based on which faction they've chosen.
  9. I apologise if my replies were too sharp previously. My issue is slightly different, I don't have all that much issue winning or at least competing enough that it's a mistake by either side or a run of good or bad luck that will decide the game. The issue (aside from several senseless and unexplained nerfs to Terrans units and buffs to already strong opposition units in ever update) comes with the manner of the games. I'll try to explain: A current Terran force can only achieve victory by racing forward with almost all its units. This the way they're designed to play, not a problem until you realise thats all they do. The sole exception to this are Tyrs (baldrs are now just an abomination and absolutely not worth the points) which despite being largely inferior to all other heavys (only pinpoint makes it as feared as it is) is just about good enough to warrant a slot. But. This leads to predictability, opponents KNOW that they simply need to kill the tyrs and then kite the rest of the terrans. At this point, a terran commander has no choice. Charge more and hope the opponent makes a mistake and you can catch them, or stop moving and try an hold an objective for TV whilst outranged and outgunned. This plays out every. Single. Game. The new recon helixes just make it quicker. Opponents set out their fields of fire, decide on a target priority list and just sit and pick off the targets in order, safe in the knowledge that the terrans just have to sit and accept the barrage. Opponents are free from having to position units to defend against skydrops they're free from worrying about their rear armour or an enemy unit getting too close for comfort unless they allow it, they know where the terrans are and where they will be. The same can not be said for any force that has access to skydrops. Neither side in the game expects anything else. That is a A game against the terrans regardless of who's controlling them or what in their list and its getting boring. Changing the list doesn't change the way the terrans play it just speeds up or slows it down. The simple fact of the matter is Terrans just arnt as fun to play with as other factions and that's as much part of game balance as rules. Why should Terrans be the whipping boys for the enjoyment of the other factions? Why would I recommend anyone play Terrans? For thecsake of the life of the game, id tell them that If they like the models I'd recommend they collect them and play a different force with more choice in their playstyle.
  10. Yeah i'm not asking for a total re-write of Terrans. I like the Terrans. I am just asking for some tactical options with the new helixes. As it stands some factions are so one dimensional its laughable. The Terran way of "drive at the enemy and pray enough of our forces get there" is both easily countered and boring in its execution. The game becomes a simple trigonometry exercise underpinned with a target priority list the outcome only fluctuating with dice rolls. Mix in a little skydrop or some other deployment method and suddenly the games way more tactical for both players. Even in Firestorm: Armada the Terrans have way more tactical options available to them.
  11. Both very good points. But if the helix that had skydrop had units we'd need anyway i.e Hirdmen. Surely we'd just throw them in instead of the taking the troops in the core helix if we wanted to. Fortunately there's no limit on the amount of helixes you can have just on the number of the same helixes before you have to double core.
  12. Agreed, a flying APC is still just charging through gunfire into the enemy. Just its quicker, and thus get bumped up the target priority list and will probably cost an absolute fortune points wise because APCs and flyers are high priced to start with, combining the two will likely result in something outrageous, similar in points and TV to a Sheriff if not higher. and it'll still be super vulnerable like every other flyer. Alternate deployment options would reduce the frustration of facing hit and run, as they would find it much harder to hit and run completely out of danger like they can now versus Terrans.
  13. That would be the long and short of it. Basically their answer to us having no alternative tactics is for us to be content to not have any tactical initiative and dance to their tune. I'd point out that sitting an entire unit of medium tanks (a front line mainstay unit of paramount importance to actually pushing the one tactic we can do to success) completely still (and thus not getting into a range they can engage the rest of their army) on the off chance that they might land troops nearby BEFORE they blow up said mediums from a safe distance is both wasteful and stupid. But I suspect they either don't get or more likely don't care about the problem. Factional loyalty is cool and all, I love my Terrans, but I'm broad minded to the game enough to realize that balance is imperative to the life of a game. This thread is about discussing that and coming up with solutions. I feel coming into a Terran discussion about orbat issues, and either flat out refusing acknowledge them (re: refusing to consider that sole use of skydrop is unbalanced) and then not offering up alternative solutions or suggesting absolutely terrible tactical ideas that benefit the enemy more than you as a "solution" is essentially of zero use to anyone. I'm all for open discussion but a refusal to acknowledge the issues brought up in the discussion so far leaves you in a position that you're now essentially trolling a topic on an issue that you have already stated doesn't exist to you.
  14. What puzzles me is why two of the most vocal Dindrenzi players on the forums are on this thread telling Terran players that they're wrong to be bored with being forced to use the same tactic repeatedly. I'd imagine this thread would look a lot different if the Dindrenzi were forced to skydrop and only skydrop every unit they had regardless of whether they wanted to or not. But bringing the thread back towards something more constructive than simply being told to like it or lump it by some Spartan Vanguards... An alternative deployment tactic is needed by some races. Terrans being the readily apparent but Sorylians are another and Directorate more so than Sorylians. Skydrop makes the most sense as its already in the rulebook, hasn't yet (despite what some people think) been restricted to certain races. But if the aim is to please people who need their own section of the basic rules to themselves, Then alternative deployments that aren't skydrop could be: An outflanking maneuver. Similar to the Armada rules. Burrowing units. Teleportation. like the Covenant of Antarctica orb. To assuage any doubt that these could be anything as dirty as generic rules available to anyone who might find them fun and to ignore the basic game balance issues they create, we'll couch any of these options in fluff to make them seem like racial specific innovations. With these ideas, the tactically lacking races who are inherently inferior on a basic tactical level to anyone with more than one deployment option now level the playing field, and the players of said races have something else to do. Whilst also pleasing people who like new rules for the sake of it. All we need is at best significant altering of faction specific rules at worst a whole new section in the rulebook. Embodying a marked move away from the more streamlined rules Spartan has been implementing with recent previous game editions across their lines. Or we could give a few units in some specific helixes skydrop.
  15. Ha, put more succinctly in one paragraph than I managed in three.
  16. You've either missed or ignored the point. I don't want to get up the board quicker. I (and at a guess a good few other Terran players too) am fed up of running across the board at gunfire regardless of how quick its done. To be clear, before starting my response we need to make a distinction between traits and tactics. I don't want hover. or railguns, hit and run, bonuses to skydropping or better infantry I also don't want almost every unit to be able to skydrop like the Dindrenzi can. They're Dindrenzi traits, and should remain Dindrenzi traits. Skydrop is not a trait. Its a tactic. The Dindrenzi trait is to prefer and excel at the tactic, thus they get bonuses to it and almost all their units can do it. I completely believe other races should have at least some access to any such tactic. Like i believe Dindrenzi should get APCs and artillery but not be as good at them as say Sorylians or whatever. The ability to skydrop units in the enemy rear is a tactic that goes far beyond simply getting troops onto an objective quicker. It allows you to put dangerous units in the rear of the enemys front line, suddenly rear armour values are threatened. Firebases disrupted, reserves depleted before they can be committed. Hover units can be bracketed. Hit and run can be nullified or diminished. I can see from your sig you're a Dindrenzi player. So you know how good skydrop is. I can fully understand you don't want to lose such an amazing tactical advantage over most other factions. But I can also see you're a Dystopian wars player where tactics are shared but MARs and Tech are kept to a few factions each so surely to can see, like Dystopian Wars, for the health of the game either through overall balance or to keep players interested in the game, each faction needs to be able to at least dabble in all the tactics (note: not traits) available. TL;DR Skydrop is a tactic not a trait. One that all factions should have at least a small amounts of access to for simple game balance reasons and one or two excel at as part of their racial traits. Tech, MARs and faction specific rules should be the dominant defining traits of a faction not denial of a basic game rule.
  17. Yeah the key word in that is "Specialities". Just because Dindrenzi have the most skydrop ability and the best drop troops doesnt mean you're diluting their "feel" and the game by giving skydrop to the Terrans in one of their helixes to open up their tactical options. The same way giving the Dindrenzi shield tanks or even shielded vehicles in one of their helixes doesnt detract from the fact Terrans shield themselves both more and better. To pidgeon hole races to very specific traits will kill the game as surely as not releasing any units at all. Personally I want the ability make alternative tactical choices. The ability to deliver forces to the battlefield in alternative ways would be my biggest wish. Air transports and or some skydrop would be nice to allow some variation.
  18. Well yeah, you can do that. I wasn't saying I can't win. I'm saying its boring enough charging at the enemy every game. Hiding behind terrain every game sounds even less thrilling.
  19. Our Relthozan player learned almost day one to sit at the edge of the board and blow stuff up from miles out of our range starting with anything that can kill infantry first. Then he just skydrops infantry onto the objectives. Literally sweet FA you can do to counter it except pray you get consistently lucky with shield rolls. But, win/loss ratios aside, as they vary from gaming group to gaming group, Doing the same tactic for every. game. I. play. for six months has worn my enthusiasm out. If nothing else I need some tactical diversity purely to keep me interested in playing. Having said that, Terrans are not the only faction suffering from a total lack of alternative tactics. I agree that nerfing the Terran ranged support was absolutely galling and totally unjustified. I've said it before but I feel that Terran units statlines are punished way too much in lieu of what shields MIGHT do -if- they worked. TL:DR: Terrans need to have some actual tactical options to counter tactics that they are flat out unable to. Otherwise Terran players will remain with the feeling that they're playing a casino game (will my shields hold or won't they???) with resin models. Rather than a wargame.
  20. One would assume the desire for revenge for Dramos is how the Dindrenzi are as a baseline, how they are shown stat wise as is. The appearance of Terran/Hawker units incites extra pushes that further.
  21. Who knows what goes on in their Machiavellian minds. Grateful for the changes to the Hawker Helix though.
  22. Don't get me wrong, I love the models and Whenever i've fielded the helix, its worked well, theres no doubting it does. but... i just wonder why the massive ability overlap. Its not as if we need more anti-infantry or anti-air firepower. Anything the Helix can do, you can do with a Terran unit that's tougher and/or cheaper. You cant even use the helix for some much needed early game strikes, they're too weak to plow into an undamaged enemy force to hit priority targets. So as the consensus goes you have 600 points of your force sitting at the back of the board until such a time that they're just mopping up without risking too much loss. Combine that with the above ability overlap with other Terran units and I'm still struggling to justify adding them in when for 150 more points I can get an Odin.
  23. If its a "friendly" "proxy" game then just do what you want and make note of what works and what doesn't. Remember not to jump to conclusions about whether something is "overpowered" or "underpowered" based on a single game. You complain a lot in the KoB forums about KoB being bad (or other nations being better, same thing). You're probably not going to enjoy Terrans as they're analogous to KoB (high shields, low HP, close to mid range firepower, relatively ponderous) in my opinion. Arty is useful for area denial and/or to create/saturate choke points think of it like mines in DW (more useful psychologically than actually on the board).
  24. Fair enough, We've only played 1 4k game and that was to test the Odin. where we play its hard to get more than 3k in before we're running well over the time limit (mainly cos we joke - and cry occassionally- about what happened during a turn.) but i agree, when i've wanted to bother with the secondaries so far we are very very good at scouring them clean and claiming them for ourselves. I've found an apc moving in unison with a heimdal squadron is a very solid unit combo for a lot of situations. Still not had much luck using a Ullr with an APC as you do though, just seems a shame to strip such a valuable attachment from a front line unit onto what i consider, and use as a second line unit. Obviously i've you're adding the APC's to the front the idea has way more merit.
  25. At 3k I use. 2x Vidars with Ullr shields 2x 3 Heimdals with Ullr shields 2x APC - 2x 6 hirdmen with 2x sweeper and 1x command. 1x 3 Valkyries. 1x Tyr with Ullr Shields 1x 3 Baldrs with Ullr Shields. It balances short and long range firepower and plays to the terran strength of high shields dice (but makes sure not to rely on it because its way more 50/50 than people would have you believe). Each unit is roughly as dangerous and as tough to kill as another. the APCs extra speed allow them to use LOS as their main defence though target priority wise they're way down the list as just blowing stuff up is still a million times more important to a victory than anything as silly as claiming objectives and accomplishing the mission *rolls eyes* The Hawker helix is in my opinion a massive waste of points and an insane amount of TV. (A massive shame because they're amazing models and i would love some effective air support). My reasoning for the opinion is that it in no way brings anything the Terrans need. More anti infantry firepower (the only MARs we have an overabundance of), and a solitary artillery barrage with a few AA missiles (not that we need more AA) for over 600 points? er, no. maybe they'd be a bit more useful against Dindrenzi nyx's that simply have to die as soon as they arrive but again you're paying a frankly ridiculous premium for the privilege and thus like many other peoples i'd imagine they've mainly sat in their carry case. Valkyries again are overpriced at 250 points and a load of TV. Their firepower to start with is ok, 15 dice. but its hardly ground breaking and they have to race into the kind of range that will see them dead from return fire within a turn. so i take 3 and sit on my tertiary with them. Though at higher points I will take an extra squad of 5 and use them to hunt damaged and solitary units. The rest of the time just move the shields tanks so they're closest to the enemy.
  • 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.