Jump to content

S.Derek

Member
  • Content Count

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

S.Derek last won the day on June 1 2017

S.Derek had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About S.Derek

  • Rank
    Sircan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

2,069 profile views
  1. Grow up Archer12. We are all getting a bit tired of your persistent negativity. Move on. Be happy. Express positivity.
  2. There are two clear strains of Pathogen at present (under the new background being written up by Neil and Franco) Omega-Strain Pathogen are represented by their evolution into full entities that can exist in space having completely rewritten the structure of the subsumed vessel with the pathogen matrix. The Gamma-strain Pathogen are similar to the vessels some folks have converted previously (ie, Dindrenzi Cruisers with gribbly-bitz on them, etc!). These two fleets combine in the same way as a Terran/Hawker Industries Fleet would, but present different gameplay styles. This allows pathogen players to be creative with their conversions while also building a clearly Omega Pathogen fleet. d
  3. Hi all Back from me holidayz..... And I would remind you I am a volunteer the same as anyone else at Spartan, so if you expect me to post when I am away taking a break with the family, you can kiss my bum! .....My priorities are elsewhere. upon my return however, I have caught up with the Beta Team and am pleased with their progress so far. We have all core rules in place, all core-6stats are in testing format and things are well on track for completion. Futher statistics are in place too, with all existing faction now in template, along with the Saurian Enclave and Omega-Strain Pathogen. These will be rolled out to the Beta Teams in the next few days, once I am happy the testing has hit its required degree of game coverage. Rules-Wise: Movement is set, as are rules for Ranged Fire, Boarding, SRS and the End Phase. The Command Points system is stable, with no outstanding problems on points spend and availability. I am happy with the resource management part of the game, with a good spread of Command Point purchase being used by betas in their tests - some have gone big on Command Points, some have gone small...with gameplay and personal choice being the determinant. In Competitive Play, the Command Point system will be a very interesting and important part of Fleet Creation as it will obviously be set before the event.....meaning proper testing of a Fleet prior to a tourney will be critical. With all fleets being on the tables, knowing your tipping point for CP will become as important as having a predetermined Deployment method, or 1st and 2nd turn activation order (both important things to consider in comp-games). The new Critical Hit Table and embedded Sub-systems Critical Table is also stable, with results that cover non-effects now registering a detrimental effect too - Dindrenzi Ships with no Cloaking System or Shield Array now take a Disorder Marker on the Defences Offline Result, for example. Token Count has dropped to just 6 Effect Markers, with Damage and Crew Loss being marked with dice....since everyone was doing it anyways! I am discussing with Neil the possibility of a bespoke FA-die that further removes any need for cardboard on the table, but we will see on that....lol.... he likes his tokens.... The final area for design and test is the scenario structure for competitive play which will be led by Josh and his team. Our expectation is to present a 6-scenario table which covers 2xOpposed Play Games, 2xObjective Capture Games, and 2xEscalation Games. By doing this, we hope to encourage balanced fleet building where competitive players will be tested across a tight spread of game types with suitable variation within those games to build expansive and flexible fleets. Moving forwards, I still have to complete the Campaign System for Firestorm Armada, which will include gaming maps, system exploration, resource management, off-table auto resolution of battles, espionage, diplomacy, etc..... but that shouldn't take too long, since we have been using the game-mechanisms in the Design Team for a few years now (mostly to give us a spicy reason to put models down on the table!)... I'll follow up on that in my next data burst! As mentioned above, all in moving at a good pace. I am working to an internal deadline for FSA, which I am confident we will hit with time to spare (which helps!). Then it will be over to Neil and his team to do the text-pour, graphical layout, etc. After that, I will come back to the game in its book format and suggest diagram tweaks, example clarification etc. Then it will be ready to go out to everyone! As we move forwards, the design team (Me, Spartan Josh, Spartan Linde, Spartan Gibson) will be building new fleets and plan to do a mini-blog series to explain our rationale. This should give folks an idea of where our thinking (post all the testing we have done) is going. I am currently swithering as to which Fleet to build. I have always played Terrans (in both FSA and FSPF....although I also have a Sorylian Collective force in FSPF!).... I am thinking about something new and quite like the look of the Directorate Mediums and Smalls....so will likely go for them (running the rule-of-cool) rather than for any gameplay reasons). This should give me a good voyage of discovery in their nuances, as well as allowing me to get my hands on the awesome-lookin' Works Raptor! Cheers d .
  4. A point on CQB...it ignores all Hard Target Modifiers, Shields and Cloaking! So Terran CQB shouldn't have too much trouble bashing Dindrenzi Nyx who stray too close. Remember as well, all drops are affected by a 1D6" scatter.... nothing lands exactly on target....they were shot in from space! If a D-Player is able to target all his forces into a narrow front like you describe, good on him!....but he should be aware that flyers coming in from reserve, horrible AA-tanks with all Hard Target reduction removal, etc will mince him....so he had better achieve everything in the turn he shows up...or...its Nyx-pate for tea. d
  5. Steady on Chris. Lets not get mean about my beloved Huscarls. Name calling is unedifying. In response to the question regarding unit comparison.... Have you played with the Huscarls yet under the new system? They are NOT the backbone of the Terrans, but rather an intervention unit. The Terran Light Infantry is the backbone now. The Nyx ARE really good no doubt about it as on paper they seem to have more in every regard.... but tend to be less impressive when you move into a real space rather than theory crafting - Often their random deployment (especially in the new system forces them to deploy in a hurry or risk losing the ability to deploy at all (ie, the Dindrenzi lose their designator units), they are hampered by being a 4-base unit that reduces in effectiveness by 25% each casualty. As an alpha strike they MUST complete their objectives in a single swing, or a good layered deployment will wipe them put without too many problems. The Nyx are expensive with either their Alpha Strike Drop Pod or Recon Drop Pod increasing their TV as a result of such delivery mechanisms, highly susceptible to Orbital Strike once deployed (which doesn't care how elite you think you are) and get crippled by focused Fire Actions (CQB or Ranged)..... add to that the Terrans have more Infantry available and in larger units, field cheaper weapons, soak-casualties in their Light Units better (thus making their holding of vital objectives in the game more likely) .....and are just way better looking (....Terran bias....)... ....and the Huscarls return to doing their support role with Light Infantry leading the way in the new Terran Force Lists. Now, I DO take the Heavy infantry, mostly in reserve areas, to give me a punch unit when my Light Infantry get engaged. I don't use them in the same way as Dindrenzi Nyx - they aren't a patch to fix all ills. Instead I present the Huscarls as close assualters deployed once the enemy commits allowing them to they sweep in on their Transports, or if the player is more cagey I hold them back and make sure they are de-bussed in combat locations, at the time out of sight of the enemy, ready to move in and engage. I voluntarily give up a round of shooting to remain hidden, then engage when the enemy has committed themselves...or I put them on Overwatch, where their reasonable AD give a strong counter/defensive bubble for my other forces. Stats in Play Finally its also worth pointing out that the stats I put up ARE only design stats, with the beta testing not yet under way. As I mentioned when we started the process....YOU are all beta testers in as close a way as I can get the general-public to be. If you have an issue don't moan about it.... PLAY IT OUT and give me feedback! Your opinion is important, but must be cited with real world gameplay to be considered anything other than opinion. I cant act on opinion, but I can act on evidence. Present me your findings from the games you play and things WILL change in the Force Lists. I don't set things in stone - especially statistics! I am happy to roll and adapt with the games I work on - its the basis for good project control in my view.. Gimmie Games! And we can get this process moving. Cheers d
  6. Its something I am looking at. The Transports ARE both 'assault-y' in their appearance...so it fits thematically. but players should expect a solid +15/25 pts addition for Heavy Infantry to get an Assault Bath-tub!!! The Light Transporter on the other hand will probably only receive a +10/15pts push. We will see. I am getting thumped right now by our resident Sory-Player with his 8 Heavy Tanks sitting proud in the middle of the table after flatting out twice with all four squadrons in the first two turns...all of them have Heavy Infantry mounted on them..... shoulda taken that rule off them darn it....he just read your post and asked if they can have the Assault Vehicle too.... I growled at him in answer..... lol d
  7. Biggest Change comes in the Order System and Faction Orders. The Faction has a LOT of Kill Team, meaning that a Sorylian Force on the Charge is really scary. Also, they regenerate Command Points faster than most because of the increased number of Command Centres (Command Barge and Leviathan). The Medium/Light flexibility of the Sorylians is also very interesting, allowing for Medium Take and Hold units to dominate the middle table unless carefully removed by the enemy. .....and the Assault Robots are really, really good....probably too good If I'm honest. They work in the calculator as the points shown, but its one of those things that shines on the table (where the calc cant predict.... so I would expect them to get a slight points increase as we move forwards. So the combination of low Command Point requirement, regeneration of Command Points, flexible Medium and Light playstyles, tons of Kill Team MAR (...and the robots...did I mention them!?) means the Sorylians are developing into one of my favourite factions to play and test with. Cheers d
  8. Hi Paladin21! - To be clear NO TESTING IS WASTED. So running system abuses is fair, IF it leads to actionable data.....hence the need for Beta Testers in the first place. CP Hoarding The system we have in FSA3 will most likely solve the CP-spam issues however, and given my own experiences on the tabletop with Terran Infantry Spam recently [I ran 4xmini-core, 4xrecon, 4xcommand....running 16 Infantry+cqb support]....will certainly be subject to review. Here is a simple breakdown of the FSA3 system [cut+paste from the new system] amended to Planetfall: FORCE TACTICS AND COMMAND POINTS SUMMARY TABLE Dindrenzi Federation and Rense System navy Aquan Prime and Terquai Empire Relthoza and Ba’Kash Terran Alliance and Hawker Industries Sorylian Collective and Veydreth Tribes Directorate and Works Raptor Force Tactics 3 3 2 2 1 1 Command Point Cost 10 10 10 10 10 10 Free Command Points Skirmish 2 2 4 4 6 6 Battle 4 4 6 6 8 8 Warzone 6 6 8 8 10 10 All that would remain to set down is the levels of MFV that would frame the 3 battle states. [0-2500, 2501-5000, 5001+...for example.] and the CP Purchase Cost [10/15/20pts for example] FTB3 VS. FTB1 This means a FTB3 faction gains +2 on all opposed rolls in the game - table set up, board edge, initiative each turn...averaging out at 7-8 rolls [4-5 turns, recon phase, deployment, table edge] With the FTB1 faction getting 3x free CP at the start [except in Warzone Engagements]. The downside of this method of course derives from the FREE-CP bonus degrading rapidly given the alpha strike nature of the FTB3 Factions in PF, however this issue can be offset by the FTB order available to the FTB1 factions, as well as an extension to the Command Centre rules in the Force Lists. In your upcoming tests, give this system a try, but when you feedback make sure to cite the battle state, points level set->state, CP Cost paid! That way we can buld a picture of feedback to framework. Cheers, d
  9. Hi Meatshield - To be fair,.... In my professional work I am a project manager with over 20 years experience in bringing large multi-facet outcomes to fruition....I designed games 10+ wargames games before....and I'm not worried Movement is important, it true, but I know my scheduling, I know my design team, my alpha team, my beta team and [hopefully] my fellow gamers on the forum are strong enough to cope with a binary choice being put in front of them for Movement resolution. The placement of models on the tabletop is simple vectoring in a 2-d space, with the eventual method being chosen via a pre-design development path that can be set once consultation has occurred. It does not need to be set down 'before everything because everything stems from it' because everything would stem from it no matter what system you went for. I have the two systems I am looking to use already mapped, and will steer my teams [including the forum] towards them - see the binary choice I cited above. Neither changes the deliverable vectors on the tabletop, just the process of delivery. Hi Flamebeast - Its both dude. And yes you can! The Beta Team are testing two different movement systems and giving feedback.....its their job. Hi Commodore Jones - I would take that up with Spartan Linde, as he was in charge of building the Beta Team. Hi CoreHunter - I'm not sure what you are talking about? Placed shots are in FSA3 through the weapons system. And the Command Points system functions the same way in both games [for the most part]. I will respond to your comment regarding Planetfall Command Points purchase in the relevant thread however. Cheers, d
  10. We test at 5-6k, so at those levels I will invariably take 10-12. Less cautious players might go lower...but in doing so they are assuming the game will go well all the time.....I'm a Terran player however... I KNOW my shield dice will jinx themselves eventually! d
  11. Hello all! Here is an update of where we are with the v3 Testing. I was wildly optimistic to say I would be able to drop into this thread once a day!....sorry about that...but she-who-must-be-obeyed puts a moratorium on mt Spartan Time in the evenings!....so I will pop on every day to look, then will collate and comment every week instead! So far the rules are firmly in the Beta Test Stage, with all bar Movement being locked down. The new Fleet Building percentages have led to some interesting build styles especially with the 40% Allies addition [....my Noble Terrans have had more than half my 60%-Core side-lined in favour of new Hawker Industries ships ...with Sorylians being used as my 40%-Allies in a few testing games!], Command Point purchasing levels are working well, although we are still tracking the proportion of Command Points<->MFV that we would recommend to starting players. The new Critical Hit table, is nice and stable [...try saying stable-table-stable-table-stable-table 3x real fast!...] with all results more relevant to their point on the distribution. The new SRS Rules flow into being a tactical part of the game without them dominating. With the testers moving at pace I am know turning my attention to the statists for repair ships+repair craft, medical ships/med-shuttles and assault ships+assault boats - the original intent was to leave these vessels and SRS out of the core rules and bring them in out in the first supplement scheduled for early next year...but with the testers moving forwards at pace, I am inclined to add them in anyway! The new Boarding rules are testing well, and despite there being no more capturing/prizing in the game, the pace of boarding hasn't slowed down. Strike Teams can potentially attack any location on a ship now, allowing them to cripple targets ready for the kill shot later...which is much more thematic I feel. A few notes on tests: Power Rating - Under further testing and feedback we are side-lining the Power Rating system for the moment. Its a very thematic idea, with lots of potential going forwards, however I feel that the binary-outcome from weapons being online-then-offline, along with the obvious issues surrounding ship balance and future proofing, that the system will ultimately lead to a rule that the community would be unhappy with....besides...it plays havoc with my maths...and I got stats these things! Movement - As mentioned previously, I left the proposed changes to the Movement System out of the FSA synopsis. I wanted to stimulate ideas, and would like to thank those who submitted their thought on the forum or directly to me. Movement is a hot topic amongst the beta team, but all are in agreement that the present system is a barrier to new-players and faster gameplay. We are looking at a few alternatives, some drawing from the Halo: Fleet Battles game, others looking at the ergonomic aspect of movement, etc. However I will be putting the short list of Movement Options up on this thread for the entire community to comment on. I want everyone's gaming feedback on this vital part of the rules. More to follow....possibly with a small stat release...depending on the beta testers... I will of course be collating questions to answer them directly in my data-spurt next week. Cheers + chat soon! d
  12. It seems like CoreHunter will be unhappy no matter what I do...lol ...10+ posts/all negative/zero gameplay? ....give it a try first...then feel free to tell us all how wrong we are....! ...but for the rest of you, try to play some games..... hybridise rules....test multiple patterns of rules in play....make some educated guesses with the information you have available...problem-solve the gaps.... In other words...be part of the design process! If you want to test...play some games and join the test. I mentioned in the posts I don't expect the ORBATS to be perfect, nor do I expect the Rules Synopsis doc to provide a complete picture....but I KNOW that Firestorm Planetfall players are smart enough to take the presentation as seen and run with it - I need gamers to play games [...supposition: that's what we do right?..]...and through your gaming feedback we can develop the ORBATS and rules. Under current testing: Placed Shots under Orders, don't have to be stationary...you just cant hit and run. Primary Weapons can place at Short/Medium, Secondary Weapons can place at Point Blank and Tertiary Weapons can place at Long Range. Orbital Strikes DO scatter 1D6 once zero-ed, but the player can re-roll the direction. Hard Target does stack intentionally.....once folks get to testing, their gaming-feedback will determine AD levels/DR tracks/etc on these models. Independent Targeting isn't mentioned because it is out the game...as is Lumbering. ORBAT errors - well.... I expected those [...Sorylian Light Skiff is a howler however...my bad] cheers, d
  13. As promised, I've uploaded the design stat docs for all Core 6 Factions, including the Core Helixes for the Alliance Nations. These can be found on the first post of this thread for ease of reference. Bear in mind these are still under test, so don't get your gaming-knickers in a twist if you think something isn't fair/balanced/is invalidating your existence, etc These have been posted to give everyone an idea of where we are going with the game in the future. I also don't expect them to stand up to too much proof-scruitinty....as we aren't at that stage in development yet. However I am of course open to comments regarding inconsistencies etc, as the more eyes we have on documents the better for the game in general IMO. If you do have any GAMING FEEDBACK (...and I hope you do, otherwise whats the point of giving you the information........), please put it in the Battle Reports section of the Planetfall Forum, where I will respond! Remember your gaming feedback WILL make a difference to our process as we develop the game further. ...So get rollin' and killin' stuff!!! Cheers Derek ps...now perhaps chrisburn can get some work done this afternoon....
  14. lol West Australian... Where you see a Skull I see a British Bull Dog.... But either way, its pretty amazing! d
  15. Here is something I have for our early stage concepts on the Hawker. There have been quite a few revisions since then....the weapon systems have changed on the Large....we aren't using the APC just now..... the Mobile Gun Platform is testing as being a bit bigger.....but the Small Tank and the Medium Tank are finished!....you get the idea though. My noble Terrans are going to love these guys! d
×
×
  • 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.