Jump to content

S.Derek

Member
  • Posts

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Everything posted by S.Derek

  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
  16. Ready to go with the statistics release. Just have to read them over one more time...... lol.... Luckily I have you lot to be my proof readers! I don't expect them to be perfect, as I have been frantically drawing together all the feedback data from my design team. I'm looking forwards to getting them out there, but one more check over cant hurt. Chat Soon! d
  17. Hi All! I'm going to post the Firestorm Planetfall Force Lists for the Core-6 a little earlier than intended. The Firestorm Armada Beta Group has just had their rules/starting stats issued, which gives me time to redirect to FSPF Force Lists. I am aiming to get the other 5 Factions to you all by Monday the 8th (11 days ahead of schedule!) so that everyone can give the new system a try and hopefully provide some feedback in Battle Reports. Cheers, Derek
  18. Hi Kurgan I have been active on other parts of the forum and of course busy doing rules writing! Never fear I am looking in on the discussions being had on this thread. I wish to give the forum members a chance to debate the things I have put forwards without me souring their conclusions with comment based upon a fuller picture of the rules in development. I will be adding updates when I have more, or wish to clarify questions being posted. At present we are finishing off a very large test in the design space regarding the Power Rating, and Command Point applicative uses, so if I were to come in with any definitive points here, they might be erroneous if the test goes in a different direction. I will be taking a few days to redirect onto Armada to look over the Design Team's feedback and then will be able to pitch into this thread with more information. Cheers d
  19. Hi chrisburn! I noticed my error as soon as I had posted it..... thanks for the spot though! I have amended both to have the Hover Flyer MAR d
  20. I would encourage players to play the rules as written before running off to write new ones!... lol Has anyone had a chance to do a Directorate/WR mirror match yet? d
  21. Hello all! Spartan Derek here! As promised I have uploaded to the forum the Playtest Documents currently under review from our design team for the Directorate and Works Raptor. As you might expect, the statistics located within are malleable! ...so don't expect them to stay that way, but they should give you a good idea of where we are going with the new look Force Lists and the game itself. In addition, please have a look at the brie synopsis document that highlights some (but not all) of the rules changes that players might expect. As time passes I will add the other Factions to this thread, giving all players a chance to try out their models in the new format. Obviously with only one Force List out there I don't expect too much gaming feedback, but this should give folks a chance ot digest and think about the why's and the where's of the current test. I will of course be available to answer any questions that folks might have on this thread! Cheers Derek FSPF v2 Rules Synopsis for Forum Feedback 25.04.2017.pdf ZZc 2.0 AQUAN PRIME + TERQUAI EMPIRE 08.05.2017.pdf ZZc 2.0 DINDRENZI+RSN 08.05.2017.pdf ZZc 2.0 DIRECTORATE+WORKS RAPTOR 08.05.2017.pdf ZZc 2.0 RELTHOZA + BA'KASH 08.05.2017.pdf ZZc 2.0 SORYLIAN + VEYDRETH 08.05.2017.pdf ZZc 2.0 TERRAN + HAWKER 08.05.2017.pdf
  22. With Spartan all a tizzy getting their vans loaded for Salute, I thought I'd once again pop on this thread to point everyone to the new Planetfall 2.0 designer Feedback Thread I have set up. In that thread I will put up the promised Force List for the Directorate/Works Raptor and the synopsis of rules changes documents....just in case during the mad rush to get all those models and games tables packed, the folks at Spartan don't have time to launch the Blogs. Look for it in the General Discussion Section, pinned at the top. (...also, have a go at the new App Spartan Gibson and I have made for Halo: Ground Command.... cos Planetfall will be getting the same treatment! Look for that in the Halo: Ground Command General Discussion Threads, pinned as usual. ) Cheers d
  23. That would be the case if the rules weren't finished, Vedar. Actually, we are considerably ahead of schedule. Now all that remains is to generate our rulebook (done by Neil and his team at Spartan HQ) while continuing to test the stats of new and existing models. Once the rules are transposed, the design team looks them over and final changes/tweaks are done. This level of preparedness is one of the reasons I am able to post a rules synopsis and trial Force Lists so far ahead of scheduled release of a virtual rules-set.. We started our innovation cycle for the PF-game in January 2016, tested those ideas off and on for 6 months (in between other Spartan projects) and then I started the rules-pour (which took about 3 months). Then we allowed ourselves breathing space, and tested the Force Lists, made minor tweaks to the engine and readied ourselves. Neil finally agreed in January 2017 that the new structure was needed, and we began again in earnest - testing, reading and critiquing our work once more. My sole goal with setting such an apparent 'hard deadline' is to ensure that the entire FSA Galaxy of games received the same new-rules treatment at the same time. Both FSA and FSPF should deliver on time from my end, with Neil happy he and his team can bring the two projects together at his end. All in all, its looking very favourable, deadline-wise, so if I'm not worried, you shouldn't be either Cheers, Derek
  24. Hi All! Thanks to everyone who has commented here so far At present, most commenters are open to the ideas I proposed but it doesn't hurt to provide more information to stimulate the debate further... Apologies for the length of this post. I know its a lot of information to process for everyone, but I think its important to show people where the development path for the new game is going at as early a stage as possible. Command and Control – Command Points (CP) and their purchase within Fleets allow commanders to improve their firing depending on their range to the target and the core weapon types. The CP rules also allow vessels to perform unusual movement action such as fold-space escapes, belly up moves, etc, they can be used to alter the result of an Opposed Tactics Test (using a secret bidding process), They also permit the repair of vessels (removing Critical Effect Markers). And most importantly, execute Command Orders at the start of each Game Turn. Replacement of TACs for Command Orders - This leads nicely to another change in 3.0. TACs are very much a 'marmite' mechanic at present...you either love 'em or you hate 'em...From a design point of view I must confess I am not a fan - game balance is problematic, putting new cards into player's hands is very difficult, and from a living-game perspective, TACs are immutable rather than the flexible mechanic it needs to be in the modern gaming-environment. I am looking to put 8 Factional Orders into each Force List that are bespoke to each Faction in FSA to give us the mobility to change This also make the FSA games' transition into making it app-capable much easier. ------------ Range Band Notation – This is a light change, and cosmetic for the most part, allowing us to cite a Range Band by a proper name rather than a prosaic number. Remember, no range band ranges have changed....just the 1/2/3/4. ------------- Creation of Core Weapon Types – To give more information to you all on the Primary/Secondary/Tertiary Weapons mechanics - this naming policy allows for commanders to use coherency effects in conjunction with Command Points expenditure to gain a +1 to hit effect when firing provided the coherency attack fulfils the range stipulations. So... 3x Dindrenzi Cruisers firing their Primary Rail Gun Weapons would get +1 to hit, provided the Attack had 1xCP spent on it and all Cruisers were within either Short or Medium Range (RB2/3 in 'old money'). Or... 4x Directorate Frigates firing its Secondary Beam Weapons would get +1 to hit, provided the Attack had 1xCP spent on it and the firers were at Point Blank Range (RB1 in 'old money'). Or... A Terran Battleship firing its Tertiary Torpedo Weapons would get +1 to hit, provided the Attack had 1xCP spent on it and the Terran Battleship was at Long Range (RB4 in 'old money'). ------------- New Ship Classifications and Sizes – This essential if we are to grow the game beyond its present state. I don't agree with some posters suggesting we should be simply releasing more mediums and call them all cruisers or destroyers or gunships. We need to differentiate these ships to allow them to hold a different functions within the game - otherwise players will rile against the fact that older models are wall-flowers and ultimately Spartan are perceived to be invalidating previous purchases through a process of replacement. So creating a framework of consistencies that build the reasoning for Heavy, Standard and Light Cruisers/Gunships/Destroyers (along with Armoured, Support, Repair, Logistics/, R+D, Assault Cruisers, etc) to exist and feel different is vital in my view. If players look at the Force Lists as they stand it isn't difficult to see where certain models could live...but at the same time, look at the gaps in each list were the framework permits innovation.... this is the structured design space I seek to develop to allow faction to grow under an aegis of balance and control. As reddwarf noted, certain vessels with a larger squadron size should expect a notation shift - So, Aquan Isonade Cruisers are indeed moving into the Light Cruiser bracket. ------------- New Crit Table(s) – The table allows for Targeted Strikes, Cyber Attacks and Boarding Assaults to use the Focused D6 roll (Green Column), with all other Critical Hits using the Standard 2D6 (Yellow Column) To give folks more information on the new Crit Table, here is a sample graphic*: FIRESTORM ARMADA CRITICAL DAMAGE TABLE Standard 2D6 Focused D6 Damage Effect Effect Rules Repair? 4 1 2 xxx xxx xxx 5 2 2 xxx xxx xxx 6 3 2 xxx xxx xxx 7 - 3 xxx xxx xxx 8 4 2 xxx xxx xxx 9 5 2 xxx xxx xxx 10 6 2 xxx xxx xxx *forgive the crudity of this image, but the forum has its limits* This permits a 2D6 and 1D6 distribution to exist within the same framework, meaning that a single graphic reduces referral (as we have currently in Targeted Strikes). Players will notice the 7 result (6/36 distribution) allocates 3 Damage to the target! ...this is intentional. ------------- Removal of the AD-Degradation System – I appreciate this change might have folks gasping! The AD-reduction system has been integral to the previous Firestorm Armada rules sets, but its clear given our feedback from new starts and those tasked with teaching the game to prospective new players and the status quo is confusing and time consuming - especially when dealing with multiple ships firing multiple weapons in multiple arcs. The Power Rating system as proposed is one of many that we have identified. Theses include: No change Success-Removal AFTER dice rolls Power System Full-AD Reduction Removal Fortunately we have ample time to explore all design paths. At present I favour version 2 or 3, but am holding off until my test teams have a chance to throw dice at them all. ------------- Short Range Spacecraft (SRS) – Your replies we not as contentious as I was expecting (I was half expecting the meta-munchers to throw a fit citing I was targeting one of their 'auto-win/I'm the greatest wargamer mechanics'....which gives me confidence that we are on the right track). Nevertheless I'm going to put a bit more meat on the bones here. Carriers (and any other vessel that gains Wings via a Hard Point) will now have the types of SRS they have available as a MAR named SRS Contingent (Types) - in the case of Hard Point-only Wings this default to just Interceptors. This allows us to tailor the SRS deployed by each vessel to ensure that the default of Interceptor, Interceptor, Interceptor OR Bomber, Bomber, Bomber doesn't persist across the game. Under the current test, certain Escort Carriers or Battle Stations simply wont have access to Bombers at all, and will instead perhaps find themselves with a SRS Contingent (Interceptors) MAR. Likewise Assault Carriers will have only Bombers allocated as their contingents, meaning its a good idea to buy them escorts or attachments such as Escort Carriers! We also have certain larger vessels with access to Heavy Interceptors and Heavy Bombers.....these will be allocated to Fleet Carriers and alike who might have the SRS Contingent (Heavy Bomber, Heavy Intercpetor) MAR. Heavy Bombers/Interceptors are more resilient than Standard SRS, and are also more likely to pack a punch....they DO cost more however! A Note on Assault Craft, Medical Shuttles and Repair Craft - Most vessels in the Firestorm Galaxy will no longer have access to these elements, and their use will be reallocated to larger carrier models that have an expressed function - such as a Medium Repair Cruiser for example. This model might have the SRS Contingent (Repair Craft) MAR to represent its focused activity within the game. --------- Boarding – These changes are the most pronounced from the previous game. We have removed the possibility of capturing ships as the rules as written were very wordy, essentially a vestigial layover from the original 1.0 rules. Instead we have focused the Boarding Action to be a Special Forces (Spec Ops) Raid rather than a Massed Boarding Assault, using the Focused Crit-Table as a launch point for the damage mechanics. This is intended to give players the feeling that they are launching their forces at a specific part of a ship (the weapons arrays, the shield generators, etc.). Boarding will also no longer be a one-stop-shop, and so can be launched numerous times (assuming a ship has enough Crew Points of course!) – This will allow boarding to be a tactical choice for some fleets without feeling overpowered or underpowered… it should simply facilitate the engagement of the Fleet in general Of course I mentioned in the Blog that I thought folks would be upset at the removal of Capturing Battleships, Dreadnoughts and Leviathans. The thing is that in game, these effects are notional for the most part, rather than frequently realised, and so I have to look at the game in general when making design changes. Ship Prizing takes up a large part of the rules, requires additional tokens to realise, and in truth isn't really very thematic as we move away from the massed boarding idea towards targeted boarding mechanics. Having special forces target a dreadnought's weapon targeting arrays in a lightning strike seems more reasonable than saying that they can somehow subdue 2000+ crew.... Infiltrate->Execute->Extract principles are more in-keeping with the grand fleet battles that Firestorm Armada's imagery throws up into my mind. Those Spec-Ops assaulters that roll more hits (or the same number of hits) than the defenders may then roll on the focused Table (see above) applying the Damage and the Effect allowing them to be effective against the core systems on a ship...and if they roll twice as many hits (or the enemy roll none!) they don't roll at all and instead CHOOSE their preferred crit....think of this as being a perfect execution of the mission. Of course the defenders aren't passive and if they roll twice as many hits as the assaulters (or the assaulters fluff it and roll no hits) the surviving assaulters must immediately extract without rolling on the table, suffering another round of defensive PD fire as their transports are gunned down by the dogged defenders! As many of you have mentioned, boarding is a bit of a tightrope in the design of Firestorm Armada...too many rules and it becomes clunky and (often through that clunkyness) underused. However too simple a system and the rules become 'gamey' and open to abuse. We will be paying very carful attention to the Boarding parts of the rules over the months ahead and I will keep you all posted as we nail down the core rules. ---------- Finally, a note on Movement - I am not surprised that folks are still looking for a faster Movement system. At present I have held back on commenting to gauge where the community sits on the issue. I obviously have my own point of view and a number of rules in the background to smooth things out, but none of this should be cited until you have had your say IMO. Firestorm Armada is at its core a Movement->Firepower game....that is to say that good tactical Movement generates situations whereby strong Firepower can be applied... of course after that we are all in the laps of the Dice-Gods... but for the most part it is true that movement forms a cornerstone of the game's tactics. One method I have pitched to our teams is to change the 45-degree template to being a straight line one with 3x1" integers on it (possibly with a 45-degree cut-out edge to assist LoS questions)...this allows us to keep the tactical movement without having to find space for a pesky 45-degree template between our models. All turning is done on the spot, with the Movement Template being used to determine how many inches you have to move directly ahead before you can perform your next turn. Turn Limit 0" Models might change their statistics to highlight the use of the 1" integer...meaning they must move 1" forwards before they make each turn Turn Limit 1" Models change their statistics to highlight the use of the 2" integer....meaning they must travel 2" forwards before they make each turn Turn Limit 2" Models change their statistics to highlight the use of the 3" integer....meaning they must travel 3" forwards before they make each turn....etc But this is only one of the ideas being swirled about in the design team. There are ideas ranging from using the DW Template system, Curved Templates, Halo: Fleet Battles Turning Mechanics (although I will accept that my method is quite similar to that, but with more of an old Firestorm Focus) and of course keeping the status quo! I guess my question to you all is....if you don't like the current Movement system, how would you like to see it change? OK. I think I'll leave it there as I have clearly talked enough for today! .....I have a test with 3000pts of Relthozans vs Aquans to get started! Feel free to comment and continue to ask questions. I will revisit the thread again tomorrow. Cheers, Derek
  25. Hi everyone! Spartan Derek here. This Thread is intended to allow Firestorm Armada Gamers to give me their feedback and thoughts on the new 3.0 ruleset. Please remember as we all move forwards in the Firestorm Galaxy everyone has a duty to be clear and constructive both in their feedback and in their interactions with other forum members. I will come back to the Thread each day and try to answer any questions folks may have to ensure that the flow of information remains constant. To save time I may have to lump lots of folk's questions into a single answer, so please don't be offended if I don't answer you directly. But where questions require it I will try to make my answers pertinent to individual posters. Cheers, and I look forwards to chatting to you all! Derek
×
×
  • 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.