Jump to content

Dataphract

Member
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dataphract

  1. On 8/13/2017 at 6:57 PM, CoreHunter said:

    we have nearly 60- 80% of the rules minus ship stats. Movement, most WARs,most MARs, SRS rules, weapon attack changes, terrain changes, what is left out? a few mars.

    What's left out is that they've played the game with the new rules and ship stats and we haven't. We're reading a script and calling the movie ****.

  2. On 8/9/2017 at 9:57 AM, Xerkics said:

    I'm really curious now what the beta test looked like I can't possibly believe testers didn't instantly say that a lot of the changes are simply terrible ideas that shouldn't be implemented like new dice command orders new force creation rules to name a few. Is what we seeing a product of the beta test feedback in multiple iterations or the undiluted vision of whoever is in charge of designing new rules? It's just hard to believe that things like new abusable force creation or nerfs to cloaking would go past the testers in the form we are seeing.

    My guess is that the game works better than we think with the info we have. If it were as awful as people here are claiming it will be, the testers would've thought so too, right? There are a couple conclusions we can draw from that: The beta testers were completely ignored and it's all garbage, or it actually works well in play. Maybe the things we dislike from the bits we've been given to read are actually fun on the table?

  3. If you replace fore fixed with just fore in a race like Dindrenzi, you have to drop the AD significantly to keep them from becoming OP, as well as increase side arc AD to prevent them from being helpless. At that point you've taken away everything that made them unique.

    Removing fore fixed is a step towards a homogeneity that I think we should strive to avoid.

  4. 1 hour ago, Presidente said:

    I'm with Pok on the fore fixed, it just slows the game down and is a nightmare most of the time, halo is a great example of how it should be in 3.o as in it gets the axe:)

    I respectfully disagree. :) I agree that in it's current state it can slow play, but I think having a limited front arc adds a lot of flavor to the weapons and factions that use it. I don't think it should be removed, just revamped a little. Plus, if 3.0 brings decent changes to movement, there's not too much reason to get rid of it.

  5. 28 minutes ago, Hive said:

    Does that angle change for larger or smaller bases? My intuition says it does, but I feel pretty confident that the math would show otherwise.

    Nope =] For any square base the angle is the same. The ratio between the long side and half of the bottom is always 2:1, so the angle of the arc will always be 2(tan^-1)(1/2) ≈ 56º

    The only time it fails is with non-square bases, and I think there's only one in Firestorm.

  6. 19 hours ago, Ryjak said:

    You're assuming there is no way to create a base with different firing arcs from the current 4x90 degree model, and this is definately not the case.

    My thought was making a new arc from the middle of the back edge through the top corners. Comes out to about 56 degrees, and it's really not any worse to check than the normal arc if you just mark your bases. 

    It's better than the current fixed fore (especially at long range) but it's still pretty limited. It would keep the effect that FF has of making it difficult to line up shots at close range, while speeding up play by removing the need to get super (and imho unnecessarily) finnicky about movement with FF ships.

    This might also make a pure template movement system more feasible as well.

    Arc.jpg

  7. On 10/9/2016 at 9:21 PM, Ryjak said:

    That's why I think the X-Wing Solution is generally a good way to go.  Multiple simple movement templates are easy to make, and while this limits your movement options, this isn't necessarily a bad thing... just avoid too much movement limitation.

    For example, a ship with a 6" and a 2" TL has about 30 movement options, which is way more than the most maneuverable X-Wing ship.  At the same time, it's a very limited movement, with only 2 ways to make a 90 degree turn.

    Something in between would be ideal.

    My only issue with a pure template movement system is that it would make it almost impossible to line up fixed fore. You'd have to allow for some kind of pivot at the end or something

  8. 47 minutes ago, alextroy said:

    Another thing that could be done with Option 2 to make it a bit more "damaging" would be to round up instead of down.  That way 1 Damage would cause you to lose an AD and 3 Would cause you to lose 2 AD.

    Wouldn't option two already be more damaging? If anything, I'd like to see ships a bit MORE survivable.

  9. On 10/10/2016 at 8:26 PM, alextroy said:

     

    • Option 2:  Remove HALF (Total Damage on all Ships)

     

    I like this. It's the simplest in terms of algebra, though it does seem to make picking your focus less important. For me though, that loss is acceptable. It still keeps the spirit and feel of linking and firing,

  10. I'm just curious what kinds of techniques you use, or house rules you implement, to speed up the game. My group is still new, and I know speed will come with experience, but Firestorm seems like a slower game to begin with.

    What kinds of shortcuts or rules could speed up gameplay without taking away from the complexity?

  11. Why not just make it so you defend against mines like they're torpedoes? Bam. Everyone gets defensive dice, drive-bys (which are rarely in the range of AD where they'd reliably crit the average shielded medium anyways) are still a thing, still dangerous, but not as overtly so, SRS can help with PD... Sounds like I just hit most marks on peoples checklists.

    I think if we went that route we should give each ship a PD roll, but no linking.

    I do like the idea of letting SRS try to deal with mines, too. I think if fighters could make an attack run against a mine token, maybe with each hit reducing the AD of the mine by 1 it might incentivize fighters a bit more.

×
×
  • 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.