Jump to content

avien

Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About avien

  • Rank
    Spica

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

595 profile views
  1. That just refers to the actual ship models. They aren't representative of the ship in game
  2. I don't think it's strictly necessary to print pictures of the ships with stats for OOP models. I think what might be cool is in the background section if they had sketches of each class of ship and the progression, but it's entirely for flavour of the evolution of the fleets. But you could use this section to tie the classes together for players.
  3. I'm inclined to agree. I also think that applying 21st century knowledge to a game based hundreds of years into our future is not necessarily a good idea. I could probably come up with half a dozen sci fi explanations for a brute force impact not killing the occupants of a specialised boarding vehicle if I put my mind to it. Some sort of gravity altering harness, inertial dampeners or some other mcguffin technology. Simply put humanity is in its infancy when it comes to scientific knowledge. Ultimately I imagine small craft which decelerate prior to impact, "land" on the hull and start cutting. At the same time I don't necessarily see it as a practical form of offensive attack (unless it's a stealth mission of some kind) high likelihood of casualties for minimal gain and realistically its more likely to happen in the aftermath of a battle.
  4. Given the immense distances involved in space combat accidental collision is unlikely. Keep in mind your ships really only occupy the space of their stem, the models are just there to look good. I hope that 3.0 refines this concept and removes all mentions of models touching etc since it really shouldn't matter
  5. Absolutely true! It's simply a question of how much has been sacrificed! That's what has to be seen. Although I'd rather have a somewhat tactical game that people are looking to play than a superbly tactical game that struggles to find players! Hopefully it's not just a total beer and pretzels dice rolling exercise!!
  6. It's a legitimate concern about the split and potential downsizing in FSA player base. For my part I don't get to play at all. I might play a game twice in six months but taskforce could change all that. A nice fast ruleset could appeal to my gaming group so it's all positive for me as long as the tactical depth is still there - fingers crossed. But I can see why FSA players are concerned
  7. I agree with you here, a plug and play sort of modularity might have been a wiser choice. I think splitting the player base is a valid concern. Just because I have models that work in two games doesn't mean I'm locked in to play bothWhen I played 40k, those models worked for kill team and 40k in 40 minutes and I played neither My deadzone models are compatible with warpath and I don't play that either...
  8. Potentially (and hopefully) yes... But also potentially over correcting and it has me concerned about too much loss of tactical depth. Different ship profiles and drastically different rules could make it hard to graduate from one system to the other, though perhaps that isn't the intent. Hopefully the rules are broadly similar so that this is avoided. I'm eagerly awaiting sight of taskforce rules!
  9. I'm looking forward to seeing these taskforce rules. I'm slightly concerned that it's over correcting and dumbing the rules down too much. The only element I really have a problem with is movement. And while I think the game needs a bit of speeding up, just to the point that large games don't take all day, I think 30 minutes is too short to have real tactical depth.
  10. God talk about off topic! I came here to escape that horrible game
  11. Hey guys, looking for a little help here I'm getting some decals done up for naming my ships. I'm getting a lot done as future proofing but I'm not really clear on the naming conventions of the Dindrenzi and Terrans. Both being human factions pretty much anything will go I suppose, but I'm just just wondering if there are established naming conventions already. From what I can work out Terrans use Mythological and astronomical bodies and Dindrenzi use war related names??? Cheers
  12. If 30 is all it takes to be a luddite theres no hope for humanity !! I'm also 30 and I am all for a good app for stat references. PDF stat cards would be a second, but I wouldn't want physical cards. Too much production costs and it would put off tweaking of ship rules. I'd rather they tweak units as necessary and the pdf/digital stats allows for this
  13. How does the template assist in differentiating the factions? I understand your other points, just not clear how it differentiates factions since they all use the same template.
  14. I agree on the PR front. I find BoW seem to really push their buddies. I don't find them to be the impartial journalists they try to claim to be. With the amount of coverage they give prodos, its criminal they haven't covered the Kickstarter mess for AvP. They don't want to ruffle feathers, which I suppose is fair, but it goes against the whole idea of them being unbiased in my opinion.. But that's way off topic.... That said I am a backstager and enjoy their content. I do think Spartan would benefit from getting their foot in the BoW door for a FSA academy style series to up the profile
  15. I agree completely with all points. On the experience front, I like the idea for a campaign system. Realistically it's just a case of a list of refits and MARs that the ship gains. I think each should come with a points cost so the ships get more expensive as their experience grows as the danger is that one guy gets a lucky streak then he's running a fleet with hundreds of points of free upgrades that nobody can touch.
×
×
  • 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.