Jump to content

Captain Frederic

Member
  • Content Count

    1,494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Captain Frederic

  1. I don't disagree with your assessment. The Sorylians would be better described as resilient than tough but not everyone can easily parse that difference. Sorylians take hits but can keep dishing out damage which is not the same as being "unbreakable".
  2. The definition of Battlestation in FSA seems to be a large weapon platform with relatively limited mobility and 360 degree firing arcs equipped with systems to sustain an orbit if necessary.
  3. Stationary is a relative term especially in space. Compared to other models battlestations as they exist now are already practically stationary compared to the ships with FSD. Especially in the vastness of space something can be considered both in a set location and mobile.
  4. Even easier fix. Change the designation to "Mobile Battle Stations"
  5. I still think this is simply a matter of trying to ascribe our sense of what a Battlestation is when it's representing more than that. If these vessels had been called "Space Barges" but worked the exact same way would this be an issue for anyone? I doubt it, instead I think people would be saying "Space Barges are a dumb name they should have just called them Battle Stations people would be able to accept the fact they move around." To me Battle Stations describe a class of slow moving massive space vessel that are "Effectively" stationary compared to the rest of the fleet unless they execute extreme measures (ie" Drives to the max" and/or gravity slingshots.
  6. Just because a Battle Station is part of a patrol fleet doesn't mean it's on Patrol. More likely the scenario is occurring in proximity to the Station and the station is in that proximity because there is something worth fighting over. But if you have an area fraught with conflict why not have a Battlestation travel a circuit through the area we have a mindset of stations needing to be in orbit but they are just as easy to imagine in a role more like massive battle barges.
  7. I think this debate hinges on how exactly Battlestations get into position. it isn't really clear. Perhaps they are commonly built in shipyards and then shunted into near position (by some external system or maybe even an internal system with limited capability compared to a traditional FSD). After that initial jump they then need to manuever into position very slowly. if 2 Stations show up the battle probably reflects the culmination of tensions building as both sides have slowly been manuevering their stations into position the battle occurs when 1 side finally decides to strike.
  8. Steve I just want to once again thank you for all your work on maintaining the Battlescribe files. You are a true asset to this community.
  9. Comparing individual ships isn't as effective as comparing overall fleets. yes the Veydreth battleship is probably better but the Sorylian frigates are definitely superior in their class. Meanwhile in the mid range things are a lot more competitive. you don't play battleship versus battleship you play fleet versus fleet.
  10. I shunt my admiral in often.
  11. You seem to be moving the goal post here. You were talking about AD now your talking about defenses. I think we can agree Sorylians could be adjusted closer to the middle but those changes should also preserve their uniqueness. Sorylians are about optimal positioning (even more so than Dindrenzi arguably since I believe the Din niche is "powerful attacks"). Improvements would ideally help them move into position by either getting there faster; being in better shape when they get there, or some combination of the two.
  12. This is a common misunderstanding about Retractable plating, It actually helps every arc while in effect. Arguably it would be perfect for Sorylians because it wouldn't change their close game it would only help them during those turns they have to spend moving into position.
  13. I think if Sorylians had more kinetics standard Dindrenzi players would start to be bothered. while it may not be actualized fully I think while Dindrenzi and Sorylians share an emphasis on positioning there is a perception Dindrenzi sacrifice manueverability and some resilience for big AD at long ranges. If Sorylians get too many range options while still being perceived as resilient then Dindrenzi may seem diminished by comparison. i'm not saying Sorylians wouldn't benefit from more range just when adding those options they need to be looked at in terms of how they relate to other fleets outside of combat as well (i.e.: during fleet selection).
  14. I think the general concensus on the forums is Sorylians would benefit from an increase in defenses (shields or retractable broadsides) and a bump in speed. giving more fixed kinetic options would be popular but I think that could stomp on Dindrenzi strength.
  15. If Sorylians have an advantage it's in Battle Log Manipulation. Large squads plus a general resilience (from multiple factors like experienced engineers, some shields, etc.) allows effective use of FSE to avoid BL loss from destruction but the hard part is getting the timing right on this tactic.
  16. I'd suggest getting more cruisers (ideally magnetize them to double as heavy cruisers). And then rely on shunt deployment to deal with the distance issue. getting the carrier box will get you escorts to use with your battleship and give you a little bit more ranged firepower. Use interceptor SRS to provide PD for the SHIPS DON't shunt deploy. shunt deploying the full 50% of your force can seem risky until you've played enough to realize that it's often better to have healthy ships slow up late than always suffer the hits of the slow trudge up a field.
  17. I'm guessing 3.0 wil be ready shortly after 2.0 books are no longer available in the web store.
  18. There are still 2 fleets with existing ships and no models (3 if you include pathogen). It might be awhile. Then again Syndicate and Omnidyne both expanded unexpectedly so who knows.
  19. I've never played Infinity. I think maybe I saw a demo at GenCon in 2013. But that might have been a different game with a similar name. i was referring to several Savage showdown adaptations including "bug hunt" and a set of cyber-punk rules. most could be targeted with a called shot with the same equivalent difficulty of a precision shot on a normal sized character. They did any number of things from increase accuracy allow you to shoot around corners perform additional attacks. How often they transferred between characters depended on the scenario and the objective. Sometimes they were used to push an advantage other times to bolster a weakness. Late game they'd tend to collect on the few survivors but they were usually spread throughout the squad during early turns. i don't think SRS should work exactly like that the scale would be off but it's just an example of a different way to abstract an element operating at effectively a different level of interaction from the rest of the game pieces.
  20. Sci fi skirmish games where they represent things like personal drones augmenting the model they are attached to. They effect the single model, are too discrete to target with the granularity of the attack mechanics and can be reassigned to different units as an action.
  21. My comment is more general not specifically about your suggestion. I'd rather SRS be treated more like tokens (giving special abilities and attacks to attached squads) and less like a special kind of model.
  22. I'm hoping 3.0 simplifies SRS rather than introduces even more SRS mechanical fiddly bits.
  23. This isn't Spartan making a unilateral decision. Stores hate blister packs. They are hard to display and even keep in storage. I do know for a fact that stores who buy directly from Spartan can usually get price quotes and order individual models not in the online store.
  24. I think all the Sorylian Task Force ships are geared towards economy lists where you're either tight on MFV or where you're trying to build an activation list. They generate less AD because they are cheaper.
×
×
  • 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.