Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dr_Vector

  1. While it wasn't specifically stated, If you pay attention to the sample given then a noticeable change has occurred. 13 successes off of a red 11 PD pool would presumably not be meant as an extreme example of hot rolling for only 6s to-hit. If this hasn't changed, then that is one hell of a misleading example. Thus, I'm guessing PD against SRS is on a 4+ to-hit now, with successes basically driving off wings on a 2 for 1 exchange. Even a meager 5 PD should reasonably kick two wings off a standard full wing bomber token for a modest 8 AD attack against the target. It feels like interceptors are going to be strangely important as ablative meat shields against PD fire, which really feels odd as a mechanic to me. Regardless, since carriers lose WC to HP loss, it's hard to say if interceptors will eventually be less necessary for strong bomber strikes against damaged targets. After all, presumably both players are dealing damage to important squadrons in a reasonably close game. If a higher loss of PD compared to WC loss could be achieved, I suppose you might see less interceptors and more bombers getting launched to take full advantage of needing less meat shields for some degree of exponential damage dealing increase. Now, let me pose this thought to you. If Aquans get similar levels of WC in V3.0 as V2.0, would it make sense for most of these models to have regular or heavy versions of SRS? My guess is, a reasonable move will see most Aquans launching only regular interceptors, which only provide 1 PD per wing. An Oannes is very strong as a model on it's own, so I'd imagine it only gets to translate that 8 WC into 8 PD per turn, maximum. Anything outside the Oannes 16 inch interceptor bubble, 20 inches potential maximum given potential reading of rules, won't be eligible for that coverage at all. This isn't even to say everything within that range will be covered by that potential PD, and it can at most be split up into 4 instances of 2 PD. PD mountain isn't +2PD over the course of a turn's worth of activations. As low as torpedo potential damage currently is, +2 PD isn't enough on it's own to shut out torpedoes entirely. If it was then the vast majority of Tier 1s out there have a built in 5 fleet point option to create their own personal PD mountain. As a comparison, this example Oannes has what would be a 4 wing Interceptor token's worth of PD, in a smaller bubble, only usable once a turn. This is big, it's not even remotely a small decrease to SRS PD coverage. The only thing to honestly complain about here is that interceptors still have damned PD at all. If you see every Aquan model with WC roll out with Heavy Interceptors and nobody else gets any, well, then you can definitely call shenanigans. Until then, let's at least get the model stats in hand before seriously decrying SRS PD values as deep sixing any and all torpedo play.
  2. Okay, I'm wondering if no one else is thinking this. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Gravitational Weapons seem to be, just inferior Cyberwarfare weapons? Also, unless something in the weapon statistic break down makes them noticeably more effective on average, their capabilities revealed thus far are objectively inferior in quality. However, even if they are monstrous in AD potential, this feels like a loss of characterization in V3.0 from what I've seen. I don't feel that keeping these as separate and individual options really makes the game more thematically interesting. If you're dropping the push/pull aspect of gravitational weapons, and not giving them any other gravity themed replacement effect, then why not just remove them entirely? Are some of you people out there feeling that Gravitational Weapons without the gravity effects need to keep being a thing that exists? I feel like you might as well just make Direct Cyberwarfare weapons an option and it wouldn't be much, if any, loss. Well, aside from cutting an unnecessary weapon entry, which could be considered a net gain.
  3. @reddwarf Did you check out the Command Order table released? The rules, currently, state that Targeted Strikes give any chosen result on the critical sub-systems table, if a critical hit was achieved with the -1 to-hit penalty. Personally the wording for Fire Control Offline isn't very precise for me. Is this still shutting down only a chosen arc of fire, as in V2.0? It should probably include, "arc," within it's wording, unless entire weapon system entries are being disabled?
  4. Well, actually the Terran Armsmen are 3 CP frigates. This probably skewed my perspective more than it should given my personal play experience. Cyberwarfare is still subject to the Difficult Target MAR, and it feels like a waste to go frigate hunting with most cyberwarfare AD stats. Granted, cyberwarfare can usually kill a frigate with a critical hit as most other weapon systems would. Actually, now that I'm looking, Gravitational weapons seem to do barely anything to frigates? A single point of damage per critical rating threshold reached? Seems like a big drawback.
  5. To be fair, you'll find a lot of Fantasy Flight Games of the miniature, card, board game, and more besides on Tabletop Simulator. They aren't the only company with, "material," on there. Games Workshop would absolutely have hammered either the content creators or Berserk Games, the developer, if they could by now. This game has been around for two years, and while I'm not going to say the advice is misplaced, I've yet to see litigation go anywhere with this kind of content. EDIT: Given the assumption that you don't find a way to charge for Steam Workshop content. While I can't speak the specific legal terminology, the most important basis to begin from is the fact no profit is being made.
  6. I find it strange that you still see removal of fighters as such a critical design flaw, I can personally say that I've always found them to be unnecessary. Frankly their role is the generalist role, and it is a niche role at the best of times. Unsurprisingly, I don't see a surge of people clamoring for the return of a generalist fighter type of SRS, showing support for their continuation. Given the discussion about removal of elements in design, this seems to be an example of a reasonable decision to cut content made. How on earth does one not understand the design and theme behind breaking a specific type of unit into lesser and greater versions? SRS are basically aerospace combat craft, except within the void between stars, planets, and all other non-planet entities. Breaking the individual types up should naturally imply that there are superior and inferior versions of SRS for these specific roles, as would be expected of vehicles in real life. Given that SRS types are not all available on every carrier, carriers which are not the same across every faction, this potential diversity requires a much larger set of information to fully engage and understand how the design intent works in practice. is this set of information too large, too complex? It is not all currently available, and that's the only known truth, so you might as well turn to religion for the hard answers. It's absolutely clear what you want here, you want Spartan Games to respond to you, specifically, and address your personal needs. You want Spartan Games to hand over all their design documents and sit down to tell you the full disclosure of their business plans. If that isn't your intent, you quite probably need to go back and read you own written material since you give the incredibly strong impression this is fundamentally the case. Me, I've never heard of any successful business ever doing such a thing for a customer and with such absurdly low, if any, gains to be made. By all means prove that this is, in fact, common business practice and a trademark standard of success for companies. Otherwise, I don't see what you could possibly be expecting to happen on the pages of these forums. Spartan Games is already releasing information about the upcoming system and what more substantial gain than that could you possibly want, given this is a system still in development? I mean, it isn't as if Wonka is going to show up and start handing out deeds of ownership to his factory because he's a crazy old coot with more money than sense. What more can you reasonably expect the Spartan Games employees to do for you? They haven't struck me as intentionally disingenuous, so I can't see how it would be their interaction here which is a sore point. No other forum member can give you what you desire. I can't even begin to imagine what you think your actions here are going to accomplish, precisely. Unless, you actually have no other agenda than to post into the void itself as a form of artistic expression?
  7. Honestly? Without being able to prize a ship the rewards for boarding are, somewhat uninteresting. Really it's an alternate damage system against a target you can't throw any other fire at for the current activation. The situation where this is going to be a beneficial gain in opportunity cost reduces the value of boarding in ways I have to wonder about. Which is to say, it feels like we're going to see factions need to gear up and seriously commit resources such as models, CP (CO/CMD/Whatever), and additional fleet points to customize their models into being the best group of boarding badasses they can be. Nobody is doing a turn 1-2 boarding frenzy without some serious muck up on the opponent's part, and the game turn limit (official or life related) is already creeping closer. While it's not necessarily a problem, some factions just aren't going to be seeing boarding as anything other than an enemy ability they have to play around, or try to trap a player into making bad moves to achieve. Hard to say without seeing the full set of statistic lines for the factions in play, but if we're already seeing a slew of customized MARs to emphasize boarding then a few assumptions can be made already. I do wonder how the difference between faction purists and faction cherry pickers will be dealt with. The greatest benefit I can see would be if you have a strong advantage in boarding, the CP size and effectiveness comparison, the enemy's relevant PD coverage is effectively crippled, and your own ship has suffered significant damage such that your weapon systems are less effective than your boarding options. That seems like a narrow band to hit with some specific requirements such that I'm doubting the returns I'd be getting on such a high risk investment.
  8. I don't know, cyberwarfare wasn't a tool to destroy frigates with critical hits, as part of the rules stated they don't actually cause critical hits. Clearly this is a move to change that, but I don't feel 3 hp non-capitals need special assurances to always survive a cyberwarfare attack. It's already a notable shift for Cyberwarfare to be given more oomph against all ships in general, vaporizing frigates is something I'd be watching closely. Frankly though, without a solid set of model statistics, it's all guesswork as to how this will play out, and I don't think 3 HP frigates necessarily need guarantees of survival. Favor them too much and they either become too expensive for their intended role, similar to escorts, or too effective.
  9. Hmm, you know, it is rather confusing to have Crew Points and Command Points abbreviate to CP. Particularly since they're both relevant to boarding, although I don't have a better acronym on hand. Well, I'm going to have have to break the news that Mega Christmas is off now. Looks like overtime is going back into effect, we're going to be a black company for entirely different but equally despicable reasons now. Twas far too good to be true, and way too easy to turn a Dreadnought into a Dreadweight given . . . a few well timed and moderately difficult rolls in a turn. Far more reasonable that Crew Points matter most on both ends, and also doesn't leave a mile wide gap to thread enterprising souls armed with proton torpedoes through. It would have been glorious though.
  10. Well, the strange thing to me is that Crew Points for the boarded ship doesn't actually matter for the opposed roll. It's just a check against linked CP pool from the attacker and the PD pool from the defender. The difference of successes between these pools determines who won the boarding contest, meanwhile it seems only secured bulkheads throws a notable monkey wrench into this dynamic. Doesn't matter if that Titan has 10 CP or 0 CP, it is the PD system which determines whether it goes down hard to a rinky dink fleet of frigates. Which means PD Offline is God's Gift to Marines. Which may also mean a single Command Point, zero perhaps with specialist MARs, targeted strike for a PD Network Disrupted could render that model wide open to be boarded to death. If that ship has no, or little CP remaining then Decompression could end up with 3 HP losses per successful attempt, more for 4+ success. Frankly, Directorate Justice against a PD Network Disrupted Tier 1 seems like a good way to deep six that ship in a blaze of glory. Given that Disorder tokens against at zeroed out Crew Point target turns into hull damage? Let's run that scenario really quick. Targeted strike for a guaranteed PD Network Disrupted, if you hit CR 12 with a -1 to hit modifier. A tall order, but some squadrons exist just for that sort of challenge, and Annihilation Gunships sound like a good crew to step up to the plate. The odds aren't what I would call reliable, but the results are outstanding. Without Interceptors or Escorts that Titan has a whopping 0 PD to defend with, thus 0 successes. In swoops a squadron of 3 Justice, each having 4 Crew Points and MAR Special Forces (presumably still true). Now here is where things get dicey. Does a single CP pay for the whole squadron to activate for boarding assaults, as with other activations? Otherwise, do you conduct separate, unlinked fire, squadron boarding affairs by paying through the proverbial nose for this? If the cost is 1 CP for a squadron to activate boarding assault, with no limitation on precise break down of model linking or non-linking aside from only activating once, then tally ho Justice! 3 separate attacks at 4 AD pools that hit on 3+ with exploding dice? Sounds like a solid triple hard victory (2-3 successes), maybe duo hard victory and a seamless operation (4+ success). Let's just assume the former for conservatism sake; that's total of 2 HP for the targeted strike + 6 HP for the boarding actions. If you choose to decompress 3 times that's -6 CP, which leaves 1 CP remaining with a paltry 2 HP clinging to, er, airlocks? If you did however, get just a little bit more lucky and upgrade to one seamless operation that is 1-3 extra disorder tokens. Which ranges in result from 0 CP and 2 HP all the way down to 0 HP at the furthest extreme. Are the odds for this a long shot? You better believe it is. Is this impossible to pull off? I don't know, how does paying 1 CP for a boarding assault work? Does it basically work like activating the whole squadron does now, or does it only activate one model which the squadron can then support? I would really like to know. That, or if Justice class Directorate ships come with a Specialists MAR for boarding, as that would just work out fantastically for this despicable plan. Unless you can only conduct a single boarding action in any round from a single ship, or some such limitation. (Okay, look, my crews are salivating here. If I can't get these men to turn a Titan inside out within the span of two activations, well I just don't know what I'm going to be telling them about Mega Christmas Bonus Pay!)
  11. Simply said, I feel that ironically sums up the content provided quite well. I can't see where in your diatribe that your statements are supported, these conclusions you've drawn aren't connected to substantial evidence. If it is indeed, please, point it out as I honestly see little basis for these conclusions you've drawn. You state, as I understand it, good game design is based on trade offs, limitations, and a comprehensive understanding of these features in play. Following up with stating Spartan Games' design doesn't qualify as good game design, yet all I can see as evidence is that this SRS list is larger than the previous list, with lesser and greater variants of each purpose distinct SRS type. This apparently is bad design because it adds too much content to the game? I don't see how this can be qualified as adding too much content to the game. This news hasn't even hit the proverbial streets long enough for a substantial player review and testing process to get started. You didn't show an example how another game's design attempted something similar, with a reason for why that recorded event was definitively bad design. You don't point out how this design is meaningless, I'm not even sure how you could given we don't know the statistic lines for the carriers from which SRS are based. SRS perform the same functions under this system as they do now, PD coverage, AD rolls against models, boarding actions, and model support. Granted the model support has changed from CP restoration and token removal to CP restoration and related token removal and a both separate and new hull repair SRS. Fighters are dropped, but frankly they were niche use at best, and outright obsoleted in comparison to interceptors and bombers. Fighters were the least appreciated SRS for value, though not completely without any value. Frankly, I'd be asking for more information about how or if dog fighting still exists given that nothing has been stated about that possibility and the lack of PD in anything other than an interceptor. Regardless, where did this wild tangent suddenly come from? I was talking about realism and the impact it should have in game design and game play. Followed by how I don't see trimming out fighters as a substantial problem given their, at best, niche role as jack-of-all-trades and master of none. They're already on if not over the brink of obsolescence in current play due to the roles of interceptors and bombers. There isn't much wiggle room to improve fighters and not make them the superior choice without an overhaul to the game system. By all means, prove me totally and completely wrong and quite simply so. Although this diversion into how you've proven Firestorm is fundamentally a bad game design by bad people and for all of the wrong reasons seems irrelevant to how realism can and should impact a game. While I didn't exactly find a solid example of how and why fighters should remain within Firestorm, I can only imagine that is because, you don't think Firestorm is any good at all? If you do see a way to put fighters into this game, why are you even asking someone else to do that work for you; given you must know better than they how it is supposed to work? Really, why does atmospheric combat and military on a planet have absolutely anything at all to do with the execution of tiny spaceship dog fights? Space based combat between Short Range Spacecraft is just there to be cool; I'm going to need this apparently obscure source where there are provably realistic and viable military strategies that are highly similar to current aerospace combat. Star Wars has long been debunked as based on WWII dog fighting than any degree of realism for space combat; yet it is, at the very least, one of the major influences behind the proliferation of space ship dog fighting for space operas of all varieties. Might as well complain why the P-47 Thunderbolt doesn't have an accurate representation in Firestorm. The rallying call to put fighters back into the game for the sake of realism might as well be, "Hawker Tempest equivalent, or riot!" Edit: @Xystophoroi In a previous post within this thread Spartan Mike covered an example of PD coverage against a combined interceptor and bomber attack run. The short summary is that DR 2 means every 2 successes on a PD roll removes one wing from a token, thus the sample's linked fire PD roll with 13 successes destroys up to 6 wings worth of SRS.
  12. Interesting, although as I read the boarding assault rules a ship's CP only affects its' attack dice pool, and the PD value(s) are what oppose said CP value. Which means destroying crew, in so far as it relates to boarding, only weakens involved ships' ability to aggressively board you. I can't say I'd willingly pay a command point to inflict a potentially equal command point hike for an opponent, so overall I can't really see decompression as a strong choice when using targeted strikes. There might be some niche roles here, but I'm suspecting rather outlier situations for justification of use. Good to know more details. Might have to mull over it a while to see cases where intentionally choosing this would be equal or maybe greater value than the other options, given the penalty to hit, and thus success. Well, for choosing decompression, an on demand fire control offline and main drive failure has potential. Wait, actually I have a follow up question. If that is what disorder tokens do, does squadron coherency failure still cause disorder, and to whom at what value?
  13. I'm gonna step into this, LionofPerth, you're talking about realism in a game. A space opera game that has design elements based somewhat like naval combat simulation, but is in fact about space combat with futuristic ships and strategies that probably are not viable. If you wanted to say that this design wasn't realistic to space combat, well, we don't even have that yet. It's nice when games mirror reality in a relatively believable manner, but at the end of the day it's still a game. Game design for fun and balanced play should trump design which places realism over entertaining game play. If you make a game element that does everything, equally well, why would you ever take a specialist? The design for SRS is limited such that putting both generalists and specialists into play that do not obsolete one another is incredibly difficult to produce and then justify having exist. An encyclopedia may be a fun read for some people, I mean I like a good pass occasionally, but there reaches a tipping point in game design when you should try cutting out the fat. Now, if you had a good sample, showing how a generalist multi-role SRS can fit into this design; we'd have something to discuss in depth. As it stands, I just don't see why this extra work is necessary aside from perhaps not having pleasing nomenclature.
  14. I feel this argument depends very heavily on how competitive your games are, and your own mental approach to the game. If you fully understand that the dice can suddenly, immediately, and probably totally swing the game's outcome beyond any action you could've taken; is that genuinely a problem? If you're playing this game as a vocation, or for some amount of money then I can understand where the problem comes from. However, that just makes the outcome more closer in spirit to gambling for money, in the sense that sometimes the hand you're dealt simply can't win. Granted some might point out bluffing in poker, but then I might point out just playing blackjack or the slot machines. Regardless of metaphor, how restrictive do you want to make this game? Does it have to be as tight as chess before it will be appropriately fun to play? I understand there is a straw which broke the camel's back, and Reactor Overload is a mighty big straw. However, it's not a surprise that it exists, only when it eventually happens. If you're playing with friends for fun, house rule it until everyone agrees it is more fun to play with. Just duplicate Fold Drive Rupture into it's place, unless you hate both these options equally. The only strong case I can see being really made about this, is how it interacts with tournament play and is it a problem? Otherwise it's really just a matter of personal preference, and frankly aesthetics are so diverse you're just not going to please everyone who decides to take a look at your system.
  15. Paladin21 I'm not sure you read that right, PD Mountain is broken to pieces and scattered to the far and distant winds. This should be enough to prove it: This token will contribute its PD value (wings X PD) to the PD of the ship. It stays with the model until it is returned to base, either voluntarily, or after having participated in a PD action. Even assuming that the boarding rules apply to how interceptors react to any and all PD actions, providing a 4 inch bubble of PD around their host model regardless of squadron; they can only do so once per activation. PD Mountain was a disaster mainly because Interceptors could continually provide PD through any and all activations targeting models within their interception range, which was also 6 inches instead of the standard 4 inches. They're no longer unlimited, nor wider reaching than other forms of PD coverage. Point of fact, the boarding rules may be misleading and need to be changed. If the intent was that interceptors can assist in boarding because their *host* is withing 4 inches and part of the same squadron, thus eligible to participate, then the wording needs fixing ASAP. If not, then something should be added to this write up to indicate that interceptors provide a cross-squadron PD coverage when attached to a host model. Edit: Oh, and as an aside, it is a good catch about the wording and possible meanings it might hold for Interceptors given the boarding write up.
  16. Just a moment, if I'm reading correctly, this write up means that a targeted strike results in an attacker chosen result on the sub-systems critical table? This could be brutality incarnate if so, you might intentionally shut down a Directorate Annihilation gunship's hellish fore gun with a single solid hit. Which I would say is better than Decompression forcing a disorder token onto the duo squadron. I really would like to know how disorder has changed, as it was an all or nothing singular token before. If it works the same and on the entire squadron as before, then throwing a disorder token onto a single model like a Wayfarer or Isonade to rip away linked fire could be a semi-reliable thing. I haven't been keeping track on this front though, if it has been talked about. Even if that option fails, a Main Drive Failure is a horribly crippling result to any Large Capital, and will cripple any squadron's ability to maneuver without being disordered. Again, assuming disorder creates the same or similar effects. Given frigates would have imploded, for the vast majority, this mainly would be very interesting to see hit Cruiser squadrons and how they would now deal with a limping ship slowing them down. The potential value hinges on how, or if, disorder has changed for the purposes of linked fire interaction across a squadron.
  17. The only things I could see this intent applying to is either forcing Fire Control Offline to be randomly rolled instead of chosen by the attacker; or A Model with this MAR may elect to force an Attacker to roll the result on the Sub-Systems Critical Table when determining the effects of any Hard Victory Results of a Boarding Assault directed against it.
  18. Ah, a sub set of the chart, didn't notice that. Hmmm, not sure how I feel about that yet. Feels more like a niche tool for targeting large capitals or duo squadron sizes. Aside from long shot drive failures potentially causing severe tactical problems for larger squadron movement. Odd to see gravity weapons folded into this chart, it rather begs the question as to why they even exist. Granted I haven't seen how much model statistics may have changed, but, this feels like an all stop for my Tarakian build up. Well, thank you for the clarity, I had completely missed the point of that part of the critical chart.
  19. Okay, so, this seems to rip apart SRS survival rates. Would it be correct to guess that SRS are fully or at least partially replenished at every launch? That would make the math less cumbersome with HP loss now reducing maximum WC for a carrier. It also rather feels like Interceptors are more meatshields for bombers now, just shoulder checking the PD fire for them and dying like flies. Honestly, I would've liked to see a CP system where you could pay for SRS replenishment under such possibilities for heavy losses. I assume perhaps Relthoza will be seeing this under faction options, but as a standard it would be nice with a reduction for specialists. The points cost of carriers was always higher than the stated list amount. No carrier was so effective for points that it was being taken naked without SRS. You would be handicapping yourself, aside from perhaps Aquans who can spend a significant amount of points into WC. I can't say this change is meaningful until the model statistic hit, which are probably going to be very wordy under this new system. I'd have to see the models assigned these repair craft SRS, because that is far out of line in effectiveness compared to equivalent bombers. Given there is no DR on these SRS, and no stated phase in which to take pot shots at SRS, being able to fly freely is a notable gain over a bomber's value. Especially considering that interceptors providing ablating protection to bombers requires them to launch from the same damned squadron, cutting further into WC limits. I don't know about the model statistics yet, and the full nuances of SRS interactions, but I do wonder if some carriers won't find their value shifted very noticeably. After all, it's not so much this specific SRS rule set that will define SRS value; but the carriers they are launched from which will define how dramatically these changes impact the game.
  20. Well, to be fair, there's still going to be some mental math given terrain still being able to halve attack dice for attacks. Honestly, I'd say it was those situations that more severely slowed calculations for how many attack dice are being rolled. Cloaking is comparatively an all or nothing situation, since terrain doesn't always block the shot for every model in a squadron.
  21. Ah, so there is an entirely separate and distinct chart being rolled which isn't available yet. Hmm, makes it very hard to understand the value of this chart's design without the other chart available to read. I understand there can be more than one modifier to a weapon system, though now I realize there is a major point that got missed: I was reading off the 3rd Edition Weapon System chart and there Gravitational weapons are listed as indirect weapons; but here they are direct fire weapons? Which is the actual case, as the mixing of direct and indirect is not permitted the last time I was aware. Personally, I'm not overly impressed by mixing other WARs with these. Cyberwarfare and Gravitational already negate all damage aside from a small scaling of -1 HP per scale of critical hit(s) achieved. Nuclear proliferation might produce a thematic result, although the naming would be, odd. Are Gravitational weapons then direct weapons, as nuclear weapons must be direct? If so the other chart should be updated to indicate Gravy weapons are direct, not indirect, weapons. Unless, that makes them direct and indirect weapons, which I just don't even know anymore? I'm assuming all signs point to must be direct fire. Edit: To be specific the referenced post's points were: * Cyberwarfare': 'All Cyberwarfare Weapons are Indirect Weapons and are not subject to Defensive Fire responses. Cyberwarfare attacks ignore all Shield and Cloaking defenses, and use the Debilitating effects chart for damage.', * Gravitational': 'All Gravitational Weapons are Indirect Weapons. Gravitational attacks ignore all Shield and Cloaking defences, and use the Debilitating effects chart for damage.',
  22. While I can't take an extensive read into how these systems inter-lay over each other, mainly without model statistic samples to run testing sets, I've got opening questions. I'm reading a, "coherence effect," here which could dramatically change the value of these weapons. Provided, of course, the corollary follows that these weapons can be combined with *other* weapon systems. This requires squadron ships like a Turmoil, off the top of my head, which potentially carry Cyberwarfare and Gravitational weapon systems that can be positioned to fire at the same target. Again, model statistics could have changed, but this is an example squadron which could mix these weapon types. I'm also wondering how the Tarakians make out in all this, the changes eat away a bit at their unique flavor as outsiders. Not relevant per se, but I do like it when factions have rules that favor distinct, even better unique, on table behaviors. Back on track, this seems to make Cyberwarfare weapons about 2/3rds as effective for frigate hunting than standard weapon systems; unless they are allowed to combine fire with another system. Even worse for gravity weapons, who seem to be scrambling to provide the same knock out effect on non-capitals. I'd have to make sure I've got all the relevant pieces working right for a sample set, but this certainly makes gravy weapons seem like a gambler's tool. The power of gravitational weapons varies based on the faction fleet you're facing, and the utility really feels like a high stakes, high risk gambler's choice. I've not yet seen how all the systems work together, but using the weapons as intended doesn't yet give me any warm fuzzies. This also begs the question: In the case of a Reactor Overload result, does this mean it does absolutely nothing since a coherent Cyberwarfare / Gravitational attack cannot damage any models? With the exception of coherent Cyberwarfare attacks against non-capital class ships, as that system then does something entirely different. Edit: Forgot to expand a point, although it is still mostly an outlier for the moment. Some Non-capital class ships do have 3 HP, which would make Cyberwarfare *roughly* 1/3rd as effective in those cases compared to standard weapons. Unless of course, all DR/CR damage resolution against non-capitals now follows this rule. Which would be an, interesting, cascade effect.
  23. To be clear, the exploding dice mechanic can allow for the ship's Critical Rating to be exceeded by twice or possibly even thrice the model CR. Potentially more, but that has definitively low odds for happening. If a model's CR was 5 then 5 successes cause one critical hit, 10 successes cause two critical hits, 15 successes cause three critical hits, etc. With exploding dice you are typically scoring one success on a 4 or 5, and two successes on a 6. To-hit modifications, such as capital class ships firing against frigate class ships, can alter what rolls create a success, but a 6 always creates two successes on exploding dice. Also you get to roll another die, so a kind of chain reaction can kick off in some cases.
  24. @Endrasalem It's a moot point really, since T1 models with Escorts use combine fire instead of link fire rules. Also the entire premise was that you are lowering the total amount of dice being rolled when using link fire for the sole purpose of trying to get more drive off results in a single toss of the dice. 4 Capital ships with 3 PD each aren't highly likely to drive off a 6 wing SRS token rolling 12 dice in separate sets. They also aren't very likely to get the minimum of 6 hits or kills necessary on 7 dice with linked fire either, and lose 5 dice of potential and probably a wing kill on the SRS. 3 Captial ships with 4 PD is somewhat better a trade, but still runs long odds when you consider the dice are not exploding. @Meatshield Well, as was just pointed out, Escorts are only good for the squadron they come with, which is that singular T1 model you bought them for. Also command distances being what they are, 8 inches of Bigger Batteries is pretty much only useful for firing at SRS or potentially non-capital ships if the model somehow also had Point Defense Barrage. Also since SRS need to make base contact to threaten a model, it'll definitely be tight, but you should be able to draw an intercepting line to an SRS token past the T1's base and still have around 1-2 inches of space between the parent model and accompaniment. Given the typically poor PD of T3 models, they could easily justify adding an Escort model to their squadron. If nothing else it adds an extra warm body to take a hit, and countering torpedoes is typically a T3 weakness. Capital ships, mainly T1, can buy an inherent bonus to their PD and for cheap; whereas the T3 squadrons usually lack such options. Although, if you have several T3 squadrons the price of Escorts will add up rather quickly and significantly. Changes affecting Escorts such as lowering model costs, altering the Regroup Tactical Ability Card, and allowing them to behave basically like SRS are for PD rolls are all relatively reasonable things you could try. If only by virtue of how little value escorts add to a fleet right now, which is more of a separate and specific to the ship class issue than an effect SRS have caused. I find it funny that one of the problems with Escorts is the vulnerability of the Escorts themselves. You'd need to bring at least two Escorts just to ensure serious torpedo protection for each other. The T1 can't use combine fire rules to protect its' own Escorts and they're already the weakest link in the squadron.
  25. Huhh, well thanks for pointing that out. Seems that's a mistake that I and my friend have been rolling with for the games we've managed to play. Think I figured out why we came to that conclusion; the manual states the intent clearly under the entry for torpedoes, but the blurb under the description for linked fire only makes a reference to any assisting models. Thinking about it, we've not played games large enough for overlapping squadrons to often be an issue. As I recall, we came to that conclusion after talking over the value of bigger batteries while looking through the linked fire rules. It might be superfluous to change, but that whole of page 63 has only one direct reference to squadrons when discussing linked fire for Point Defense and Combined Fire rules. Even if it is under the important note section, the intent of that note was to clarify that even models with no PD value can still be assisted by other models.
  • 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.