Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charbe86

  1. It would be nice if it didn't have to be house ruled though. It's easy enough to agree with an opponent to a small scale game, you could even just use a takforce box with armada rules, but it would be nice to have official "skirmish" rules
  2. I still want to see a level below patrol fleet, say 500 points minimum 1 medium sq 1 small sq. Something in the intended scale of taskforce but within the FSA rule set.
  3. I'm not suure if you're allowed to tell me this, but I'm looking at a taskforce box and I want to confirm that the two squadrons in there will be classed as small and medium inder the new rules before I do.
  4. Can we have the info about the core expansion boxes ASAP? While I'd really like one it's a pretty significant investment for something I haven't seen, and if I'm going to get one it's something I'm going to have to budget for.
  5. I'll be pledging for the books and tokens at least, can't see a down side to that.
  6. That's what the rulebook says, but it never said what the "ground" scale actually is.
  7. Sorry, I should have said that better, I meant like 1:50000. It's just that when I started looking at this game I had an image of battles taking place throughout a solar system, but the more I learn the more it feels like I'm fighting between the orbit of two moons. I'd be happy with a thematic answer rather than a a specific scale.
  8. How they balance the nerfed cloak would surely depend on what they've done with stealth and regeneration. It would be nice to have something more thematic than just upping the dr and cr
  9. I remember seeing new new cloak rules mentioned, but I can't remember where. Could someone clarify those rules here, or atleast point to where they are? Clarification on stealth would be nice too.
  10. Is there actually a board scale that the terrain is based on? Why do asteroids come in clumps rather than bands? I know it would be a complete departure from previous rules, but so are the three boardwide effects. Are planets for system wars scenarios still going to be covered separately?
  11. I did intend to get the task force set anyway, but that combined with a starter set would have given me the ships to man both sides of a good size game, which is a serious consideration when most of my gaming friends still focus on GW products. Now I have to justify a patrol fleet to my wife that she can see doesn't contain ships I currently collect. Its also disappointing that relthoza won't get another T1 that can be used at patrol fleet level
  12. So I believe this is officially dead, which is a shame because I would have really liked an excuse to collect sorylian as well as relthoza.
  13. Is any of this stuff covered in the faction books? For a sci-fi IP FSA seems really light on detail. Which Bond is it? Even old Mcguyver doesn't beat Sean Connery. I'm so glad I used a linux system for my ships computers.
  14. I've been looking at the boarding rules very closely for the last couple of hours. I think the SRS option is good, it eliminates a small amount of text in the rule book and consolidates the two methods of boarding, as well as eliminating the need to track whether or not a ship has boarded this game. It may lead to a higher density of SRS tokens, but I don't think it would be to an extent that it would cause a gameplay problem.
  15. I've started another thread to continue this if you want Frans, but if you wouldn't mind getting thing rolling again there that would be great, as my technical skills are quite lacking in regards to the forum and I have no idea how to quote between threads.
  16. So that we keep these debates out of the designer feedback thread. Frans and I have been having a bit of a debate on how realistic boarding is, and the the issue of how realistic SRS is has come up as well.
  17. The maneuverability issue tepends a fair bit on fluff, but hostile boarding actions still take place in wet navies, pirates and smugglers etc, I see no reason why you couldn't scale up, especially with automated piloting systems and other similar systems. I don't know if I agree with your PD estimates, torpedoes still get through, and they can't dodge. Again this depends on fluff though, PD turret sizes, weapon type etc. Ship bulkheads are designed to withstand ship grade weapons from the outside, not the inside, I think you may be overestimating hull strength too there do need to be considerations to inertia and economy. It's also easier to make a weapon that will punch through something than it is to make something that can withstand a weapon, I'll cite history there. I'm sure ship crews would wear environmental suits when in combat, but engineering staff wearing powered armour seems both inefficient and expensive, and an entire crew carrying side armsseems likely to lead to unacceptable accidents. I would like to point you to two hard sci-fi series, the honor harrington series, and the expanse. Both series point out, much better than I can, why boarding in space battles is possible, potentially very effective, but not very common. On ship capture, you don't really even need to use self destruct, a terran prize crew is going to have issues piloting a dindrenzi ship, let alone a ship designed to be crewed by giant spiders. And to Derek, if we had more fluff these arguments would be both better and potentially more useful to a design team.
  18. I don't believe boarding would be common place, simply because it would generally be a one way trip whether you succeed or not, and who's prepared to through away lives like that? That doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective when it is used, quite the opposite. Getting the boarders on to the ship would be difficult, I don't believe maneuverability would be an issue due to the huge mass difference between even a corvette and a boarding shuttle, but PD definitely would be, which is already represented in the game. Shields may be an issue here, as well as things like propulsion methods and artificial gravity, but there's not enough fluff available to say either way. Once aboard the offensive party is trying to damage the ship as much as possible, while the defenders are trying to limit that damage, which means the defenders are limited in their options. You could vent plasma into a corridor, open compartments to vacuum, or have automated gun turrets with armor piercing rounds, but what are the consequences for your ship and crew? The boarders however are simply trying to sell their lives as dearly as possible which gives them free reign to use any offensive weapon which won't accelerate their own deaths. A ships marine contingent would also be equipped similarly to a planetfall unit, where as the the rest of a ships crew is unlikely to be armed, and very unlikely to be armoured, which means the main battle would be almost purely between the two marine forces. If we're aiming for realism, a boarding attack should behave more like an indirect weapon but damaging ships AP and CP instead of HP, allowing for a roll on the critical table for particularly high success. Ships being captured is unrealistic, apart from the effort required to do so, how do you control the ship unless the crew cooperate.
  19. I disagree with you on this. One we have no indication of the size of the marine team going in, given the way boarding works now you could be sending over an entire ships worth of marines. Two, marines are going to be equipped for a boarding action and, unlike the defenders, boarding parties don't have to restrict themselves to weapons that will avoid collateral damage, both to the ship and it's crew. Third, we always assume this is a battle inside the ship but, if you remove the chance to capture the vessel, almost every important system has external components a boarding crew could damage to great effect. Finally, these are space ships, a little damage goes a long way, and cascade effects aren't just possible, they're likely. So in conclusion there is no reason for removing or weakening such a fun component of the game.
  20. Even with a rail gun there a systems that would degrade damage rather without stopping the weapon from working, eg. the capacitor banks, targeting, sensors, and propulsion. I think we need more info on the power core idea, eg. would it affect speed and/or shields as well as weapons?
  21. There was a suggestion earlier that SRS be changeable in game, that makes a lot of sense fluff wise, since the only real difference between space based srs would be payload.
  22. Speaking of, can we get a conformation of a Sorylians/Relthoza 2 player box set with v3.0?
  23. That's a good point, and having been said maybe it's time to wipe the slate clean, possibly even approach the issue more from a fluff perspective than a mechanics perspective. Also, does every race need to have the same SRS options, it might be a needless complication, but no harm in putting the idea out there.
  24. On movement, if you're not adding more newtonian aspects movement then my vote is to not change things at all. Although the ability to turn at less than a 45° angle potentially provided by the move and pivot system is very tempting. I have to agree with commodore jones on SRS, but only to an extent. There needs to be a balance between giving players choices, and prescribing what SRS can be taken. Maybe assigning each SRS type a size, large or small, and then giving carriers a set number of large/small bay sizes. I would also like to know what your looking at in regards to the actual mechanics of SRS.
  25. If you're looking for player feedback, does that mean you're going to release enough details for us to try this stuff at home? I particularly like the idea of quarterly reviews, and I hope that no aspect of the game will be exempted from that process. I like the idea of boarding becoming a more usable option, as long as it doesn't become too underpowered in the process. Capturing a ship may be unrealistic, but scuttling one isn't. Are you looking at the movement system at all? It would be nice to sea something a little less wet navy, but barring that a more user friendly movement template would be great.
  • 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.