Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team

Toxic_Rat

Member
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by Toxic_Rat

  1. True. There will have to be a reckoning with the stats as they currently exist, once we have a workable rules document.
  2. So, bumping this topic again to gage interest in GenCon this year. Anyone out there interested in playing in an event? I've run them in past years, looking to do it again this year.
  3. The other challenge to having so many factions is for new players just getting into the game. How do you decide which faction to play when there are 22 (!) different choices? You pretty much get left to the core 6 because that is what the game store might have in stock. Fluff-wise, it'll be great to see more about the Kedorians or Ryushi. Game-wise, I think those probably become a subset oddity. When you see those ships at an event, you'll know that is an old time player.
  4. @varnos No, we don't have a "Hit and Run" rule. I don't think the movement values are large enough to make a difference.
  5. For simplicity sake we've ignored the length of the hypotenuse, and just used the 1" penalty. As long as the other conditions are met, it hasn't seemed to be a big deal.
  6. What are you using to determine firing arcs? This method uses those same arcs on the bases.
  7. Here is what we came up with for Targeted Strikes: Targeted Strike A Targeted Strike is a pinpoint attack directed at a particular system aboard an enemy vessel. A Targeted Strike cannot be made against a ship with initial Hull Points of 2 or fewer, as these vessels are simply too small to separate out their primary systems for attack. To make a Targeted Strike, the attacking player compiles an Attack Dice pool, taking ranges and weapon systems into account as if they were making a regular Ranged Attack. All Defensive measures such as Shields, Cloaking Fields and Point Defense apply as if it were a regular Attack. Should the attack equal or exceed the target’s Damage Rating, apply damage as normal. If the attack equals or exceeds the targets Critical Rating, deal 1 HP damage and choose a result on the Sub-Systems Critical Hit Table applying the effect, but not the critical hit damage. The sub-systems critical table has the following: Fire Control Offline Launch Bays Offline PD Network Disrupted Defense Systems Offline (shields/cloak) Main Drive Failure Life Support Failure
  8. Here is something that I'm working on adding to the software. The diagram shows the available weapons by arc. The colors are keyed into the weapon types (kinetic, beam, etc). Straight lines indicate a fixed arc weapon. Would you find this useful on your printouts?
  9. Would there be complete opposition to changing dice? In other words, going to a d8 or d10 system? I realize it would require everyone buying more dice, but it's not that much of an expense, when compared to the cost of ships. Not something to be taken lightly, but it does provide more design space to have the additional numbers.
  10. I've found that in practice, I end up using the waypoints far less than I had initially thought. One side effect to this movement system is that it makes Fixed Fore weapons much less fidly.
  11. I like this option better than the gradual decline we currently have.
  12. @Ryjak Yes, I was thinking of something like the templates that Alex produced. Attached is a pdf of @Stoobert's alternate movement system. This is the movement system that we ended up using for Firestorm:Rebellion. 1-Leg Movement Diagrams.pdf
  13. Sorry, not familiar with these two systems. can you expound here?
  14. We've considered adding a "second movement" action where you can move twice, at the expense of not firing weapons during that activation. The thought was to help short range factions close the distance in the opening rounds of the game. I'd be curious how a wider playtest would shake out on this idea.
  15. Agreed. It feels like I re-wrote the Fleet Manager code three or four times while the old V3 beta was going on. It was tricky to stay on top of the changes in some cases.
  16. As noted in another thread, movement is one of the principal aspects of the game that takes time. Which really should not come as a surprise...at it's simplest, the game is move and shoot. It is in the how we move that takes up time. I'd like to discuss ways to speed up movement in the game, both in terms of moving ships and moving squadrons. Here are some options to consider: 1. Continue using the traditional MV+TL method to moving each ship. Whether this is with the SG template, or something narrower is up to the user. The template is used both as a ruler, and to measure out the 45 degree angle used for turning the ship. 2. Change the turning method from the 45 degree template angle to a pivot around the flight peg. This is the method proposed by the V3 beta. 3. Change the turning method from a single turn to a series of arc templates. Each TL value would have their own radius that they can traverse. 4. Do away with the template altogether. I know @Stoobert has some thoughts on this. I'm happy to share, but he deserves the credit so I'll let him describe it. 5. Use a series of movement templates, similar to X-Wing. Very simple, you just move the ship to the end of the template and you're done. With regard to moving ships vs. moving squadrons, the V2 rules as written require each ship to use the template to move. I think many of us keep the bases in some sort of formation and then move one ship with the template, and the rest follow, forming the same arrangement at the end of the move. This could be expanded so that one ship is designated as the lead, and it is moved according to one of the above methods first. Then, each ship in the squadron moves independently, but must end their movement within X" distance, and not be forward of the lead ship. Each ship would need to be facing in the same direction. What other movement systems are out there? Which would speed up movement for us?
  17. Thanks @steve_990...hope you find it useful. If you find any bugs or data problems, please let me know. Suggestions for improvements are welcome also.
  18. Hi. I'm the developer of the Firestorm Fleet Manager, another fleet building software for Firestorm Armada. I had a conversation with @Warcradle Stuart about this topic shortly after they acquired the IP. From my understanding, Warcradle intends that the rules remain free. As long as we are clear that they hold the copyrights, that we are not official products, etc., then we are good to produce the fleet building software. So, we should both be able to support the games far into the future. Stuart, do I have that understanding correct? BTW, the Fleet Manager is still available to for V2 at firestorm.pymapper.com
  19. This. Whatever changes we make to the game have to reduce the overall time needed to play. New mechanics will be good, but I'm pretty sure we need to consolidate several of the existing ones as well.
  20. It's religion and politics man...what did you expect?
  21. My play experience with the Sorylians has been frustrating. Too slow, and with the shorter range weapons they have a tough time engaging the enemy with enough strength to make a difference. YMMV, of course. To me, they are more challenging to play than some other factions. Dindrenzi are still my favorite though. Point, shoot, and boom. Nice and easy.
  22. @Kaptyn Krys I really like the idea of going to half AD/PD at the half HP threshold. I'm hesitant to add another dice check (checking for condition yellow/red) but the concept is worth testing out. Decoupling the weapon type (Kinetic/Scatter/Beam/etc) from the range increment is also a needed change. Changing the dice (to d10 or something) is worth looking at as well. We've been looking at changing the to-hit number down to 3 from 4 in order to have a bit more space for modifiers. Using d6 is convenient, but when using modifiers you too quickly get to 6.
  23. @wrongtrousers, my take (not necessarily Warcradles) on revising the ruleset was to hopefully bring in new interest for the game. It's the same reason every other business would make changes to the product line, to improve on what they already have, and to generate buzz for a new edition. It doesn't mean we need to change everything, but everything should be reviewed to see if there is a better way of doing things. Warcradle wants to sell us miniatures. If a new edition brings in new players while some are still playing 2.0, it's still a win for everyone because we get new models.
  24. Thanks Ryjak. It's an interesting look at the mechanic.
×
×
  • 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.