Jump to content

CoreDave

Member
  • Content Count

    254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  1. People need to break free of this idea that KoB is a faction whos flavour is torpedoes. Torpedoes are pretty much the only major weapon system that is only usable against one type of unit. Rockets can hit anything, teslas can hit anything, energy turrets, guns, broadsides, etc all can hit anything but torpedoes can only hit ships. It was one of the biggest design mistakes originally to make so many of the British ships dependant on torpedoes and its a very good thing that Spartan have realised this and started to move away from them for the new British units.
  2. OK I'll rephrase, the EoBS, FSA and COA scout ships are all outright more survivable, the Hawk has the same survivability more or less as the the Rus, French and Prussian scout ships. But of them the French has much greater firepower especially at range meaning it can be effective before getting in close therefore making it indirectly more survivable, the Prussians have a little ore firepower and redoubtable so while no more survivable they can remain effective for longer and the Russians have the same sorts of problems but at least they have significantly more firepower in rb 1/2. Lastly they are all 65 points a piece to the Hawks 70. In fact only the Inari is more expensive than the Hawk at 75 and then only the Icarus is the same cost, yet both are vastly better units.
  3. There is virtually no chance that a squadron of Hawks could make it to RB1 of a dreadnought unless that dreadnought wasn't firing at them, let alone if anything else was also tasked to destroying them. Even being hit an 5+ hawks will drop out of the sky fast, 5hp is ok but their low DR/CR and lack of a shield gen make them the least survivable of all the medium scout flyers.
  4. Oh I agree with this regarding prizing, but I'm not so convinced that the same logic can or should apply to the sabotage result which by its very nature is much less punishing for the defender. The way I visualised it was the defenders have a chance to push the boarders out, if they can do so quickly the boarders cannot set charges and cause a crit, if they can't then that crit is guaranteed for the attackers because they simply need enough time to deploy the explosives, therefore they can do it without having to achieve any particular number of successes. It all rests on the defender to push them out. While I can see thematically that a damaged ship would be more vulnerable to being sabotaged I don't know if it really requires a mechanic, at least not if dong so undermines the sense of interaction in boarding for the defender. Don't forget that damage still reduces AA which makes it safer to board a damaged ship than an undamaged one, considering the inherently lower impact of being sabotaged over prized In my opinion this is enough. *Edit* A simpler option for including the HP of the ship in the resolution of sabotage results while still involving the defender might be to give the defender a bonus number of dice based on the hull condition. So the defender still rolls to repel the boarding action but gets his AP value + the remaining HP of the ship... or if that was too much it could be half the remaining HP or perhaps a simple +2 if you have more than half you HP remaining. This would have the knock on effect making boarding more dangerous because of the chance of those extra dice producing 6s and kill the attacking AP and might make it too difficult for the attacker but I think its probably worth testing along side the other options.
  5. Looks good Nail, functionally similar to the rules I tested on Saturday, the only real difference being which party determines if a sabotage result is applied. We played it that the defender needed to get enough successes to prevent it, under your rules the attacker has to exceed a number to trigger it. The net result being that it will be harder to get that crit on big ships until they have been worn down somewhat, but once you've put some damage on those ships you can get your crit with fewer marines than you might otherwise have to commit. Next game night I will see of we can try both systems out on different tables and compare notes. A third way of determining if a sabotage takes place would be to use the original method, ie if the attacker get more successes than the defender. With the other changes this would probably work fine too and might actually end up being the most desirable from an immersion point of view because it gives you that direct conflict feeling. *Edit* One thing that has just occurred to me is that under your system the only relevant result for the defender is 6s as other "successes" do not achieve anything, the success or failure of the boarding is entirely dependant on the attackers roll. Under my system the defenders roll determines if the attack succeeds or not and the attackers roll determines if the ship is prized or not. So both parties have a shot at influencing the result. This would also be true under the third option above.
  6. MiddleMeadow and I tested out the rules I posted above yesterday. We didn't play a full game but did run several small scenarios. I think he would agree with me that it worked very well. Because of the low attrition rate of AP we found that we could board much more frequently, Possible concerns included that it seemed very difficult to repel a boarding action. Under the rules I had written the defenders have to get a number of hits equal or greater than the number of attacking AP (that should probably be the number of dice in the attack pool instead of the AP to avoid confusion and to allow for card and AR effects) otherwise even if the attackers get no hits they still cause a sabotage result. It proved quite difficult and almost all the boarding attempts resulted in a critical hit, that said I think its probably ok to leave the rules slanted in favour of attackers achieving a sabotage result. we discussed letting 6s count as two successes but I think in the end we agreed that that suffering the loss of an AP was a strong enough effect on its own. I should stress again that this wasn't under normal game conditions, but even so it was very encouraging.
  7. Personally I have no problem with dropping the broadsides because I always found them pretty useless, but I do agree with YLLAN that the model clearly has something there, it was suggested in the previous thread that they be passed of as CC launchers which is why in Build 2 I put such high CC in. This could be further emphasised by giving them telescopic sights (CC) MAR but then its starting to build up a dangerously large number of MARs. Remember that it doesn't have to be use submerged, make the torps too good and people will just run them as torpedo boats on the surface (they still need a 5+ to be hit) and I think that would be a shame. On speed having tried out the build 2 variant yesterday (I'll write a proper post on this when I have more time) I think probably still isn't enough, especially without an forward facing rb1 weapons. Experienced Engineers is pointless on a 4hp model.
  8. What about taking inspiration from tiny flyer combat and make results of 6 be the only way to actually kill an AP and incorporating that with the HP+AP models you guys have been discussing. Giving something like Boarding Assaults Step 1 - Calculate Attack pool (Total number of AP from all participating boarding ships). Step 2 – Roll defensive AA Vs attack pool. 1-4 no effect, 5 remove one dice from the attack pool, 6 remove one dice from the attack pool AND kill one attacking AP. (6s do not explode) Step 3 – Roll Attack pool and Defender pool. Both sides cause 1-3 no effect, 4-5 score 1 success, 6 kill one AP and score 1 success. (6s do not explode) Step 4 – If number of defender successes exceeds total surviving attacking AP then attackers are driven off before they can sabotage the ship. Boarding ends goto step 6. Step 5 – If attackers are not driven off then if attacker hits exceed the surviving defending AP+HP then the ship is prized, otherwise attacker sabotages the ship, roll for a critical hit and cause 2 HP of damage. Step 6 - Surviving AP can be redistributed between the attacking squadrons ship however the owning player wishes. If AP loss proves a bit too slow under this method then you could automatically inflict a 2AP kills against the side which scores the lowest number of successes to represent one side or the other getting the upperhand in the battle.
  9. Re: Build 2 After talking through build 2 with a friend I have dropped the HP to 5 and the CC to 5 and added limited resources to reduce the boarding threat of the model. I will try this revised build out tonight, it may be a little over costed now but we will see. He was particularly concerned about the high cc value as all the other diving models have low cc values, I think a high cc is ok in the context of losing the second weapon system for it but 5 might be more acceptable so 5 is what we will try out. I also dropped the HP to 5 so that it has less HP than RR, I'm not persuade that this is an important consideration but at 5 HP it should still be durable enough while submerged with the cc providing protection from tiny torps, it still has a pretty big vulnerability to tiny dive bombers but that is more manageable due to them needing to get into base contact. I'm looking forward to trying them out!
  10. OK I think we need to move the discussion for the MK2 Vanguard on a bit so this thread is for discussing specific build options. The following are the builds that have been suggested in the previous thread (Sorry if I missed any out), these shouldn't be considered final but rather initial suggestions subject to refinement through mighty theory crafting and playtesting. If you would like a different build added for consideration please post it in the same format and I'll add it to this list if it is substantially different from the already posted ones, otherwise go ahead and rip into these and see what breaks! This thread isn't for voting for your favourite, that will come later once we have a few refined and tested units to put forward as finalised. This thread should be about theory crafting, reporting testing results, suggesting changes to one or more build and so on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Build 1 - Squadrons of 2-3 - 55pts each. Full Squadron cost (165) --------------------------------------------- AP4 | AA2 | CC0 | RR8 | Speed 8" | HP4 | DR4 | CR6 | 2”min - uses 45 degree turning template (1” between turns) --------------- Weapons ----------------- Fore Torps 0/7/6/3 Arc:FC P/S Broadsides (s) 6/4/2/0 Arc:BS ----------- Generators & MARs -------- Water Hunter, Hull ripper, Hull breaker, panic dive, independent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Build 2 - (Edited 09/04) Squadrons of 1-2 - 85pts each. Full squadron cost (170) ---------------------------------------------- AP6 | AA4 | CC5 | RR6 | Speed 8" | HP5 | DR4 | CR7 | 2” min move - uses small turning template --------------- Weapons ----------------- Fore Torps 0/6/4/2 Arc:FC ----------- Generators & MARs -------- Internal Tesla Generator Hull ripper, Hull breaker, iron ram, panic dive, experienced engineers, limited resources. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Build 3 - Squadrons of 2-3 - 60pts each. Full Squadron cost (180) ---------------------------------------------- AP4 | AA2 | CC0 | RR6 | Speed 7" | HP5 | DR4 | CR6 | 2”min - uses 45 degree turning template (1” between turns) --------------- Weapons ----------------- Fore Torps 0/6/5/3 Arc:FC P/S Broadsides (s) 6/4/2/0 Arc:BS ----------- Generators & MARs -------- Hull ripper, Hull breaker, iron ram, panic dive, independent, experienced engineers, streamlined hull ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Build 4 - Squadrons of 1-2 - 100pts each. Full Squadron cost (200) ---------------------------------------------- AP4 | AA3 | CC3 | RR8 | Speed 7" | HP5 | DR5 | CR7 | 1”min - uses 45 degree turning template (1” between turns) --------------- Weapons ----------------- Fore Torps 0/9/7/4 Arc:FC ----------- Generators & MARs -------- *Sturgenium Boost *sharp Turn Iron Ram Hull Ripper Independent *Skilled minelayer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  11. I don't think a simple solution is going to be a good solution. There are so many issues with the way the vanguard is setup now that tweaking a bit here and a bit there while it might make a better unit it is never going to produce something special. And to me as our faction special the Vanguard should be precisely that. By Special I don't mean broken or over powered, I simply mean good at what it does and able to provide a tactical option or options that are unavailable without it. Most of the other faction specials fulfil this criteria and I think ours should too.
  12. I think that's a little unfair, I would say the vast majority of posters in this thread have shown a similar attitude. In fact only a few posts back someone else commented on how mature and reasoned this thread has been and I tend to agree. As to a change, the beauty of boardgames and table top war games is that we are all free to change the rules in any way we please, the best hope for this thread in my mind is a new set of boarding rules worked out by smart people and play tested in a variety of situation that my group can choose to use in the knowledge that it is at least as balanced as the current system.
  13. I'm not sure about this, d6 extra speed is a lot of variance, it makes it a very hard model to rely on and if ramming is where most of your point cost is redeemed then you need to be able to rely on it. Also you haven't really addressed the other weaknesses of the Vanguard, its still a 4hp model with experienced engineers (a capital offence in my book) its still horribly vulnerable to tiny flyers despite having a bit of cc and while I'm happy enough with rb1 torps 5 seems too low to be of any real use. I understand that you have been trying to keep its powerlevel down to justify the low cost but I think that is a mistake.
  14. Heh well as a Brit I have to point out that I don't like Steak and Kidney Pie or warm beer and don't consider either to be particularly British, but lets not let that stand in the way of a good stereotype Personally I'm not sure that lack of rb1 torps really counts as faction flavour, the faction flavour is more along the lines of being a rb2-3 faction than specifically not having any rb1 torps. It doesn't really follow that giving one close range specialist this capability would break this flavour (no more so than creating a close range rammer already does), but for me the torpedoes should always be a secondary consideration to the primary role of ramming so if the consensus was against rb1 torps I wouldn't consider it a massive loss. Much more important in my mind is a unit costed to incorporate good defences and speed to support the ramming role. Speed needs to be enough to be able to force rams on unwilling targets in the small and medium class, Taking on board your objection to rb1 torps I'd suggest something along the lines of Vanguard Mk2 (Community Edition) Medium Capital Diving, Uses small turning template Squadrons of 1-2 - 85pts each. AP6, AA5, CC6, RR6 Torps FF 0 - 6 - 4 - 2 Speed 8", HP6, DR5 CR7 Internal Tesla Generator - This gives 1-3" additional movement or an alternate rb1 attack method of sorts. Hull ripper, Hull breaker, iron ram, panic dive. Notes - With this design you have a unit that can choose between 8" move and a rb1 attack from the tesla generator or a move of 9-11" giving you enough speed chase down even some smalls. The good aa and cc numbers mitigate a little the threat from tiny fliers and make up for the small squadron size as does the high ap count (still the same total for a full squadron as 4 *3). Iron ram and 6 hp may be overkill, it might be better to drop the iron ram and stick with 6hp or drop the hp down to 5. The limited threat from the torpedoes (max 9 dice at rb2 from the full squadron) keeps the focus of the model on targeting smalls and mediums.
×
×
  • 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.