Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HT26

Relthoza vs Sorylians dualbox?

Recommended Posts

Hello, 

Once upon a year two core factions get a dualbox with extra scenarios and fluff.. First were Terrans and Dindrenzi followed by Directorate against Aquans another year

Relthoza and Sorylians have now one less Tier 1 unit than Ter + Dind and 1 less Tier 1 and 2 less Tier 2 units than Directorate and Aquans.. 

My question is.. can we expect a little love from game developers to the two very interesting alien factions at the January 2016? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure? Did Spartans talked about it somewhere and I missed it? :)

 

I have no inside information.  That being said, It would follow the pattern, the Arachnids and Lizards are next to get a box set.  Also, pay close attention to the community campaign.  It reads like it is setting up a box set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might get cyberwarfare someday because according to fluff we are making business with Directorate and their technology..  

Honestly Relthoza is pretty strong in offensive zone. We are hurt badly after turning off cloaks which we eventually have to do in order to win..so it's tricky to say what to change. 

 

The current problem for me is that right now you have cruisers for 180 points which are really strong AD wise but they are not durable. And then you have heavy cruisers for 270 points which are awesome but the price is high.. It would be cool to have something between the 180 and 270 gap. Maybe 3 durable gunships for 75 points. They could have higher survivability 6/7 or 5/8? 5HP, 7mv, TL1" and sacrifice for example some firepower, AP and maybe torpedoes too? Its up to focus group but some option between 180 - 270 points gap would be very useful for me.  

Maybe I just need to adapt my playstyle and everything is ok.. hard to say really. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not greedy at all :lol: A medium ship with a cloak and 6/7 or 5/8 is pretty much insane and would be even more expensive than your current heavy cruisers. If you want something in the middle then be reasonable and expect something like 5/6, 4/7 or maybe 5/7 with 5HP. This is exactly in the middle or close to heavy crusier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really Kurgan, our heavy cruiser is 90 points with 5/7, 6HP and he has insane firepower, torpedoes and AP. I suggest to lower our firepower, AP, PD, HP, discard torpedoes and have better durability by 1DR or 1 CR for 75 points its very reasonable suggestion. Your heavy cruisers have cloak, 5/7, 6HP with reasonable firepower for 80 points. I suggested ship with 6/7 5HP, less AD than your HCr, no torpedoes, lesser movement, AP, PD. 

 

Cloak is really overestimated. It's the only defense system that gives same penalty to attacker and defender and with rules clarification people can take advantage by using terrain to make our ship harmless with cloak on. Sure cloak will help you on turn 1 to not receive any damage but most ships dont have any significant AD on this distance (Dindrendzi do). So on turn 2 you usually run into second range band, turn off your cloak and your stealth systems dont work here either so you are leaved with above-average firepower and under-average durability. 

 

 

I don't feel greedy really. I just want to sacrifice firepower and attack options for durability which feels reasonable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel greedy really. I just want to sacrifice firepower and attack options for durability which feels reasonable to me.

 

 

 

I agree with you. And what do you think about the way in which cloak works in Planetfall? How this can work in Firestorm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I agree with you. And what do you think about the way in which cloak works in Planetfall? How this can work in Firestorm?

 

I don't think I'm able to judge it objectively. I will leave it to focus group and wait for result.. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really Kurgan, our heavy cruiser is 90 points with 5/7, 6HP and he has insane firepower, torpedoes and AP. I suggest to lower our firepower, AP, PD, HP, discard torpedoes and have better durability by 1DR or 1 CR for 75 points its very reasonable suggestion. Your heavy cruisers have cloak, 5/7, 6HP with reasonable firepower for 80 points. I suggested ship with 6/7 5HP, less AD than your HCr, no torpedoes, lesser movement, AP, PD. 

 

Cloak is really overestimated. It's the only defense system that gives same penalty to attacker and defender and with rules clarification people can take advantage by using terrain to make our ship harmless with cloak on. Sure cloak will help you on turn 1 to not receive any damage but most ships dont have any significant AD on this distance (Dindrendzi do). So on turn 2 you usually run into second range band, turn off your cloak and your stealth systems dont work here either so you are leaved with above-average firepower and under-average durability.

 

5/7 is reasonable, something higher starts to get really expensive or it has to trade firepower. Look at the new Aquan Sulis Heavy Crusier, it has 6/7 with 1 shield, one crappy gun and a crystal for 60 points. It is great as a fleet tool, but can't do much by itself. If you want something like this than I think it is possible, but anything with higher firepower would be very close in cost to your current heavy cruiser.

 

We have to get a play together where you play without cloaks as Directorate is pretty much capable of insane firepower up to 30". Beowulf and Godspell could tell you how they lost their Battleship on turn 1 or got it crippled even though it has 2 shields. This won't and can't happen to Relthoza as you get safely to your RB2 and then unleash hell.

 

 

I agree with you. And what do you think about the way in which cloak works in Planetfall? How this can work in Firestorm?

 

You can't incorporate it in the same way as in PF models have much higher AD output due to combining all the time and models have much fewer HP. It would be pretty impossible to destroy anything larger than a cruiser in FSA without explosive sixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right. I'll get more games during summer to judge better. I already spend too much money and painting time on my fleet so I better get used to it. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rework cloaks completely? Yeah, no. The math might not support Cloaks being good, but Rel Cloaks are stacked with Stealth Systems, the combination of which makes them near impossible to hurt at range.

If we're going to rework any part of cloaks, the only thing that's within good reason to change without restatting the fleet as a whole (and I swear on me dear mum, do not suggest that. The fleet ain't broke, just... trust me, please?) is how a cloaked ship's attacks interract with terrain. It really should be either Impeded In, Impeded Out or Halved but not Impeded In, Halved but not Impeded Out. As it is, it A: defies the need for hard-and-fast logic and internal consistency, and B: doesn't make any sense. An invisible ship (presumably with more than just light-spectrum cloaking technology active) hiding behind an asteroid field is as easy to hit as a ship making no attempt beyond also hiding behind an asteroid field to mask its presence?

Or maybe we just need better AD or acces to Coherence Effects in our Mines and Torpedoes to let us do more before we drop cloaks. I don't know. What I do know is that it's hard to balance stealth tactics in a game like this. This is more interesting than a simple modifier or save, gives players a tactically significant choice to make, and doesn't contribute to "op-ness" of any faction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.