Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Planetfall Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

What if pinpoint only reduced the second damage level instead of all of the damage levels? For example a 6/5/5 unit attacked with pinpoint would become 6/3/5. This would help it deal with units having multiple armor levels without having to have its ad reduced to keep it in line with other weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pinpoint Weapons have always had reduced AD pools. Didn't you notice that Aquans have the worst AD on all those PP weapons when compared to others of the same class of vehicle? Depending on the PP rating (which may require adjustments for higher ratings) this may actually give space for higher AD since the results are consistent and predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my feedback on the rules Synopsis:

Amalgamation of Factions and Model Availability within Helixes – Looks good. Just make sure there are not bad options when there are options. For example, if you aren’t trying to kill infantry, it is hard to see why anyone would take a Directorate Informer squadron when the Directorate Anarchist is so much better even if it is more expensive.

Purchase of Command Points – Not very happy about this section. First of all, how in the world can it be balanced for Sorylians and Directorate be able to purchase Command Points for 1/3 the cost of Aquans and Dindrenzi? 90 points give Sorylians/Directorate 18 CP, Terrans/Relthoza 9, and Dindrenzi/Aquan 6? I’d much rather see a no-purchase system where each force gets a certain (if uneven) amount of CP based on MFV. For example, per 500 points (or fraction of) Sorylians/Directorate get 5 CP, Terrans/Relthoza 4 CP, and Dindrenzi/Aquan 3 CP. There is imbalance, but an orderly and planned for imbalance.

Command Orders – I am of a mixed mind on this. I like the idea of Command Orders allowing you to use CP to utilize special actions and I like most of those listed. However, I am vary wary of requiring the use of CP to achieve nearly mandatory actions (like Repair, Overwatch, Storming Actions) from a finite pool of points (especially with the cost structure presented). I would be more accepting of this idea if there was a standard pool (as I noted above) and that pool replenished so that you are never left in the position of being unable to execute any Command Orders because you spent all your CP earlier in the game.

Scenarios – Greatly needed. Looking forward to seeing them.

Core Rules
Movement – Good, good, good, bad. The Flyer Movement rules are too limiting. You just got rid of Lumbering and now you want to introduce a new movement limiting rule? You can only turn 45 degrees and the have to move your full standard move? What if there is another model there? Move any farther than standard and you have to Flat Out, which means you can’t attack?

SHOOT AND FIGHT
LOS looks good from what has been presented.
Weapon Recalibration – Seems OK now that I have seen how the weapon types are used in an ORBAT.
Disorder – Nice little changes, but see my CP and Command Order notes above.
End Phase – All Good

Nexus Designators – I like the changes.
Pinpoint MAR – See my prior post on this.
CQB vs Flyers – Good. Now make sure ground pounders can so something about flyers other than relying on Interceptor weapons, which some forces have much more available than others.
Light Infantry Specializations – Not understanding this, especially in conjunction with the ORBAT. A base squad is a Battle Squad and you can upgrade to a Sweeper Squad or a Firepower (or is it Support like in the ORBAT) Squad? You add bases of Sweepers and Gunteams to the Battle Squad (per the ORBAT), increasing the number of bases?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a concern with the Directorate/Works Raptor list. 

I would prefer that the Works Raptor became a full force of their own. I know it would take time to create and release all of their miniatures. 

With an overly flexible Core and one other helix they really are just a directorate add-on. Also too many choices for a "Core" - 3 Requisites and 4 Optional, compared to the Directorate - 3 Requisites and 1 Optional seams weird. Sure Flexible, customisable etc. but I would rather have access to Core, Heavy, Recon, Aerial, Leviathan etc. 

it is wonderful to see the Allies getting some Love. But I hope they will still grow into full Independent Forces one day. 

WA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WestAustralian said:

I have a concern with the Directorate/Works Raptor list. 

I would prefer that the Works Raptor became a full force of their own. I know it would take time to create and release all of their miniatures. 

With an overly flexible Core and one other helix they really are just a directorate add-on. Also too many choices for a "Core" - 3 Requisites and 4 Optional, compared to the Directorate - 3 Requisites and 1 Optional seams weird. Sure Flexible, customisable etc. but I would rather have access to Core, Heavy, Recon, Aerial, Leviathan etc. 

it is wonderful to see the Allies getting some Love. But I hope they will still grow into full Independent Forces one day. 

WA

I agree

each should get their own core, their existing helix, and 2 more helixes each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon review the Works Raptor core is just a Weirdly sorted repetition. It should have 1-2 for each of the 3 Requirements. Also the UXB-187 changes from Massive to Heavy. So the listing is a bit confusing but ultimately similar to other cores. 

I still don't like the fused forces. While I like the close relationship between natural allies, I don't think this is the best way to represent them. Yes it does mean I can take a WR core with Directorate Helix add ons. But that could be done by mirroring the Natural Allies relationship. 

I will be fine with this if

1) all previous Allied forces can still be made

2) the Allied forces get fully developed over the next couple of years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ranged CQB: This has reverted to being a Weapon in the same way as other ranged weapons with a 
notable difference – Players can have a squadron that was not engaged by the enemy with a CQB 
Attack this activation to fire their CQB weapons out of sequence if desired – this is only possible if the 
reacting unit has no Activation Marker."

Does this mean that units can support each other if CQB'd a helpful addition if so esp for my Terrans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seam to make sense to me that arty strikes would ignore shields.  While its logical that an explosion would negate the hard target rules of small (infantry) or floating (hover), shields should protect in all directions.

Additionally, from a game balance point, it would make those races that have a higher than average DR and no shields unreasonably harder to hurt with arty than those whose defense includes shields as the proposed arty all deals the same damage. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using tactic values or whatever (forgot the term used) to determine command point cost Will lead to imbalances. It would be better to simply start each faction with an amount based on the game size - the forces tactics value.

Maybe starting with 1 command per every 500 or 1000pts and - their starting tactical values. The simply payout the same for additional command points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the reason for the current approach is to try to balance almost always being behind an activation vs. getting more flexibility with your activations for each force.  I see what they're doing, but if they don't consider the orders available very carefully, it's going to be bad.  There's advantages for both sides, they just need to be equalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CoreHunter said:

Using tactic values or whatever (forgot the term used) to determine command point cost Will lead to imbalances. It would be better to simply start each faction with an amount based on the game size - the forces tactics value.

Maybe starting with 1 command per every 500 or 1000pts and - their starting tactical values. The simply payout the same for additional command points.

I asked Neil if you will start with some number of command points with the option to buy more he said you would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't play a mirror-match, but I did put together two forces and have them face-off.  I don't have the exact lists in front of me, but one was more-or-less traditional (ie, stuck mainly to the current helix structure as a take-all-comers list) and the other one was out of left field.  Second force had 3 Ground Commands, 2 Heavies, 2 Interceptors.  I probably could have used the Command Orders better in some aspects, but mainly wanted to see what would happen with the new Orbital Strike rules.  It was...not pretty.  I had 15 Orbital Points, and enough flying designator units/points to set off 7 zero'd strikes the first turn and another 4 the second.

I strongly suggest that something is done to reign this in; getting hit repeatedly with unanswerable, undefendable attacks is not going to be much fun for people.  While placed strikes were the source of a lot of imbalance in the v1 rules, so far it looks like Orbital is potentially much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likes:

That you are sharing plans. Thanks  

Pinpoint change

LOS change - any part of base always had the wrong feel

Scenarios very welcome, we always end up with straight line up fights

Dislikes:

Hard target 1 when moving flat out - feels wrong for medium and large vehicles when they're really pretty big targets

Shooting hit bonus for not moving - it's really powerful and encourages a static game. 

Negative hit modifier on overwatch - means it's rarely worth using

Overall comment:

Previous announcements made me think this was a radical overhaul to make the game much quicker and slicker. I was imagining 'halo' type changes, with special dice and card's , or a 'taskforce' type approach. This feels more like tweaking the existing game.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GT3000 said:

Planning to do one this weekend. Any chance we can see those renders from Salute? Also what's the status of tourney support or Vanguard applications for PF/FSA for the future.

Spartan Linde has previewed the Beta team a FSA tournement guide. Some bits I like. Some I dont. Ill probably be releasing stuff for Warfare for people to get their teeth into at some point soon too, which is kind of the UK "standard" if you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typo - The 2 primary pacifier plasma cannons (say the 3 times quickly...) on the Wraith have mis-matched rangband values. Left goes 12/24/36/48, right goes 4/12//24/48.

General thought - Not a fan of using command points to be able to repair damage effects. If the number is a small limited pool then I can see players hanging onto them to repair stuff, rather than doing cool stuff. (same for Armada). I'd rather see command points grant re-rolls to repairs or something. (leaving experienced engineers to repair on +1 bonus). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2017 at 3:47 PM, Muncipoo said:

Previous announcements made me think this was a radical overhaul to make the game much quicker and slicker. I was imagining 'halo' type changes, with special dice and card's , or a 'taskforce' type approach. This feels more like tweaking the existing game.....

that was also a major concern for me, just didnt want to play halo with pf minis.

btw...nothing wrong with halo , just not 2 very similar game styles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I'll caveat this with I haven't had a chance to test the changes yet.

All-in-all looks a promising shift in the game although I do have a number of queries/observations:

 

General:

  1. Command Points: I can see what you’re trying to achieve and I think it’s a good move.  My concern is that it adds a bookkeeping element to a game that you’re trying to make fast flowing.  Considering the number of CPs that are likely to be needed, either a refresh mechanism or the purchase is D3/D6 CPs rather than 1.  Would also suggest bumping-up the number of free CPs from the command barge.
  2. Scenarios: Look forward to seeing these as the game really needs them.
  3. Movement: All good except fliers.  I can see you’re trying to simulate the speed of fixed wing aircraft however, I’m concerned it will make them difficult to manoeuvre with only a 45 degree pivot available (especially strafing as I notice all the ground attack weapons have changed to forward arc) - just tying to stay on the board will be a challenge!  I think up to 90 degree pivot at the start may be more appropriate.
  4. Terrain movement: Are you intending to change the terrain rules, i.e. allow tracked/wheeled to move through woods?
  5. Shooting: LOS change - finally!
  6. From the diagram, will terrain interaction with LOS change (currently woods only block LOS for light units)?
  7. Weapons: all fine, easier to explain now.
  8. CQB: Does CQB still happen at the same sequence point or is it now lumped into main ordinance firing?  Does the target of a CQB attack still get simultaneous return fire?  At what point is the out of sequence reactive CQB for other units resolved (before/after/simultaneous with the interrupted unit)?  If a flier initiates CQB using dogfight or strafing run, can the target return fire using CQB?
  9. Forlorn Hope: makes sense, and easier to resolve.
  10. Repairs: Eeek!  That’s going to be painful with all the cyber and corrosive.
  11. TV: All good, might get past turn 2/3 now.
  12. Zero presence: excellent, agree completely.
  13. Nexus: I like the change.  Could you clarify the Sky Drop part - as far as I understand it, each sky drop marker is one use?  The player places as many as they want (from their pool) anywhere on the table at the start of a game turn (is this rolled if the opponent wants to place? and is there still the minimum separation?).  Can the player bring multiple sky drop units in on a single marker?  In the end phase of that turn the marker is discarded and cannot be used again?
  14. Pinpoint: far better, rally scary now.
  15. Helix structure: Does the existing helix “force diagram” remain or is it a free-for-all on what you pick (i.e. could I just take 5000 points of Aerial Helices or do I still need a Core, max 2 aerial/recon and so on)?

 

Directorate/WR Orbat:

 

Wraith:

  • What sort of flier is it?  Assuming it should it have strafing run otherwise its’ CQB is pointless.
  • As mentioned by others, Pacifier range bands

 

Stalker:

  • I know the change came in the last Orbat however, why are these now only attachable to heavy tanks?

 

Patriots:

  • Is the Grand Company limited to either Sweeper or Support or can it take both?

 

Shade:

  • How does Hit and Run work with a flier?

 

Ghost:

  • Medium sized, really?

 

Punisher Drone:

  • Why does this have a CQB value when it doesn’t have dogfighter or strafing run?  Currently it can’t use it against anything?
  • Should this have hard target per the other light vehicles? (I know it would get this for being a moving flier)

 

Forneus:

  • Should this have hard target per the other light vehicles?

Hellion:

  • CQB query per punisher drone
  • Hard Target query per Punisher Drone

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All!

 

I'm going to post the Firestorm Planetfall Force Lists for the Core-6 a little earlier than intended. The Firestorm Armada Beta Group has just had their rules/starting stats issued, which gives me time to redirect to FSPF Force Lists.

 

I am aiming to get the other 5 Factions to you all by Monday the 8th (11 days ahead of schedule!) so that everyone can give the new system a try and hopefully provide some feedback in Battle Reports. :P

 

Cheers,

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.