Jump to content
Thamoz

V2.5 orbats (initial release) thoughts and ramblings submitted here for proper scientific peer review.

Recommended Posts

G'day everyone!

First of all, welcome back Jupy and probably other people as well, including myself.
After actively participating in several tournaments dating back from 1 to 3 years ago in the Netherlands I didn't make time to play,
but now with the kickstarter and 2.5 rules,  @Farcages and @NaH2PO4aq got me back to some battle royales with the new rule sets.

I've played CoA against both previously mentioned users (using KoB and RC) and after 2 x 1000pts playtests with the new rules, I'm getting a grasp of the changes. So here's my biased opinion on some changes

  • Particle accelerator change: I agree it's lost some style/fluff factor, but it's not neccesary a nerf, In fact it might be a buff. Where previously mostly our drones where reliably capable of hitting large/massives, now our large PA's are finally useful against larges, hitting a 11AD indiscriminate PA on 3+'s will hit, and maybe crit one. Downside of course is with large slow turning vessels, trying to hit those smalls will be harder. Ideally, with covenant being a fleet of specialists, I would love to see an option to choose between both types of Particle Accelerator (just list primary/energy turrets).
  • Shields 3 on some units, nice buff
  • Boarding weakness is slightly smaller due to new boarding rules, yay there
  • Torpedoes ignoring shields and our extremely laughable CC values introduces a new weakness, but considering the shield and boarding buff that's still balanced
  • Finally my only true objection - Drone changes: To be honest, these changes/nerfs are probably overdone:
  1. Swarm tactics are now gone
  2. Redoubtable carrier points are now gone
  3. Hunter default mars are now gone
  4. All factions, not only COA, can now return scrapped SAS so that's an indirect nerf to drones as well.

    Now, drones feel weaker than other nation's SAS. In order to get even (get Hunter Aerial, Hunter Surface, Hunter Submerged) I need to not only bring specific (rather high-cost) units in my 1000p fleet list. I also have to make sure I'm within a 8" range of all those vessels. Having an increased launch range counteracts the fact you'll need to stay close for Hunter MARS.

    In conclusion, looking forward to get some more experience in with the new rules and to just play some more games. Time for revenge next week @Farcages =]

    PS. @Spartan Mike, I've heard some really good things about you, thanks a lot for all your input and most of all, the impressive amount of strong, open communication with us as a community!

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting really excited.....i have all but acquired all the land units and have got all the air recently and looking forward to using them..... Is there any tid bit towards the drone launcher on top of the Sky fortress for 2.5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome, everyone!

 

So I had my first game with v2.5 CoA yesterday against the Prussians, our lists looking something like this:

Covenant: Aristotle + Kepler, Descartes Mk2, 3x Zeno, 2x Ptolemy, 3x Plutarch

Prussia: 2x Eider Mk2, Rhine, 3x Uhlan, 4x Lahn, 4x Arminius

Everything was playing out fairly normal with the Arikepler squadron doing the heavy lifting like in most 2.0 games, and the mines dropped by the Ptolemy's helped to shuffle the Prussian fleet into one side of the map.

Then the Energy blast hit as the last activation of turn 1, and at rb3 it critted two Uhlans, severely hindering their strike capability.

Then it hit again as the first activation of turn 2, rolling for 19 AD on both Uhlans and a slightly damaged Eider (which also happened to house his Commodore). The resounding blast wiped out all three ships, essentially securing the game for me.

 

To be honest, it wasn't the most accurate field test, seeing as how the game ended so quickly I didn't even manage to turn my Aristotle around to test the new PA, but... yeah. The Descartes MKII is a really solid ship for 175 points, not to mention its very tough against the traditional Covenant weakness of boarding. Having a turreted AoE at range band 4 is incredibly powerful too, seeing as you have a chance to wipe out entire small squadrons for no reason hitting on 3+ and ignoring those pesky Small Targets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really glad the new rules don't encourage drone spam, but as others have said before, they're even worse than they were in 2.0! How is that possible? Appropriate fixes already discussed.

The torpedoes thing I get, 2.5 is designed to be quicker, which means more death, we get better at killing things, but worse at surviving them again.

With the proliferation of destructive MARs out there now, the few ships of ours with Shield 3 will barely notice any improvement compared to the larger dice pools and greater effects/reliability of enemy shooting, so it's kind of a null point.

I can only assume that so many subs in this game have to surface to shoot for game mechanics? Or is it old tech where u need an eyeball on your enemy? Still most have guns and not torpedoes - torpedoes, the classic submarine weapon??

 I'm kinda sad at seeing to many of our tactics being run forward fast for a suicide strike, hope for the best. There are ways to mitigate losses, but they're incredibly situational. For a (fluff) faction of low numbers, it seems geared towards high losses. The new repair ship mitigates this somewhat, but only in the back field. And as a large/massive it can easily be targeted by enemy vessels past the ships it may be trying to support, very unlike the RC repair vessels that can tuck in behind the mediums and larges they support.

Still u sure about the new function of the PA. PA sounds like a rail gun, (not even plasma or energy!) so now as a short range blast it simply needs a new name, or else return it to being a longer range weapon. In its new guise however, think how much more powerful (in physics terms) a PA would be if fired underwater! U may shake your own ship in firing it, but anything ahead would be devastated.

 

Im a bit confused by all the chat about how we'll get better generators, new generators, better tweaked rules etc..... I know this was 2.5 not 3.0, but why have sooooo many changes been left so late?

We were told about loads of playtesting of new rules before 2.5 hit, but if so many changes are still to come for our faction, then it will inevitably be so for others, meaning much of the playtesting done for 2.5 was wasted as the elements will be changing so much.

Are we to expect an edited rule book too or just ORBATs?

I love how involved @SpartanMike has been and all the feedback, but it seems like so many great promises of improvement..... the other factions will be hearing the same, so in balance will CoA still struggle with similar or just new problems? (U get better drones but everything costs an extra 5 points, we made the **** units better but now the models u loved aren't worth fielding, etc)

I really wanna get back into this game, but after months of hiatus I'm not seeing my fleet hitting a table any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current Orbats are just placeholders, they were put out quickly so that people could play with their fleets.  Mike has stated that SG has a new team of play-testers working on the full updates.  The new Generators and other toys will be in the full Orbat release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Shadowcatdecoy, I saw that's what had been said above. It's just an odd way to do things. But then with so many other systems being expanded and developed under Spartans little banner I suppose it's to be expected.

Just a shame that like GW we have to expect FAQ / Errata type shenanigans right after a new release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They pretty much have to do it the way they are, release existing ORBATs with just enough changes to fit the new rules, and then go back and do extensive rework and balancing to the rules later.  It is all about managing expectations and how people act about changes.  If you give them something new or more powerful, if even for a short period of time, and then take it away because it was too powerful, then they'll cry nerf and you'll never hear the end of it.  If they put out "playtesting ORBATs" without already having the "baseline ORBATs" out then those playtesting ORBATs will become the de facto 2.5 ORBATs and that will be what people expect.  So if they've done a new generator that was just too powerful in combination, and they had to take it out or change it drastically, then everyone that liked that generator would complain.  Anyone coming to the game for the first time, or coming back from a long break, and only see the playtesting ORBATs, well then they are going to have to be the baseline ORBATs for them, so if they're changing constantly or the power across them is still very inconsistent, then that will be their impression of the game.  There are also a lot of people, especially new people, that don't want to playtest and aren't ever going to give feedback, so a "less interesting but more stable" set of ORBATs is going to be best for them.

 

Did GW start doing FAQ/Errata again?  Last I played they basically refused to release anything like that even when there were blatant errors.

I'm all for FAQ and Errata because they are important to a game like this.  Especially when you've got players with many different language backgrounds so the use of language can be even muddier.  Editing is a huge amount of work and it is really easy for a small team to simply not have the resources to do as thorough of a job as possible. 

One big problem is that they probably don't have anyone on the team that isn't already very familiar with the rules and how to play.  It is very easy to read over and miss mistakes because the missing word(s) are automatically filled in by your head because you know what it is supposed to say rather than what it actually says.  Then there are also people actively looking for "loopholes" to try to exploit.  Even teams of lawyers can't get rid of all of those.  So you need a way to address those things when they come up, and reprinting a book is not a practical option (unless you sell school text books and can force everyone to buy your new copy every year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Erloas said:

Did GW start doing FAQ/Errata again?  Last I played they basically refused to release anything like that even when there were blatant errors.

I'm all for FAQ and Errata because they are important to a game like this.  Especially when you've got players with many different language backgrounds so the use of language can be even muddier.  Editing is a huge amount of work and it is really easy for a small team to simply not have the resources to do as thorough of a job as possible. 

At least Spartan do free downloadable rules that get updated.

GW makes u pay for everything and just puts out Errata documents rather than editing the actual document/book. So u have to keep flicking through original rules and errata.

Spartan's updated downloads keep everything in one place. Just a shame physical books don't update themselves cos that would be amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've now played 3 games with my 2.5 rules.

CoA won 1 lost 2.

I was destroyed by French torps and heat lances

Americans was just a rocket bombardment (the guy really likes rockest)

 

The only win was by luck against America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ha r a question regarding Target painter generators.

Could someone clarify for me regarding Target painter generators.

 

Is it only the weapons from the squadron that have activated and used the generator that get the bonus or does it benefit all squadrons in range with the named weapon type in the parenthesis that benefit for the turn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hrafn said:

I ha r a question regarding Target painter generators.

Could someone clarify for me regarding Target painter generators.

 

Is it only the weapons from the squadron that have activated and used the generator that get the bonus or does it benefit all squadrons in range with the named weapon type in the parenthesis that benefit for the turn

Unfortunately, with 2.5, only the squadron with the Painter gets the benefit. (I found out too late that a loophole in the rules allowed Russian heavy mortars to potentially hit on 2+ in 2.0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/08/2017 at 0:32 AM, Nazduruk_Bugzappa said:

Unfortunately, with 2.5, only the squadron with the Painter gets the benefit. (I found out too late that a loophole in the rules allowed Russian heavy mortars to potentially hit on 2+ in 2.0)

There was a rule even in 2.0 that said u could never hit by IDF on better than 4+. The bonus of upto +2 to hit from spotters and painters would just mean that they could more reliably hit on 4+ rather than be reduced to 5/6+.

Eg. -2 to hit from 4+ becomes 6s, but with +2 from MARSs etc meant that same shot could still land on a 4+. 

..... however, that was 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Wolfchild said:

There was a rule even in 2.0 that said u could never hit by IDF on better than 4+. The bonus of upto +2 to hit from spotters and painters would just mean that they could more reliably hit on 4+ rather than be reduced to 5/6+.

Eg. -2 to hit from 4+ becomes 6s, but with +2 from MARSs etc meant that same shot could still land on a 4+. 

..... however, that was 2.0

Actually, that 4+ maximum was only for spotting. Target painters had had different rules again

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.