Jump to content
S..Mike

3rd Edition Weapons Systems

Recommended Posts

 

59 minutes ago, Sniddy said:

I kinda stayed out of it, exploding adds around 0.11 per dice so yeh on a 3 dice shield roughly one in 3 times it prevents one more success, I saw it more of another tiny thing to remember, which while cool only has minimal impact - I though I'd missed something, glad to hear I'm not alone     

A roughly 11% change in effectiveness of a core faction mechanic throws all balancing by costs completely out of whack though (again, I KNOW such balancing is never perfect anyway, I just object to things that automatically make it harder/impossible--rock/paper/scissors is bad).  Terran ships will be effectively over-costed against Kinetic enemies (and factions like Dindrenzi will either by under-costed against shield users or over-costed against non-shield factions).  Seems like we're stuck with it though.  Ah well.  2.0 has negatives too, just have to wait to see if the positives of 3 outweigh the negatives.

Share this post


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

I really would like to know why terran players think that a slight downgrade in defenseive dice pool is such a massive, detrimental nerf. Nobody seems to answer this. The odds of getting chaining sixes are less likely to occur than just getting the 2 successes on a single six. What is with this doomsaying?

I've experienced it first hand on both sides of the coin playing Planetfall.  My play experience the last two years has been that non-exploding shields is a total screw-over to Terrans.  Also as a primarily Dindrenzi Planetfall player, I don't like the Kinetic rules in it since it's really a screw to my Terran opponent and it also doesn't help me do jack-$#!t against other factions. As a player of both Terran/Hawker and Dindrenzi, the new versions in V3 are a mutual screw-over.  As a Hawker player, Cyberwarfare is **** now, it's the worst thing I've seen so far. The one thing I hate more about new editions than anything else. TAKING AWAY MY OPTIONS!!!  I used to be able to plan my attacks, strategise, target this specific  subsystem to setup for a following attack from another fleet asset. It required forethought, planning, strategy and patience to reap the payoff, and it was GREAT!  But NOOOO, now I don't have any choice at all, I just get to randomly roll $#!t on some damned table and hope I get what I need.

I also don't like the Cloak = Hard Dice thing, as Directorate player it never really did much for me. For the Relthoza in Firestorm it's a total deathcurse.  I play against a Relthoza fleet regularly in V2 and Endrasalem has a difficult time not getting his fleet wrecked by me with half-dice cloak. With Hard Dice cloak, based on our Taskforce and Planetfall game, (unless Spiders get some serious stat upgrades) I predict Relthoza players will be getting table wiped regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Kinetic rule stands, then I don't thjink I'm going to be bothering with bringing V3 up in my group.  We've not been paying for about a year, what's another few?  V21 Terrans could have some uphill fights with Dindrenzi since they had more range and firepower, but you powered forward with your shields sectored, and hoped for some hot rolls.  Now, since their basic weapons that they pay nothing extra for are going to help bypass the primary defense that Terrans pay a lot of points to have, 

There's room on my shelf beside my Planetfall stuff for the Fleet.  And I could use he carry case for other things these days.  

I just have no interest in going into what feels like a stacked situation every time I play.  

Maybe I'm wrong and it'll just be raining shields on Terran ships, and a cruiser can have up to 4-5 shields.  But I doubt it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so not trying to be a jerk here.  Take this how you wish.

The Kinetic WAR will be part of the rules for 3rd Edition.  I cannot help you any more on the why's of this.  Please PM Spartan Derek and/or Spartan Neil and take up the case with them if you wish to continue discussion on this rule decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeeeeah... Unless I'm missing something, Armada came first and paved the way for Planetfall... I'm not gonna question the in-game why- my experience is the factions lacking shields tend to get slagged by strong foreward firepower anywho, so to me it's a boost against fleets that would normally wade through it- but it does seem quite strange that Planetfall rules are migrating into Armada, and not the other way around, or like, two-way. I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take it in any other way than what I assume was intended, which is the statement that you've gone as far as you can, and are offering it up the chain.  That's fine, I understand that.  

Being said, I won't be sending that PM.  I was in the Firestorm 2.0 Beta group, and all of my experiences have been that once a rule is decided on, you can beg/bargain/negotiate all you want, it's a waste of everyone's time.  Everyone involved has better things to do.  My group has done okay without FA for a year, we're likely to continue to do fine for however long it takes to get interesting to us again.  

 

All being said, I do appreciate the work you're doing in here Spartan_FA_Mike.  You're a credit to the company, and the task at hand.  My disdain/disgust at putting a rather obvious hard Rock/Paper/Scissors into the base game doesn't change that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question/suggestion regarding the distinction and naming of primary/secondary/tertiary weapon systems:

If I understood correctly, the game effects of these are as follows:

  • Primary: Focused fire in range bands Short and Medium; full degradation
  • Secondary: Focused fire in range band Point-Blank; half degradation
  • Tertiary: Focused fire in range band Long; no degradation

There is also a new WAR (or ist that classed as a MAR?) "encased weapon system" which prevents degradation (copying the degradation mechanic associated with tertiary weapons). Assuming the old "weapon shielding" (same degradation effect seen on secondary weapons) is also still in, this would mean that the degradation part of the primary/secondary/tertiary classification could be fully expressed via other WARs/MARs. That would leave the focused fire range bands as the sole "exclusive" effect of that classification.

There were some comments here (and in previous threads if I remember correctly) that the naming conventions are not seen as entirely intuitive, neither in regard to the degradation effects nor to the range bands associated with each class.

Given the above, could breaking up and renaming the combined classes help making this aspect of the game both more intuitive and leave more room for flexibility in future developments?

The degradation aspect could be handled via the known encased/shielded MARs/WARs, with their more intuitive names. Any weapon system that has neither of those will fully degrade, obviously.

The range bands could then be transferred into another MAR/WAR with a similarly intuitive name attached to it, something like "optimum range (range bands)" perhaps.

Together, these two could be used the recreate the effects of the current classes under more accessible labels, while also making other combinations theoretically possible.

The down side is, of course, the added space this will require in the rules and on cards/stat blocks.

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2017 at 6:09 AM, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

@Mathhammer Those are valid points.  When I played my first demo of FA, I as piloting a Dindrenzi with its Fixed Fore railguns, and it was interesting to have to line up the shots.  The problem we've seen over time is that if you're in a competitive game, that fixed fore 'corridor of fire' takes up a lot of time to line up just right because your opponent could (and did) require that you show the lines from base to peg.  Now, not everyone did that...but I know many of us have instances where it was an issue.  So it slows the game that way, and really since a Dindrenzi player knew he had to line up, movement for them took longer than others, on the average.

Could we ever see it come back?  Who can tell the future?  But for 3rd Edition, fixed fore has been removed.

 

 

As i thought about it changing the fixed attribute (which occurs on many races ships) leads to one other issue.

5) allows ships to fully focus on one squadron.

What I mean is take the Terran cruiser with it's fixed front beam weapon. Rarely can it focus that weapon and it's starboard or port weapon on the same squadron. Now the cruiser will simply align the corner between two ships and be able to bring it's front and starboard or port weapons to bear on the same squadron. So it will add a lot to the ships that had previously had to choose which part to apply to a squadron. Dindrenzi gun racks are usually weak enough to not matter compared to the other races fixed weapons.

O well something to add to the design notes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blut_und_glas

A Secondary weapon, by itself, does not get any degradation bonus.  Neither the Tertiary.  There are two stand-alone MARs, Weapon Shielding (weapon), and Encased Weapon (weapon) that provide the added protection.  By default, a ship with Secondary weapons is considered to start with Weapon Shielding (Secondary), and Encased Weapon(Tertiary) if they have Tertiary weapons.  Those two MARs can be added or removed from any of the weapon classifications.    I'm not a fan of auto-includes because it tends to be forgotten, especially by new players, so I advocate that they be placed on the stat card, but space limitations may overrule me in that respect.

Range bands don't have a MAR/WAR attached to them; they are simply part of the weapon block.  As currently written, there is nothing to keep us from having an 8" range band torpedo, or a 12" range band beam.  Or even to have range bands of 16" increments.  Or something entirely different.  That said, I'm not looking to mix things up like that, at this point in the process.  Beams are 10", Torpedoes are 12", Kinetics are 12", and other basic ranges are 8".  But we could add or change things in the future.

I think we have the variability we need for weapons design.  The classification is separate from the MAR, so you could see a Tertiary Kinetic, or a Primary Torpedo.  Those combinations will depend on the role the ship is looking to play, and the other racial aspects that come into play.

Did I answer your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spartan_FA_Mike I understand that Kinetic is decided upon, and I am not going to dispute it. I do have a question related to it though. In Taskforce kinetic did the same as this, the problem (to me at least ) was't that they caused shields to roll heavy dice, but that the Terran shield cruisers had no effect against kinetic. Shield cruisers allowed ships with cyclic shielding to roll exploding dice on shield rolls. Kinetics pervented this turning shield cruisers into lightly armed paper weights. Now this is how I interpreted the rules so I could be wrong on this. So my question is, How are shield cruisers going to work in the new edition?  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2017 at 6:18 PM, alextroy said:

Nuclear: Keeping the 4" Explosion for Nuclear weapons is also disappointing. Once again, we have RPS now based on how good your opponents CR is and whether your opponent takes the time to keep his ships spread out on the board. Add in the strangeness of how a weapon aimed at one ship suddenly damages ships over a wide area and you have to wonder what is going on.

@alextroy

This is my transcription error.   I should have done a direct copy/paste of the WARs.   I've corrected the above listing.  The nuclear WAR is:

"All Nuclear Munitions are considered to be Direct Weapons unless applied to Torpedo Ordnance in which case they become Indirect Weapons. If ALL weapons involved in an attack are Nuclear Munitions and the attack causes an enemy vessel to be removed from play, the target squadron gains D3-1 Disorder Markers immediately – this has a cumulative effect with any other Disorder Markers applied to the Squadron."

Share this post


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

@Spartan_FA_Mike I understand that Kinetic is decided upon, and I am not going to dispute it. I do have a question related to it though. In Taskforce kinetic did the same as this, the problem (to me at least ) was't that they caused shields to roll heavy dice, but that the Terran shield cruisers had no effect against kinetic. Shield cruisers allowed ships with cyclic shielding to roll exploding dice on shield rolls. Kinetics pervented this turning shield cruisers into lightly armed paper weights. Now this is how I interpreted the rules so I could be wrong on this. So my question is, How are shield cruisers going to work in the new edition?  Thanks. 

This is a great question.  At this point the Shield Projector MAR reads:

Shield Projector (Range): Any model within range of a Shield Projector, friendly or enemy, (including the model with the Shield Projector itself), receives a +1 ‘to hit’ modifier on any Shield Defence it rolls. The effects of being in range of multiple Shield Projectors are not cumulative. Any Attacks (friendly or enemy) originating from within the Shield Projector’s range ignore its effects. 

I'm going to ponder and see if there is something more that this class ought to do.  Kinetic certainly doesn't turn off the shields though, the Shield Cruisers still provide increased protection to the surrounding ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

@alextroy

This is my transcription error.   I should have done a direct copy/paste of the WARs.   I've corrected the above listing.  The nuclear WAR is:

"All Nuclear Munitions are considered to be Direct Weapons unless applied to Torpedo Ordnance in which case they become Indirect Weapons. If ALL weapons involved in an attack are Nuclear Munitions and the attack causes an enemy vessel to be removed from play, the target squadron gains D3-1 Disorder Markers immediately – this has a cumulative effect with any other Disorder Markers applied to the Squadron."

I think I might actually like the new Nuclear even less, and I didn't think that was possible.  Now it's a WAR that *only* works if it does the killing blow?  So you're tapping away at a squad to set this up, but roll lucky and get a crit when you expected a hit....so you start over on a new ship?  This is even more restrictive than Scatter, and I wasn't sure that could be a thing.

Also, on Shield Projectors, I would urge you to *not* make them ignore the Kinetic effect.  Having layers upon layers of trumping special rules is not the way to go, and it does nothing for other factions that are shield-reliant.  Maybe +1 shield/can't be combined with Sector Shielding?  I don't know, it would depend on how Shield Projector is costed as to how much of a benefit it could give.

Share this post


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

@alextroy

This is my transcription error.   I should have done a direct copy/paste of the WARs.   I've corrected the above listing.  The nuclear WAR is:

"All Nuclear Munitions are considered to be Direct Weapons unless applied to Torpedo Ordnance in which case they become Indirect Weapons. If ALL weapons involved in an attack are Nuclear Munitions and the attack causes an enemy vessel to be removed from play, the target squadron gains D3-1 Disorder Markers immediately – this has a cumulative effect with any other Disorder Markers applied to the Squadron."

An interesting change. Have to wonder about the quantity (d3-1 means possible 0?).  Does this change mean more availability for Nuclear weapons in the Terran fleet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paladin21 said:

Also, on Shield Projectors, I would urge you to *not* make them ignore the Kinetic effect.  Having layers upon layers of trumping special rules is not the way to go, and it does nothing for other factions that are shield-reliant.  Maybe +1 shield/can't be combined with Sector Shielding?  I don't know, it would depend on how Shield Projector is costed as to how much of a benefit it could give.

Right, Shield Projector MAR won't be changed much, it was more a consideration to see if the ship class itself ought to have utility outside of shielding (which is pretty good to be getting the extra +1, kinetic or no).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, alextroy said:

An interesting change. Have to wonder about the quantity (d3-1 means possible 0?).  Does this change mean more availability for Nuclear weapons in the Terran fleet?

They were on sale at Costco.  And since you can only buy things at Costco in the mega-family pack...well, they got a deal.  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the last round of v2 updates gave the Shield Cruiser enough guns to actually hurt other mediums, I thought it was pretty good.  When they were just effect bubbles with weapons that couldn't even hurt a frigate they were a hard buy.  You might give them an option to get the Escort property when taken as an accompaniment for a Large/Massive?  That would reinforce their support nature and give them a bit more functionality.  You might have to adjust the point totals for that though, such that they cost more when taken in a Large/Massive squad, or have a mandatory MAR they have to pay for (like fielding a Planetfall-MAR model in a normal game).

Edit: increased point totals being to ensure that they represent a meaningful choice over taking regular Escorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, alextroy said:

The Terran Alliance: helping the Dindrenzi "Remember Dramos" with every volley B)

Giving the Dindrenzi every opportunity to give their lives in rememberance of Dramos. One Nuke at a time :D

By the way thanks for answering that question for me Spartan_FA_mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

@alextroy

This is my transcription error.   I should have done a direct copy/paste of the WARs.   I've corrected the above listing.  The nuclear WAR is:

"All Nuclear Munitions are considered to be Direct Weapons unless applied to Torpedo Ordnance in which case they become Indirect Weapons. If ALL weapons involved in an attack are Nuclear Munitions and the attack causes an enemy vessel to be removed from play, the target squadron gains D3-1 Disorder Markers immediately – this has a cumulative effect with any other Disorder Markers applied to the Squadron."

Just for the purpose of clarity. 

Assume a 4 ship squad, it has zero disorder markers. Nukes kill one ship, reducing to 3. I roll a 3 on the D3, therefore 2 markers are applied, is this on a per ship basis (based on your wording no) or 2 markers to the whole squad (so 2 markers spread over 3 ships), if so who determines distribution, especially if some of the 3 may be suffering damage or CP loss. 

Edit: Depending on how Disorder marker allocation works a potential abuse/unseen effect is progressively sniping escorts from a DN with Nukes and stacking markers, just an observation.

Share this post


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

×

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.