Jump to content
S..Mike

3rd Edition Turn Order

Recommended Posts

Should have posted this earlier.  These are the timing of actions, etc.

Setting up the game

  1. Determine Strategic (Defender) and Operational (Attacker) Dominance
  2. Determine Scenario
  3. Set up the battlefield
  4. Standard Deployment
    • Roll 2d6 plus fleet tactics to determine who goes first.  Player with operational dominance adds an extra +1.  Winner of the roll chooses who deploys first
    • Place squadrons in reserve for later shunting in.  Remaining squadrons deploy in order of size.  All models of a particular size deploy before the next category.
      1. Stations and Platforms
      2. Massive squadrons
      3. Large Squadrons
      4. Medium Squadrons
      5. Small Squadrons
  5. Scout Deployment
    • Only applies if a squadron has the Scout MAR.   
    • Once a squadron is deployed, it can make an immediate, free movement action.
    • Players alternate until all Scouts have deployed.
  6. Ready to begin.

The Order of Play

Each turn has a number of phases:

  1. Faction Orders Phase
  2. Initiative Phase
  3. Reserve Phase
  4. Squadron Activation Phase
    1. Command Segment
      1. Terrain effects, if any
      2. Disengage Cloak, if desired
      3. Check command distance (squadron coherency).  Squadrons out of command distance gain a disorder marker.
    2. Movement Segment
      1. Execute command movement orders
        • Full Stop
        • Fold Space Escape
        • Emergency Vectoring
        • Gravitational Slingshot
      2. Standard Movement
    3. Ranged Combat Segment
      1. Declare all attacks
      2. Resolve Direct Weapons
        1. Choose attack to resolve
        2. Check LOS and Firing Arc
        3. Measure range
        4. Compile attack dice
        5. Roll attack dice
        6. Roll shield dice (if available)
        7. Apply damage and critical effects, remove destroyed models
        8. Next attack
      3. Resolve Indirect Weapons
        1. Choose category of attack (Grav, Cyber, Torp) to resolve
          1. Allocate defensive fire, if available
          2. Pick attack to resolve
          3. Check Firing Arc
          4. Measure range
          5. Compile attack dice
          6. Roll attack dice
          7. Roll PD dice (if available)
          8. Roll shield dice (if available)
          9. Resolve next attack in the category
          10. Apply all damage and critical effects, remove destroyed models
          11. Move on to next category
    4. Boarding Segment
      1. Declare all targets
      2. Compile Assault dice pool, roll dice
      3. Compile PD dice pool, roll dice
      4. Subtract PD from Assault, compare to Boarding Result Table
    5. Consolidation Segment to resolve various effects, game markers, etc.
  5. End Phase
    1. Check for End of Game, dependent on scenario.
    2. Resolve Disorder effects
      1. May spend command points to remove disorder markers at a rate of one marker per command point
      2. Medical shuttles attempt to remove disorder and/or crew loss
      3. Remaining disorder markers are converted to CP loss.  If CP=0, then they are converted to HP loss
    3. Damage Control
      1. Repair Craft attempt to repair HP loss
      2. May spend a command point to remove a persistent critical hit effect (Main Drive Offline, FIre Control, etc) at a cost of one point per marker
      3. Rushed Repairs.  May roll 1d6 to attempt repairs.
        • On a 1, the repair effort was botched.  Remove the marker, take 1 HP damage
        • On a 2-4, the marker remains
        • On a 5-6, the marker is removed
    4. Rationalize other markers that may be present.  Temporary terrain effects, etc.  This is the final clean-up.
  6. Next turn, if the game isn't over.

Whew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, two things- one is just a curiosity, I've got no real thoughts on it either way, but what's with the Attacker Defender business? What design niche or issue does it address? Will there be missions where both sides have equal footing, ie., no attacker/defender?

 

Secondly, shouldn't you rationalize tokens and such before checking for endgame? Hypothetically, disorder markers can kill ships, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hive said:

So, two things- one is just a curiosity, I've got no real thoughts on it either way, but what's with the Attacker Defender business? What design niche or issue does it address? Will there be missions where both sides have equal footing, ie., no attacker/defender?

 

Secondly, shouldn't you rationalize tokens and such before checking for endgame? Hypothetically, disorder markers can kill ships, right?

The attacking side gets a +1 bonus to the initiative roll.  The defender gets +1 command point each turn, up to the original max.  The rules call it Operational and Strategic Dominance, but attack/defend sticks in my head better.

Yes, a disorder could kill a ship.  You just get one more turn to try and work out a victory, as written presently.  Could just as easily be moved around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to say I'm not a fan of having to deploy your fleet by size class.  Initial setup is an often-overlooked part of a strategy and can give a good tactical player a significant advantage.  Being forced to put out your centerpiece models right off the bat makes it effectively impossible to run a refused flank or other trick deployment, particularly with the modification to the scouts rule.

Speaking of scouts, I liked the old version (warping Battlestations!), but I'm OK with the new one.  I think you're probably trying to reign it in a bit and speed things up by not forcing squadron re-deployments, but it's another item in the bag of tricks that will be less useful in the new edition.  It also seems weird that you're now moving during deployment.  I think the Planetfall version is better with a separate scout move phase instead of potentially placing a squadron and moving it, when you still have more to place. Seems a more compact and intuitive version of the rule where you just deploy scouts along with whatever class they're in (which I absolutely hate, as already noted) and then move them before the first turn, alternating if needed.

Also, how does Ambush deployment work in the new system?

Share this post


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

The attacking side gets a +1 bonus to the initiative roll.  The defender gets +1 command point each turn, up to the original max. 

Is it really necessary?
The Strategic/Operational advantage (or whatever it  was called) was a very complicated and unnecessary part of DW 2.0... why not just get rid of all this altogether?
At the beginning of the game, just roll without adding anything; the winner decides who deploys first, this player will also decide who goes first. Then, from the second turn on, the Fleet Tactics is used (or, if you prefer, it's used from the beginning, or there's another roll... you get the point :) )

Simple as that... why messing with game-lasting bonuses? Do they really add depth, or just add nuisance for the players?

Share this post


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

Is it really necessary?
The Strategic/Operational advantage (or whatever it  was called) was a very complicated and unnecessary part of DW 2.0... why not just get rid of all this altogether?
At the beginning of the game, just roll without adding anything; the winner decides who deploys first, this player will also decide who goes first. Then, from the second turn on, the Fleet Tactics is used (or, if you prefer, it's used from the beginning, or there's another roll... you get the point :) )

Simple as that... why messing with game-lasting bonuses? Do they really add depth, or just add nuisance for the players?

Well, one idea behind it was that the attacking side has a little more control over the flow of battle...where, when to attack, they have a plan.  The defender has more access to resources, since it is their turf.

As to the design reasons/mechanics/and whether its good game theory, I'll defer to Spartan Derek on that one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any word on the finality of the proposed deployment order?  I still think Scouts is in a weird place with a combined place/move in their own phase instead of placed as normal and then moved in a pre-game phase (as in PF).  I also really, really dislike taking away most of the tactics with deployment by forcing you to put your biggest models down first (which is aggravated by the Scout change).  There's going to be little strategy in this phase now as you have to put your most valuable units front-and-center for your opponent to consider instead of attempting to bait them into making a tactical mistake by reacting to distraction drops.  This eliminates or greatly reduces the effectiveness of multiple deployment strategies.  Maybe reverse the order as a quick fix (or leave Stations/platforms first as they're semi-permanent fixtures and then reverse the rest)?  It even makes sense from a fluff perspective; no way is the Dreadnought showing up to scope out the battlefield before his Frigate pickets show up.

Also, I see a specific mention of shunting in later.  Is outflank still an option too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Paladin21 said:

Any word on the finality of the proposed deployment order?  I still think Scouts is in a weird place with a combined place/move in their own phase instead of placed as normal and then moved in a pre-game phase (as in PF).  I also really, really dislike taking away most of the tactics with deployment by forcing you to put your biggest models down first (which is aggravated by the Scout change).  There's going to be little strategy in this phase now as you have to put your most valuable units front-and-center for your opponent to consider instead of attempting to bait them into making a tactical mistake by reacting to distraction drops.  This eliminates or greatly reduces the effectiveness of multiple deployment strategies.  Maybe reverse the order as a quick fix (or leave Stations/platforms first as they're semi-permanent fixtures and then reverse the rest)?  It even makes sense from a fluff perspective; no way is the Dreadnought showing up to scope out the battlefield before his Frigate pickets show up.

Also, I see a specific mention of shunting in later.  Is outflank still an option too?

Seconded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games are won or lost during deployment...

...is perhaps not entirely true. Deployment can however decide whether the rest of the game is going to be an uphill battle or not. This makes deployment options an important aspect of list building, which is where tier 3's  really shine. Tier 3's add extra deployments and activation's giving even the more noncompetitive tier 3 options value on the strategic level. 

This new system unfortunately removes this balance and instead turns it on its head. When tier 3s are deployed last the value of hard hitting and competitive tier 3 squadrons rise while the noncompetitive tier 3's now become one step closer to being a tier 3 tax.

And as the other posters have already commented on, tactics like refused flanks will be a thing of the past or rather a self inflicted malaise.
Let me explain: in new system if you lose the deployment roll of you must deploy one of you heavier squadrons before anything else is placed on the table. You now have 2 options:

1) place it in the center
2) place it off center. This option would in most games result in the opponent refusing that flank making it a non option. 

This makes the deployment for most battles in 3rd mostly "line up and shoot" as most unorthodox deployment options are removed and heavier ships get concentrated further in the center. If afraid this change will remove some of the importance of maneuver warfare that really made this game shine. 

Now the only positive i can see in this new system is that deployment might become slightly faster and perhaps fluffier (even though i find the notion that any commander would commit his best troops first unrealistic). Im no expert is there some other advantage that i missed. I mean no disrespect, im not trying to fling mud at the new system just trying to understand.

disclaimer: terrain and objective will of course have a major impact on deployment possibly rendering above analysis untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the fluff:   When initiating a fold-space maneuver, the principle cyclotron has to generate a field strength strong enough to move the mass of the ship.  The particular physics of this are outside of the scope of this report, but the field strength is directly proportional to the ship mass.  As such, the fold space event horizon (the 'surfers wave') is more easily detectable for larger ships.  Installations are more easily discernible than other types of craft because they tend to be more uniform and spherical in nature.

My notes from the beta:   I initially argued that it ought to be the other way around, with the Small craft coming in to screen the Capital ships.  And yes, the 'good' Small squadrons are valuable...they always have been.  In my testing, we did both, and rather found that it wasn't that big of a deal (large or small first).  It changed the way we set up, but no operations plan survives first contact, so I was fine with going Large->Small.   

Like many other things, the wider feedback from individual games and tournaments will help out here.  Who knows, perhaps some crafty scientist will come up with a new way to differentiate fold space signatures, enabling better intel on the battlefield...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think someone would have just said "Oh hey guys, start the jumps on the Smalls 30 minutes before we spool up!".  It doesn't take a revolution in technology to make a really bad strategical mistake go away, it takes 30 seconds of thought.  Hell, if these waves only come along every so often, you have your scouts catch one and pop in at an appropriate distance away from the actual objective that they can spend the time between waves advancing towards it and scouting.  Time between waves can't be *that* bad, or shunt deployment would never work due to the impossibility of making sure a fight happens to be going at the same time a wave is going through (ie, any competent opponent would refuse to fight until secure from unexpected guests).

If it's a fixed decision, it's a fixed decision.  I don't want to be rude, but I'm not sure how else to state this: if you found that deploying your centerpiece (and almost always slowest) models first didn't have a significant difference between deploying light models first, I'd have to question the value of your testing.  When you plunk down a Large/Massive/Station, you've drawn a line in the sand and said "I'm fighting here, do your worst."  When you deploy some light units, it means nothing.  They aren't the centerpiece of your fleet and have enough speed to get back into the fight anyway if you decided to put them on a far flank to encourage bad counter-deployments.  Even more so if they had Scout (though this is completely borked with the new Scout, since somehow Scouts show up *last* to a fight).

Share this post


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

-Fluff-

I have no issue whit larger ships being more easily detected(though the explanation for installations is a bid odd, should waves deflect in more noticeable ways from less uniform objects?), but still find it unlikely that you would simply warp in your best ships blindly in most engagements, surely sending in the light ships and making sure you wont hit an asteroid or a minefield once you "land" would be a smart idea. 

I just hope this change wasn't made to be more "fluffy" because i could whip up a number of good reasons to keep the old system while still keeping within the current fluff. 

14 minutes ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

My notes from the beta:   I initially argued that it ought to be the other way around, with the Small craft coming in to screen the Capital ships.  And yes, the 'good' Small squadrons are valuable...they always have been.  In my testing, we did both, and rather found that it wasn't that big of a deal (large or small first).  It changed the way we set up, but no operations plan survives first contact, so I was fine with going Large->Small. 

My issue was more that the value of "good" smalls is increasing while the value for "bad" ones are decreasing. The added strategic value was the same for every squadron thus some of the difference between good and bad tier 3 choices.

I am especially worried for those factions that have slow and short ranged tier 1 options. In 2nd not deploying these in ineffective areas could be ensured by taking enough tier 3s to keep the squadron count up, now this wont be an option and they must now deploy in the middle to ensure their relevance. These squadrons simply don't have the option of not carefully planning their deployment.

But perhaps i'm just making mountains out of molehills, i haven't played 3rd yet after all. I'm just confused by this change as it doesn't seem to add much to replace the options it removed. I guess its a case of if it ain't broken..

18 minutes ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

Like many other things, the wider feedback from individual games and tournaments will help out here.  Who knows, perhaps some crafty scientist will come up with a new way to differentiate fold space signatures, enabling better intel on the battlefield...

Its good to hear you guys a open to feedback and good to experience how quick you respond to our endless questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Paladin21 said:

I don't want to be rude, but I'm not sure how else to state this: if you found that deploying your centerpiece (and almost always slowest) models first didn't have a significant difference between deploying light models first, I'd have to question the value of your testing.

This is just me and my very local metagame.  We've never worried a lot about initial placement, which I know sounds weird.  Just how we play.  But my feedback wasn't the deciding factor, just a piece of it.  In the end, this method is where the group came down on.

11 minutes ago, Fluffhunter said:

I just hope this change wasn't made to be more "fluffy" because i could whip up a number of good reasons to keep the old system while still keeping within the current fluff. 

No, the fluff came after.   

 

11 minutes ago, Fluffhunter said:

Its good to hear you guys a open to feedback and good to experience how quick you respond to our endless questions.

Going to try. :)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2017 at 11:17 PM, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

The attacking side gets a +1 bonus to the initiative roll.  The defender gets +1 command point each turn, up to the original max.  The rules call it Operational and Strategic Dominance, but attack/defend sticks in my head bette

so if I don't use any command points and I'm at my max points I do not get any more even though I'm the defender? CORRECT

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.