3rd Edition Terrain

[Cernunnos]

Honestly, I think the 2.0 terrain rules were fine as written. Add more terrain types, sure, but most things were fine. I do, however, like the changes to board area terrain (comets, gravity wells, nebula) good work there.

[Commodore Jones]

 

Just now, Cernunnos said:

Honestly, I think the 2.0 terrain rules were fine as written. Add more terrain types, sure, but most things were fine. I do, however, like the changes to board area terrain (comets, gravity wells, nebula) good work there.

I agree, my group had area terrain ideas on the to-do list of things to house rule.

[S..Mike]

47 minutes ago, CoreHunter said:

6+ nothing

5 disorder marker

4 1hp

1-3 A crit

Smalls get +2 meds get +1.

That's worth taking a serious look at.  It sure streamlines the resolution of the terrain collision.   Good idea.

[Paladin21]

I like this much more than the previous version.  Fixes the issue of having the same collision probability between a corvette and a dreadnought and short-circuits a set of rolls into a concise result.  It would make a welcome change to the "more random!" approach that most of the new rules seem to favor.

[Polaris]

My 2 cents on the damage of terrain

I don't think that the dice should be based on ship toughness, yes asteroids are bad news to crash into, and should threaten any size of ship, but if it can wreck a battleship, it can obliterate a frigate, the current system favors the frigate, on a collision

granted frigates should be favored, they can maneuver,

but that's where I do like the 2.0 rules, a maneuver test, with a varying threat to follow (by chance not by DR)

everyone had to respect terrain, but beefy ships could tank through it, and smaller ships could maneuver.

 

[azrael]

Hmmmm

I will have to play this a couple of times but it just feels right that a smaller easier to turn ship should be less likely to collide.

Also like the idea of set damage depending on how bad you roll. Saves a bit of time rolling dice and means a bad result IS bad rather than let's see what the dice do. 

[S..Mike]

My goal would be that terrain can't be ignored, but for the most part, a bad roll on terrain damage should should not decide the game.  Players, not terrain, should be the ones rolling lots of exploding 6's.

I've got it in the task list to discuss a possible change.  We'll see what happens.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Spartan_FA_Mike
Oops...how much change doth three letters make!

[alextroy]

You meant to say "should not decide the game", right?

[S..Mike]

1 hour ago, alextroy said:

You meant to say "should not decide the game", right?

Heh...yeah.

[Charbe86]

Is there actually a board scale that the terrain is based on? 

Why do asteroids come in clumps rather than bands?  I know it would be a complete departure from previous rules, but so are the three boardwide effects.  

Are planets for system wars scenarios still going to be covered separately?

[S..Mike]

The current rules are suggesting 4'x4' for 1000 points, 6'x4' for larger.  

Regarding asteroids...they could be in bands.  The suggested size is 9" x 9", but nothing keeping you from changing that.

Sorry, I've no info for system wars stuff.

 

[Charbe86]

42 minutes ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

The current rules are suggesting 4'x4' for 1000 points, 6'x4' for larger.  

Sorry, I should have said that better, I meant like 1:50000.  It's just that when I started looking at this game I had an image of battles taking place throughout a solar system, but the more I learn the more it feels like I'm fighting between the orbit of two moons.  I'd be happy with a thematic answer rather than a a specific scale.

[S..Mike]

Scale in V2 was 1:10000.  I haven't seen anything to indicate that we're changing that number.

[blut_und_glas]

The 1:10000 was model scale though, wasn't it?

"Ground" scale is obviously different - has to be different, given that the pegs are meant to be the ships' footprint.

[Charbe86]

3 hours ago, blut_und_glas said:

The 1:10000 was model scale though, wasn't it?

"Ground" scale is obviously different - has to be different, given that the pegs are meant to be the ships' footprint.

That's what the rulebook says, but it never said what the "ground" scale actually is.

[WestAustralian]

On 6 August 2017 at 0:23 PM, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

<snip>

Sorry, I've no info for system wars stuff.

 

Please tell me that the System Wars ships will not be lost in the 3.0 release. Even if they get an Assault Role temporarily, it would be better than no rules. Later they could be revised for a System Wars Role  

It always annoyed me that they did not feature in Taskforce at all. 

Rules, of some sort, for all miniatures. That would be my one wish above all else. 

[murphy'slawofcombat]

On 8/3/2017 at 8:56 PM, Cernunnos said:

Honestly, I think the 2.0 terrain rules were fine as written. Add more terrain types, sure, but most things were fine. I do, however, like the changes to board area terrain (comets, gravity wells, nebula) good work there.

for the most part I do agree  with you maybe a mix with some of the good stuff from V1

[S..Mike]

2 hours ago, WestAustralian said:

Please tell me that the System Wars ships will not be lost in the 3.0 release. Even if they get an Assault Role temporarily, it would be better than no rules. Later they could be revised for a System Wars Role  

It always annoyed me that they did not feature in Taskforce at all. 

Rules, of some sort, for all miniatures. That would be my one wish above all else. 

Yes, all ships will have stats attached to them.