Jump to content
Frans

Future FA rules

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

You can certainly consolidate Reactor Leak into Reactor Overload, giving it an effect if the critical shot itself doesn't destroy the ship.

In other words if ship isn't destroyed it would receive the effects of an reactor leak, but if the ship is destroyed it would suffer a Reactor overload. 

Security in disarray is a bit situational. If you have any ships  with boarding capabilities it could be extremely valuable battle log boost . But you have to in a position to take advantage of it. 

Share this post


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

I choose option #4: Remove Repairing.  How does this benifit gameplay or the game narrative?

I don't lose a large capital to three corrosive markers and a critical effect in two turns, one critical effect doesn't remove my ability to move my ship for the rest of the game, etc. 

Its no fun to just helplessly receive damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem repair has is the number of turns that it takes for a ship to be damaged; then experience the damage; then be repaired; then operate whilst repaired.

 

If you've got a dedicated repair ship then you've got to look at games which are going to last as many turns as possible, otheriwse the investment in buying the ship is offset by the fact that the ship primary function will only work once or twice; which as that is a chance at repair mid to late game it holds less viability than bringing another warship that instead might have a damage dealing ability. 

 

Personally I think that this means repair and support abilities have to be fast acting so that by taking the repair option you can let a ship shrug off a critical hit or high damage almost in the turn it takes that damage. Whilst this might not be "realistic" it does mean that the repair ship holds its own and has a good chance of repairing more times and makes itself more valuable for the player to have. 

 

Share this post


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

or the game narrative?

What Captain of a warship would tolerate having no engines, fire control, or point defenses in the middle of a battle? 

If you get rid of repair rolls then you need to get rid of critical effects that can be repaired.

1 hour ago, Overread said:

If you've got a dedicated repair ship then

That repair ship would have to last long enough to actually perform its repair actions. If I was fighting an opponent with a repair ship it is going to be the first thing to die.

1 hour ago, Overread said:

The main problem repair has is the number of turns that it takes for a ship to be damaged; then experience the damage; then be repaired; then operate whilst repaired

What if you had the repairs based off of the ships activations, but the effects of the critical applied when the damage is done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skyhawk I think thats the main reason why 2.0 places repairs at the end phase of the turn, so effects like PD network disrupted have some effect during the rest of the round. I suppose tying repairs to activations means running the risk of being able to turn the lights back on with the flip of a switch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on Critical Hits and Repairs are:

  1. Every Critical Hit should matter. Get rid of the Yawners and keep only the ones that will substantial impact every ship every time and balance them out a bit. For the the few that don't impact some ships (like Shield Overload), give an alternative or have a reroll.
  2. No Critical Hit should be repairable before it has a chance to have an impact. I see a few options to make this happen: Ships roll Repair after their activation is completed; You can't roll Repair in the same turn the Critical Hit was applied (can be after next activation or end of turn). Neither are prefect, but they both make you suffer the critical hit.
  3. As Critical Hits are more impactful, we could actually us with less of them in the game. Instead of rolling 1 Critical Hit each time your CR is reached, you suffer a Critical Hit when you have lost HALF your HPs
Edited by alextroy
To correct the grammar

Share this post


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

I suppose tying repairs to activations means running the risk of being able to turn the lights back on with the flip of a switch

Good point. You would have to have a delay in when you can make a repair roll. Like @alextroy said it would have to be in the next turn before a roll can be made.

1 hour ago, alextroy said:

As Critical Hits are more impactful, we could actually us with less of them in the game. Instead of rolling 1 Critical Hit each time your CR is reached, you suffer a Critical Hit when you have lost HALF your HPs

I like this idea. Criticals would become more dangerous, and it would save time as you wouldn't have as many critical repair rolls, or as many (if any) repair rolls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another side of things is that some things should be easy to repair while other things take longer to repair.  For some things where the network might be "stunned" by an overload, it may be as simple as flipping a switch to divert from one breaker to another.  For some other things, like a Reactor Leak, it may take a more concerted effort and time to complete.

There are two ways to reflect this.  Both have a repair difficulty associated with the damage requiring a certain number of successes in order to resolve the issue. 

One way a player could address this can be presented as having a limited number of repair attempts overall associated with the CP stat, meaning you have to decide what you can repair, and you can dedicate as large a repair team to the issue as capacity provides. 

The other way is that you still only get one die, and for restoring PD, it may be a 1 Repair success, while the Reactor Leak is a 3 Repair success (as an example).

Either way, a delay in actual repair, even if it is the ship's activation in the following turn, should be a consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problems with making Crits meaningful to things outside of T1s is that aside from Cyber the things that apply crit effects also apply damage. It's just as easy to lose a T2 as it is to have it actually impacted by an ongoing status effect, subject to variances in what the T2 actually is of course.

 

I'm going to advocate something crazy here. Do what you want to make repair rolls more or less impactful for the game, but if you really want to keep the crit table from feeling like a wash, get rid of it, make its replacement tighter. Here's my solution:

 

  1. Keep a 6-point table for Targeted Strikes- Main Drive Failure, Cloak/Shield/PD Offline (attacker choosing which one it impacts), Fire Control Offline, Reactor Leak, Fire, Security in Disarray
  2. If you Crit, you can choose to either add a point of damage (above the 2 for critting), do a d3 of crew damage, or roll on the Targeted Strike table. Should probably rename the table to Critical Effects or whatever, but yeah..
  3. Reactor Overload triggers when a ship loses its last hull to a double crit or higher, and the explosion has an AD equal to the Hull rather than double it.
  4. Any Targeted Strike that causes damage gets to roll on the table as well, but may choose a result before rolling- if that number is rolled, the player instead picks one. This allows a player to discard a result they don't care about and actually target one they do, while removing the five separate mini-tables. I'd throw down on the same system for boarding assaults. There should be a MAR for picking an additional result to discard.

 

Bam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Skyhawk said:

What Captain of a warship would tolerate having no engines, fire control, or point defenses in the middle of a battle? 

If you get rid of repair rolls then you need to get rid of critical effects that can be repaired.

Well, no captain, obviously.  That doesn't mean that bad things don't happen though.  I don't think we've ever had the time scale of a battle defined, but it is probably unlikely that many repairs could be made while the battle rages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Toxic_Rat said:

Well, no captain, obviously.  That doesn't mean that bad things don't happen though.  I don't think we've ever had the time scale of a battle defined, but it is probably unlikely that many repairs could be made while the battle rages.

Why not?  A partially-repaired system can make the difference between being captured, having your atoms sent on numerous separate vacations at the same time, and having a pyrrhic victory.  There are so many instances in history, as well as science fiction, where rapid repairs allowed for a ship to stay in the action.

However, you do have a point in the time scale.  If a ship can only stand up to a few minutes pounding of the same class, then there is no point, but if combat can take an hour or two before the average ship fails, then repairing can make up the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt, @Charistoph.  The quick turnaround of the USS Yorktown prior to the battle of Midway is a great example of this.  But without a time-scale, we don't have a frame of reference.  If critical hits were less frequent, but more impactful, we might be able to do with fewer repairs.  

Of course, when I'm talking about fewer repairs, I'm talking about your ships...I want to be able to repair mine all day.  :D  

Share this post


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

No doubt, @Charistoph.  The quick turnaround of the USS Yorktown prior to the battle of Midway is a great example of this.  But without a time-scale, we don't have a frame of reference.  If critical hits were less frequent, but more impactful, we might be able to do with fewer repairs.  

Of course, when I'm talking about fewer repairs, I'm talking about your ships...I want to be able to repair mine all day.  :D  

Heh, so to make it a little balanced so that not everyone is crying in some form of frustration, Repairs should be limited (probably based on CP), and maybe some repairables take more "repair tokens" to perform in some cases.  This allows for strategic decisions, and makes weapons like Hazard Beams even more nasty and useful than just boarding parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We playtested my  repair ideas as well as @Kaptyn Krys's Swinging Activation meter today in an 800pt game between Relthoza and RSN. On the one hand all my priority repairs were made on Corrosive markers and bringing my PD online, and I managed to get through the game without ever suffering from corrosive damage but dropped systems remained an issue throughout. We felt as though it was still a little to weighty on the side of the repairs, and are thinking about limiting the dice you can assign to a single repair or other methods. Four dice was usually enough to succeed a repair if I desperately wanted it back online. 

In terms of the Swinging Activation meter. I loved the idea but it really fell to the wayside in terms of deciding which squad to activate, by which I mean there was only one occasion in that game where two activations in a row made a critical difference, and that was in two frigate squads almost completely destroying an enemy battlecruiser. There are certainly strategic considerations to make but if I was going to do it again, I'd make a much bigger marker out of paper to keep track of where the meter is, and maybe put a strong personal emphasis on trying to exploit it. I'll need to play with it more to make any accurate assessment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 “Repair” is a misnomer for removing Crit Effects, cause as we know it is not removal of the damage itself. 

“Recovery” is a much better word.  

If we accept the timescale and notion that ship Crew can Recover from Crit Effects then it’s just a balancing act to implement.  

How effective are Crew?   5+?  6?  Some other Crew vs Effect dice formula?  When?  Are Capital ships better?    Are all Effects equally difficult to Recover from?  WC will figure something out if they like this idea which I hope they do.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it more the swing-o-meter is really more suited to a game with many units. Currently in Armada you only really have 3-6 squadrons anyway. (Id like to see this change!) an ARMADA should have loads of ships! 

Share this post


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

Thinking about it more the swing-o-meter is really more suited to a game with many units. Currently in Armada you only really have 3-6 squadrons anyway. (Id like to see this change!) an ARMADA should have loads of ships! 

Eeeeeh. I'd like the game to be able to SUPPORT loads of ships and not need supplemental rules to make that feasible. I would like the standard size of a game to be what would be right now the 800-1000 point range. Big games are fun, but the more I've played the more I find I like smallish games with tighter unit composition. 

Share this post


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

Eeeeeh. I'd like the game to be able to SUPPORT loads of ships and not need supplemental rules to make that feasible. I would like the standard size of a game to be what would be right now the 800-1000 point range. Big games are fun, but the more I've played the more I find I like smallish games with tighter unit composition. 

Fleets can be 800-1000 points and be 3 times the size or a quarter of the size of what you can field with 2.0.  Points are only relevant with context.

And it can be possible to set up the game with either in mind.  The question is the complexity and granularity of the rules which can make having that number of models useful for the average get together.

Share this post


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

Fleets can be 800-1000 points and be 3 times the size or a quarter of the size of what you can field with 2.0.  Points are only relevant with context.

And it can be possible to set up the game with either in mind.  The question is the complexity and granularity of the rules which can make having that number of models useful for the average get together.

Yeah, I did specify that it was what would be that points range right now, as in what ships you can fit into a fleet in that points range for 2.0, not with whatever hypothetical points system the new edition will have.  That 4-7 squad range, I guess would be better to say, though I suppose that still assumes squads stay similarly sized. I think its important to keep the lower end in mind when writing the rules, you know? In 2.0 there's no such thing as a 200 point game out of the book, between the minimum squad sizes, the points costs for those minimum squads, and the requirement to have a squad at each tier, it isn't possible without altering the core rules, which is fine and all but it does mean that very small skirmishes don't happen even though outside of fleet building the rules would probably work for it. So yeah, there's a good bit that goes into what's going to be played the most, but its worth talking about goals for that, too, because fleet building itself could potentially make or break that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stoobert Its a mutual blessing and a curse and it makes it an enigma for trying to balance. Im interested to see how other people find it in gameplay. If I'm reading the thread right people are leaning on the side of the effects rather than the recovery, and I agree. Maybe the answer is to start with a general ratio of recover to suffer chance. Base 2.0 is an even 50:50, the Repair Crews System (now officially dubbed) will have to be limited  with mechanics based off of what players feel is a fair ratio. 40:60? 30:70 is around the range I'm considering

@Hive There is something that we found on the hometable that running smaller games (of course with more developed factions so there are choices to make) meant that fleet composition meant a lot more. Is it a shunt heavy setup for my opponent this time? Am I bringing a carrier with cruisers to brawl with? Keeping your lists hidden is fun like that. 

Not that any of the major 6 factions cant have some wildly diverse fleet builds in higher point games, the stakes for what your forces need to achieve just goes up as your game sizes go down. Now being familiar with the system, 1200 point games are our usual go-to and they take around 3 hours which isnt actually bad

Share this post


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

Yeah, I did specify that it was what would be that points range right now, as in what ships you can fit into a fleet in that points range for 2.0, not with whatever hypothetical points system the new edition will have.  That 4-7 squad range, I guess would be better to say, though I suppose that still assumes squads stay similarly sized. I think its important to keep the lower end in mind when writing the rules, you know? In 2.0 there's no such thing as a 200 point game out of the book, between the minimum squad sizes, the points costs for those minimum squads, and the requirement to have a squad at each tier, it isn't possible without altering the core rules, which is fine and all but it does mean that very small skirmishes don't happen even though outside of fleet building the rules would probably work for it. So yeah, there's a good bit that goes into what's going to be played the most, but its worth talking about goals for that, too, because fleet building itself could potentially make or break that.

There is an interesting point is that the core rulebook is not needed to be affected to change half of what you are talking about.  Fleet composition is determined in the Fleet's Manual, not the core rulebook.  It wouldn't take much to alter a Patrol Fleet to be 1-2 Tier 2s and 1-3 Tier 3s.  Heck, what is even a Tier 1 and Tier 2 alters between a Battle Fleet and a Patrol Fleet in the current Fleet Manuals.  Too much rests on the ruleset to determine how large a collection can be for a game night, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a lovely graveyard we have here. Imma gonna just necro this one here. I hope you guys don't mind :)

Sooooo... Am I optimistic, or are things beginning to be stirred in the background? In the last week (after the beta for DW had been released) @Warcradle Stuart dropped some tidbits (rumour? hype? fuel for the life support? SOLID FACTS?) which made me think, that preparations are being made for the work on FSA truly begin (after the DW beta phase is completed). I know, I know, Captain Obvious to the rescue, no need to thank me :) The few things I'm talking about for those not following the facebook discussions:

 

Quote

Make it less 'Dystopian Wars in Spaaaace'. More emphasis on three dimensional combat environment.

 

Quote

Timeframe: XY:"Maybe summer of 2019??" -- "XY maybe sooner."

 

Quote

Definitely lots of terminology cleanup and background revisions. New flights stands too. Funky dice are mandatory, but death to micro dice!

 

Quote

SRS likely to be tokens rather than separately activated units. Expect a significant reworking of factions and background, but of course lots of new models too!

Now for the fun part, the speculation!!!

From these and the comparison between the DW beta and 2.0/2.5 rules, my genius mind ;) allowed me to deduct, that the departure will be greater than most of us expected. With the hint to 3D movement, I can even imagine the template to be gone and replaced with different movement rules to make things interesting (and different?).

The special dice... I don't think they will be the same as the DW ones - differentiation, and in the DW beta pdf the exploding symbol is marked by the DW logo. If this will be moulded on the dice, FSA dice should be different, which can open up (previously discussed) possibilities.

New flight stands!!! What can this mean? Similar to DFC ones with levels (3D combat)? Dropping fire arcs? The DW beta looks like it has simplified fire arcs significantly, and if FSA simplifies them further, it might mean dropping them for good in favour of something completely different (I really hope this is not the case, but I don't think it's off the table). I'm not sure how this is going to be resolved in practice, as there are a few old models with funky bases that have to be adjusted to the new ones (looking at you RSN T1 <_< )

I hope the stat card system (one side for the intact hull profile, one side for the damaged profile) is carried over from DW, personally I find it an interesting and elegant solution, feel free to disagree. I dare you to. I expect the same with SRS, but the probability of this is a bit lower.

Not strictly on the rules topic, but the significant background shakeup has been mentioned (multiple times). This might mean that the Zenian League and the Kurak Allience is out the window, and factions are shuffled, binned and consolidated probably based on aesthetics. Will this be a 40k-esque multi faction all vs. all or some kind of 1v1v1? And if nothing is sacred, which factions do you think can be consolidated based on looks?

Terrans+Omnidyne+Hawker
Sorylians+Tarakian+Xelocian
Aquan+???
Directorate+Kedorians
Dindrenzi+???
Relthoza+???
Terquai+Works Raptor
RSN+Corsairs+Ryushi
Veydreth+Ba'kash

As for the timeframe: sooner than summer of 2009... we'll see. Maybe the beta will drop sometimes around that period?

 

 

Share this post


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

As for the timeframe: sooner than summer of 2009... we'll see. Maybe the beta will drop sometimes around that period?

Oh, I think we can safely assume that the beta will be LONG after the summer of 2009.  :D

Share this post


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

Oh, I think we can safely assume that the beta will be LONG after the summer of 2009.

About ten years after. Hehehehehehe.

On a more serious note I don't completely understand your faction pairings @Small Mek. For example, Terquai + Works Raptor? I think that the Terquai should go with the Aquans and Works Raptor with the Directorate. Basically keep the original natural Allies. My personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • 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.