Jump to content
HERO

Some things that can work well in DW2.0

Recommended Posts

Anything that slows down the game is a negative to me. That said if they can include the cards as a optional rule, I say go for it.

 

 Please 2.0 be simple and fast, I have a lot of models to put on the board and little time to play them.

I agree and disagree with you here. I think that STAR cards should remain, but I would like to see a deck that has some core effect cards, along with nation / faction specific cards suited to the flavour of that country, that boosts the MARs or specialisms of that nation. I play KoB - so an example would be a STAR card that allowed some ad hoc engineering on a ship, that being a specialism of KoB, to provide a tighter turn arc for a turn, or to provide a speed bump etc... This is not deck building per se, but each nation has a slightly different deck to its opponent. This would reflect that different nations obviously have differing technologies and values.

There is a lot of scope here for providing something that stays true to each nations' play style, and allowing for more tactical use of the cards - plus, you know a little more of what to expect.

On game simplicity - I think the rules need streamlining, and I think they need organising - in some places re-writing or re- wording (linked / split fire, targeting ships - where to apply half AD and where not, boarding etc...) but I like the game as complex as it is. I think it would lose something if it was simplified in the same way as Armoured Clash is simplified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all with you guys for streamlining and speeding up the rules, but we don't want to do it at the loss of flavour and tactical shenanigans. That's why I'm against generalizing things like Fleet Commodores. And even the current STAR cards don't drag the game out in my groups experience, simply add to it. :)

 

If they build it into the system well enough, it won't be a drag at all. Might be different, which will undoubtedly scare some people, but could also give us further simplicity by rolling things like commodore abilities and cards into one 'set' of rules.

 

At any rate, put me down as pro-cards, but I won't kick up a fuss if they remain optional like they currently are. We'll just have to see what Spartan Games comes up with this time around.  ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, of course. The fleet commodore rules allow for that specialism, don't they? So, maybe instead of STAR cards you have a set of commodore tactics cards - you randomly draw these, but they are closely linked to the current commodore abilities, with some extension. Each nation gets it's own deck, and the more powerful cards cost a certain amount of Sturginium to invoke. Maybe each commander gets a Sturginium reserve - and there may be ways of seizing more of this to power special cards and abilities as the game progresses?

Then again, maybe that's all too much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got the FA book for Christmas and have had read it now.

 

Speaking for myself, I think it would be easier to do total attacks (AA, then AP) against attackers and then "evenly distribute" the survivors across the fleet when performing Boarding Attacks.  That would speed up boarding a LOT! 

 

Something else that could work from the new FS 2.0 book is each vessel is limited to only 1 Boarding attack.  That could reduce the volume of boarding attacks to reasonable levels.

 

Something I do NOT like is the carrier rules.  Tokens need to remain within command distance of the carrier unless making an attack run (which can only be the distance you can move in a single turn!).  I could see activating the various wings at the same time as their carrier (or one activation for the 2 "free" wings) to reduce the number of activations and speed up the game.

 

Having never played FA before, I'm looking forward to most of it quite eagerly and hope we see similar quality with our own DW V2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like some tweaks to boarding, mainly to do with pooling the dice to speed it up, but definitely not too much. Boarding really isn't as overpowered as people make out, and I use it a lot (seeing as I run mainly Prussians and Russians) and it rarely wins me the game on it's own. There tends to be a lot of work leading up to a successful game-ending boarding assault, it's significantly more difficult than point-and-click... :P

It can be time-consuming though, especially if you have a horde of smalls assaulting a large or the like. So that's where I would like to see the focus. :)

Not sure the TFT's really need changing, as they are some of the shortest activations we have in our games. Pick up, move them as far as you want, put them down, resolve attacks. No turning templates, no ramming, no line of sight issues... Am I missing something that makes TFT's take longer for other people? I find a squadron of 4-5 smalls takes much, much longer to activate and use. Especially Korsor Corvettes when you are laying mines... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramming something and halving its ap, hopefully that rule is gone, something much better would be for that turn if rammed by craft of same size or bigger it cant use its ap offensively for the remainder of that turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramming something and halving its ap, hopefully that rule is gone, something much better would be for that turn if rammed by craft of same size or bigger it cant use its ap offensively for the remainder of that turn.

 

Agreed, there are some weird rule shenanigans like that that need to go. I can see the intent of the rule (*CRUNCH* "Argh! Lieutenant! Lieutenant? Wheres the Lieutenant?" "Over the side, sir!" "Then fish him out, dammit, man!" :P ), but I don't think it works well currently. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little bit late to the party, but having received my copy of FA over the Christmas period, having now had a chance to digest it, and being a keen DW player, I wanted to throw in my tuppence worth in regards to DW 2.0 for the abuse of the gallery.

 

Vis-a-vis the great Boarding debate, I would be happy to see a switch to AP vs. AP+AA, with a retention of the current Boarding Results system/chart and Sabotage. I think the AP vs. AP+AA system is a natural evolution of what already happens, the Boarding Assault Success Table and Sabotage rules both fit for purpose (especially the latter, as it uses an existing, ubiquitous chart, i.e. Critical Hits). I wouldn't like to see a wholesale port of FA's boarding rules, as I think the targeted boarding is too finicky for DW and counter to the spirit of boarding in the game. I agree that the adjustment/wider use of certain MARs to improve the capacity of certain weapon systems to strip away AP (i.e. Lethal Strike), is an effective and unobtrusive means of countering any perceived problems (I'm a Prussian player for my sins). I also feel that the current system of tracking AP provides a natural limiter to its effectiveness and unobtrusive encouragement towards tactical use, which would make a limit on boarding assaults per game (as in FA) unnecessary.

 

I don't know how everyone else feels, but I'd also be inclined to support a streamlining of TFT rules similar to Firestorm's SRS's. I'd keep the existing token format (i.e. number of tokens equals number of flights in a wing), introduce card counters to denominate Reconnaissance/Fighter/Torpedo Bomber/Dive Bomber, and restrict wings to operating in Command Distance of their carrier unless making an attack run (up to a specified maximum distance). In regards to Reconnaissance, I'd simply state that their LoS is always unobstructed/unimpeded (as their elevation and manoeuvrability allows them to see over/under anything). In regards to Local Air Support, I'd either abolish this, or specify that Local Air Support Wings must be assigned to a Massive/Large Capital Vessel(s), then operate as described as above, as Local Air Support is most likely going to be tasked to defend, or be commanded by, Capital-class vessels.

 

One thing I don't want to see ported from FA to DW however, is different range bands. I think the range band system, with its standard increments of 8" is simple, effective and provides all the flexibility required by differentiating effectiveness through the modification of AD at given bands or application of effects by weapon-specific MARs. I also think that the system appeals to new players, as remembering four different ranges is so much easier than looking up different ranges for different systems, or remembering different increments for different systems.

 

In more general terms, I hope the new rulebook is as well-organised as FA's! The rules are sensibly ordered (although I'd possibly have put SRS after Boarding Assaults and in the same section), the combination of contents, colour-coded sections and clear indexing makes finding rules ridiculously easy, and the presentation just seems a lot cleaner and clearer. I'm a fan of the colour-coding, presentation and organisation for insights, examples and important notes - I especially like that the Insights are used as section headers (rather than scattered throughout), and that Examples and Important Notes are used sparingly. It's probably going to sound ridiculously anal, but I also like that bold typeface is only used for headings and sub-headers, rather than scatter-gunned throughout text as in the current DW rulebook. The FA book seems that much tighter, 'mature' and eminently accessible.

 

For those that have not already purchased or perused the new Firestorm Armada rulebook, the D6 Generation have a rather comprehensive and positive review of it in their latest podcast which is well worth listening to (although the segment in question is quite a way in).

 

Anyway, those are my musings, hopefully they won't get me put up against a wall and shot...  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the STAR Cards. So I'd like to see these cards in version 2.0.

The idea of coloured D6 from Dystopian Legions and Armoured Clash would also fit to version 2.0.

 

I like the new rulebook of FSA. With the new rules the different races have specific rules and advantages. So each race have a special feeling in the play. I'd like to see that for the DW nations. To reach this specific modifications of "core rules" are usefull (e.g. different range bands).

 

I hope that the raising amount of MARs will stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ImperialGlory has already stated the crux of the issue with the FS:A boarding rules.

 

If you turn boarding into just another type of gunnery, why bother with it?

 

The current rules are high risk and high reward and they offer a different way of achieving objectives. They should stay IMO.

 

Because making things different for the sake of being different is not a proper defense of something that doesn't really work as is.

 

The current rules are terribly complex for little actually definition. They aren't really "High Risk, High Reward" insomuch as they are "Low Risk, High Reward" for those who have the AP to overwhelm someone and "High Risk, No Reward" for the people who have to horde their AP lest they actually get boarded by someone who can. It really just creates "Haves" and "Have Nots".

 

Meanwhile, Firestorm Armada does it exactly how it should. I remember someone mentioning a similar idea in one of the lengthy threads and I didn't like it, but after seeing a full rules write-up of it and seeing it in action at a game, I'm convinced that it is exactly how DW boarding should go. It's streamlined (though it has more definition in results and stats), carries reasonable risk (You only get one shot per squadron, so you better make it count) and reward, and actually integrates well into the game.

 

And while I can understand why people wouldn't like boarding to have Targeted Strikes like FSA, I think that would actually be a great thing for boarding to do because it could do something no other system could do in DW. It's not like "Storm the bridge!" or "Plant charges on the turrets!" or "Disable the Generator!" couldn't be given as orders. If you want to randomize what targeted system they strike, fine (4+ you get your declared choice, otherwise it's random), but I would say definitely keep it in some form.

 

There are a lot of great things in FSA that could be used in DW. I would hope that the designers take the new direction to heart, even if they don't take all the changes wholesale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current rules are terribly complex for little actually definition. They aren't really "High Risk, High Reward" insomuch as they are "Low Risk, High Reward" for those who have the AP to overwhelm someone and "High Risk, No Reward" for the people who have to horde their AP lest they actually get boarded by someone who can. It really just creates "Haves" and "Have Nots".

 

I'm genuinely curious (at the risk of opening a can of worms), whilst I know there are single digit variances in AP between comparable vessels in differing nation's fleets, I always thought those differences (due to canny balancing) fairly negligible and that use of Boarding was more about judging class* comparisons, and/or timing, natural inclination being to initiate Boarding against vessels of a class/designation weaker than the aggressor, or vessels of comparable (or higher class) whose capacity to defend has been impaired by other means (e.g. Critical Hit results). Even then, I always assumed that the capacity to link AP for Boarding or AA for counter-fire, did allow weaker vessels in concentration to go head-to-head with notionally stronger opponents? Do people genuinely find that certain nations have a tacit advantage, and there are indeed distinct 'Haves' and 'Have nots'?

 

* I use the terms 'Class' and 'Designation' very loosely as in 'Gunship vs. Gunship' rather than more precise estimations, such as 'Medium Capital Class vs. Medium Capital Class'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who plays both CoA and PLC, the single digit variances do make some of the difference, but it's more related to the support stats- 4AP a CoA cruiser isn't that great. 5AP on a medium flyer is fairly scary, as they can move 10", turn on a dime and ignore most terrain (And Dash and Elan is nice, too). And when you back that up with Incendiary Rounds Primary Gunnery and many Flamethrowers, you increase the effectiveness of the AP points you do have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read and played my first game of FA. and I must say, I've absolutly hate the boarding rules in FA. It may be fit for Space Battle Games but is completely counter-intuitive for a boat game, and really do not want to see those rules make their way to dystopian wars. I think in relation to boarding in DW a re-balancing towards the defending player is needed but keeping the current rule base (anti-boarding AA, then AP vs AP).

In relation to cards, personally I think they should remain optional and not be integrated in the base rule. as many people like me do not want to play with them.

 

On the carrier & TFT subject, I think an improvement of the CAP rule should be able to re-balance TFT's. Like allowing CAP wings to use a fuel to do an intercept move. But I do not think forcing all TFT's to stay within command range of a carrier is a good thing and such a change would seriously handicap some nations.

 

The one thing which I would like to see cross over from FA is the way Linking work, which is a lot more straight forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because making things different for the sake of being different is not a proper defense of something that doesn't really work as is.

 

The current rules are terribly complex for little actually definition. They aren't really "High Risk, High Reward" insomuch as they are "Low Risk, High Reward" for those who have the AP to overwhelm someone and "High Risk, No Reward" for the people who have to horde their AP lest they actually get boarded by someone who can. It really just creates "Haves" and "Have Nots".

 

The thing is, it is high risk, high reward at the moment and no single faction (other than FSA initially) has everything.

 

Yes there are some factions that have high AP, some have low AP. Some have low AP and Elite Crew, some have high AP and Conscripted Crew, some have low AP and high AA and so on and so on.

 

This is only looking at AP, when you consider the wider context of balance, some factions absolutely need the high risk, high reward nature of boarding to work properly. Prussian ships are fragile, they have poor defenses and their offense is not overly fantastic, but they can swing the game through the use of boarding. It is risky though. They need to get those fragile ships up close, running them through the gauntlet of the enemy fleet. They need to consider AA and soften up the enemy as much as they can with relatively close range, somewhat weak gunnery and finally they open themselves up to counter boarding. It is high risk, but it also has the potential to swing games in their favour.

 

However I've also lost games playing as Prussia because I left a critical ship un-defended and a KoB battleship swung by and boarded me.

 

Boarding as it is in DW at the moment is a good system, it isn't just another gunnery system but is rather a close range knife fight that can finish things definitively for either side.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boarding as it is in DW at the moment is a good system, it isn't just another gunnery system but is rather a close range knife fight that can finish things definitively for either side.  

a highly complicated system, but yes a good system.

I would simply like a tighter reading on the rules; what can I do (preferably with a picture example) and what I cannot do (again with picture)

and with no major differences when fighting robots or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, it is high risk, high reward at the moment and no single faction (other than FSA initially) has everything.

 

Yes there are some factions that have high AP, some have low AP. Some have low AP and Elite Crew, some have high AP and Conscripted Crew, some have low AP and high AA and so on and so on.

 

But the problem is that instead of simply not being as effective as another faction, a facet of the game is practically denied to them. For ships like the British, French, CoA, etc, AP is closer to ablative armor than something you yourself get to use , and I think that feels wrong.

 

It's not that everyone has to do everything equally well. It's that every nation should have everything on the table. Some can board better than others, but no one should feel like they can't board. It should be a tactical option for everyone.

 

 

This is only looking at AP, when you consider the wider context of balance, some factions absolutely need the high risk, high reward nature of boarding to work properly. Prussian ships are fragile, they have poor defenses and their offense is not overly fantastic, but they can swing the game through the use of boarding. It is risky though. They need to get those fragile ships up close, running them through the gauntlet of the enemy fleet. They need to consider AA and soften up the enemy as much as they can with relatively close range, somewhat weak gunnery and finally they open themselves up to counter boarding. It is high risk, but it also has the potential to swing games in their favour.

 

But what you are talking about is one of the most discussed problem topics on the forum: The fragility of the Prussians and how that's made them so one-dimensional. Because boarding has such a high-upside for strong boarding factions right now, it's difficult to make the Prussians able to actually hold a gun battle at any range without risking making them really powerful really quickly.

 

 

Boarding as a whole can still have that big upside, but it needs to be intergrated into the system better. It needs to be tempered so that being good at boarding doesn't force fleets like the Prussians to be so weak in other places.

 

And to me, that's what the Firestorm system does best. There's a whole lot of streamlining it does that makes the game better:

  • One boarding assault per ship means there's still reasonable risk in boarding, but it's more about how you want to spend your tactical options instead of asking you "Do I want to risk all my marines dying and losing my ship to counterboarding?"
  • Having Crew Points gives more options to differentiate nations more than we already have right now. For example, the FSA has good AP largely because of the Japanese's focus on AP-stripping weaponry. However, if you differentiate between the two you can give the FSA a bit more CP while keeping their AP average, thus giving them defense against the incendiaries without also giving them more offensive power. Similarly, you can differentiate between High AP/Conscript nations like China and Russia: you can keep them conscripts or limit their AP while keeping the CP high to represent different things. It just creates a lot of options without a lot of work.
  • Not killing off AP and the simplification of the Attack and Defense pools cuts down on all the annoying bookkeeping that boarding currently has from now, like tracking boarding losses from AA, tracking different sources of AP, etc.
  • Finally, keeping some sort of "targeted attack" within the game would give boarding a unique twist over gunnery. Allowing boarding to be the one thing where you can target certain systems would be a great way of giving it a place beyond just prizing things.

 

However I've also lost games playing as Prussia because I left a critical ship un-defended and a KoB battleship swung by and boarded me.

 

I'm sure, but I don't think that rare result is worth the average created by the system. I think a more balanced system will allow for fleets like the Prussians to have more traditional staying power while not being completely overpowered for being strong boarders, instead of the weird steampunk quadriremes they have a habit of being.

 

Boarding as it is in DW at the moment is a good system, it isn't just another gunnery system but is rather a close range knife fight that can finish things definitively for either side.

 

And to me, it's as something that is so unpredictable as to not fit well into the game. I can understand wanting it to have it's own place within the system, but given the problems I think we should focus on making the results unique rather than the mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DW's 2.0 will be similar to 1.1, heck why make massive changes for a system that mostly works right now.

 

What I am hopping for is SG creating a system for massive battles that lose detail for quick play. 

Perhaps something along the lines of AC. Yet including all four areas we have now ( air, land, sea, submerged ).

I enjoy the organization of armies as well as using units I would not use in DW's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of STAR cards, and enjoy playing with them for the most part, but a couple of things about them could do with looking at, I think.

 

1. The card (i forget the name) that forces your opponent to discard his hand really needs to be looked at. Every single time this card is played, in my experience that player then goes on to dominate.

2. Cards need to be easier to counter

3. The timing and order of play for cards could be simplified and tightened up a lot. Many of them are highly situational, and can only be played under a narrow set of circumstances or in a specific sub sub sub phase of a turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're working on cards for 2.0 rules at the moment. In the meantime I'd suggest the following alterations to how the star cards work: any card can be countered by any other card/s with the same or greater "value" no marker=5, 1 marker=10, 2 markers=15, 3 markers=20. But the catch is that playing a card "gives" your opponent that many victory points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boarding right now is a tactical option for everyone.

 

If you aren't boarding with your Covenant when the moment arises, you are doing it wrong.

 

If you shoot a battleship and crit it and get a hard pounding, removing four AP

 

Then you charge your Icarus skyships in and you take them down, take them down to chinatown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Boarding right now is a tactical option for everyone.

Except if you try to board with cov vs say, prussians, you will be boarded back in about 30 femtoseconds, because you have much lower potential for it than the enemy. "Oh, you prized my BB? How nice! Well...I guess I can lose the AP on my cruisers to retake it, and this lone cruiser there btw, it's boarding your now-empty cruisers, LOL they're mine!"

 

Sure, it's a bit of an exagerration ,but it is pretty much the logic behind boaridng now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the STAR cards are being redesigned, it would be awesome if the brain boxes at Spartan could look at the card deck they will release, and see if there is room for some objective/event cards like those to be released in the objectives set, but to replace dicing for field orders - you each draw an objective/scenario card and play that.

 

Such a deck could be integrated with the objective/event cards to help create something of a random scenario generation system.  Speaking of which - I'd also love to see event/objective cards that tie into the towns and installations, airfield, hangar, dock etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an Idea on the star cards that just hit me; so its rather raw.

How about a small deck that each player draws 1 card at the beginning of the turn and it effects both sides for the remainder of the turn.

for example player 1 rolls "all primary weapons gain +1 to hit" (deadly with the Danes :ph34r:muah hahahahaha :ph34r:) and then perhaps as a defender you can move a crit result 1 spot above or below on the table (oh you critted my Emperor battleship and got hard pounding and I havent assaulted yet...hmm I would like to change that to X)

and then in the result phase (or whatever the end phase is called) there is a smaller deck that does weather or some such that effects the turn.)

:o^_^:D

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.