Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joel47

  1. Wow, how'd I miss that? I must have been misreading Scout as Stealth in the SAs of models. Was it an SA in the closed beta, or have I just been misreading it all this time? (Stealth was stealthed?)
  2. Ran another demo last night, this time with a guy who hadn't played since CAV 1. To test and see if it was just the other playtesters, I left the ranges as printed on the sheets, and he had no complaint. As far as strikes go, I had only a few in my force and didn't roll well when using them, but he still wanted to know how many you could take. I mentioned the big platoon of FIST/1 infantry activating first, focusing strikes on an enemy bunched up in their deployment zone, and he agreed with me that that would be broken. He recommended that the maximum number of purchased strikes should be reduced, rather than my suggestion of limiting the strikes/turn. Some other comments: 1. In the book, or on the site as a PDF, can we get a reference sheet listing the various SAs and Upgrades? 2. Aircraft should be able to drop to inches above the ground in order to hide behind size 1 hills. I realize the visual justification will decrease once the recast, larger aircraft are available (I noticed the taller flight stands on the Dragonflys last night), but, as I was playing Terrans, I realized what a pain it can be to find cover for my fragile aircraft. 3. We'd like to see more models with stealth -- it's gotten minimal playtesting here due to there not being many models with that ability. Since it's an EM thing, rather than just being tiny, perhaps include it on most of the ESM scout types. That will also help them survive to get close enough to use their ESM abilities. Hm, which leads to the question -- does a stealthed ESM unit still affect enemies within 6 inches? By the rules, yes, but I'm thinking it shouldn't. Perhaps the use of stealth turns off the ESM ability.
  3. Because of the recommendation for a 4x4 table. With longer ranges, why not just call everything LoS? Played on a 4x8, going the long way, with the 4" reduction of ranges, we actually had (inefective) engagement at outside of two range bands. With 60" scan ranges, you're almost always in range anywhere on the board with even a 4x6 (the larger recommended table size). While "realism" (as well as the desire to avoid the 40K phenomenon of being able to run farther than you can shoot) would suggest that the ranges remain long, unless everyone is going to play on a 6x8 the ranges need to be shorter to justify their existence.
  4. We ran a 3000-point beta test with minimal strikes last night. 1. Strikes in the opening activations are less powerful if the starting areas are larger. We ran a 4'x8' table with the starting areas 18" in and 6" from each edge. (My previous comments about strikes still hold, however, but I won't harp on them this time.) 2. The Ritterlich ability "The Hunter's Edge" is *way* too powerful as it stands. They should get one token per 2000 points, not 1000; alternately, the tokens should not refresh each round. We would prefer the latter. Played as written, with the 3 sections per side we had, the opponents could *never* go first. More sections (maybe more infantry, less CAVs, but we were testing something) would have made it slightly less powerful, but still probably overwhelming. 3. My players are unanimous that Wrecker needs a better name. 4. Shaken units shouldn't be able to call in strikes (Supressed should, however). This, combined with not allowing infantry to call in strikes from inside a transport, would help reduce strike power. 5. The Hacker card shouldn't be able to be buried by The Hunter's Edge. The rules are unclear on this. 6. Does Blaster work outside the first range band? (We played that it did, leading to the early demise of one of my Dictators.) 7. The Armor upgrade should scale with either points or damage tracks (5 per track sounds good). 8. Accurized should also scale with points or damage tracks, as well as number of attacks and the presence of certain abilities such as Blaster. (I recommend 3/track * number of attacks, + 10 for Blaster as a starting point.) 9. The other upgrades should probably also scale, but they're not nearly as unbalanced. 10. We played with ranges reduced by 4" and scanning range reduced to 48", and it worked well (though we were playing on a 4x8). Maybe reduce the listed ranges by 6", and make scanning 36" with LoS or 24 without.
  5. I'd lose the "sticky" part due to its complexity. It could probably be better modelled with just the automatic supression roll for any model that takes damage (rather than casualties), figuring the supression recovery includes putting out any remaing fires. Otherwise, it looks good to me.
  6. Calling down arty would cause defensive fire at the designating model (the one calling down the strike). I just figured strafing runs, having pilots with some intelligence, no direct designation is required ("I'm here, they're that way 500m, shoot them."), so defensive fire would be at the strafing fast movers.
  7. Probably. We were catching a few CAVs and armor in the AoE, and what with throwing 3 strikes per target the harder targets were still taking at least one hit, degrading their effectiveness without any defensive fire. Ooh, that's a thought -- maybe the target designators for some of the strikes trigger defensive fire? Maybe strafing runs trigger defensive fire against the fast mover, roll a 10 and all the opponents strafing runs go away...
  8. We must have better dice here. I'm fighting so hard to limit strikes because the first round is all that's mattered in our recent games -- the person with the first activation drops strikes on the other person's infantry (or APCs) in sufficient number to (hopefully) destroy them, leaving the other person without the means to retaliate. Requiring LoS will do a great deal to limit this, as will either disallowing infantry from calling strikes form inside and APC, or (at the very least) limiting the number of "spotting" infantry in an APC to one. I'd also like to see a cap on strikes/round. Do all of that and the points can stay about where they are, at least for the next round of testing. Do nothing and the points need to go up to force a limit on the number of strikes.
  9. Another comment on strike cost -- the strafing run should cost the same as the basic artillery strike, since the only time the circular template catches more models in the AoE is when an APC has just disgorged infantry. It's easier to stay 3 inches away from friendlies than 6. (Edit -- fixed typo caused by toddler on my lap.)
  10. Tsuisekis firing at soft targets without deflect, Scorpions firing at soft targets, and Rhinos firing at targets with friendlies standing right behind them come to mind. I think that's an excellent addition.
  11. I'm guessing so that he can start and end behind a hill.
  12. To go along with that, perhaps armor should be able to pass through supressed infantry?
  13. While I'm sure it would raise its points, maybe the Tsuiseki could get 2 attacks and Dorsal Gun/1 (along with a slightly longer range).
  14. And (this is important) how many did you use? I.e., how close did you come to the max points for strikes?
  15. If you want to leave the other rules as they are, double the points of everything except cruise missiles (which seem better used as distractions than attacks). Erion has a good point about reducing the %, but realize that at 10%, my example would still work for 2500 points, which is what we played last night where far fewer strikes decimated the opposing force. I think we need some way to keep opening-round effects from dominating the game. ForceCommander - Think of it this way -- if you called down 10 strafing runs in a single activation on the same (or close to the same) spot, there might be risk of a mid-air. Care has to be taken in real-world military actions to cease artillery bombardment at a precise time so as not to put attack aircraft at risk (not even an A-10 can take a 155mm shell). I figure scanning is included in the action spent calling the strike, but if we're not going to require LoS, some kind of roll vs ECM could very well be in order.
  16. Good point -- I did hate the close-and-hose part of Heavy Gear. Keep the bonus, then, but I kind of like smaller range bands and -1/band -- sure, we've all learned by now to count by twos, but it just seems more elegant.
  17. Actually, the word bandied about last night was "broken," but that seems rude for something still in beta. Are any of the rest of you taking anywhere near the point limits for strikes? We got close last night, and it was scary with the non-Terran force. Then the Terran force activated a few times in a row. 2500-point game, and the Terrans destroyed a third of their opponents (with some admittedly excellent drift rolls), and this was after the other side had vacated the confines of their deployment zone. I've had complaints in previous games from my players that maybe INF shouldn't be able to call down strikes for transports (not because of realism, because of balance), but we've since realized that the root cause is that strikes are way too powerful. We'd like the point costs to stay the same (to avoid ruining the worth of the Terran ability), but the attack strength should be decreased. One of my players suggested subtracting about 3 (i.e., making an Artillery Strike d10+1) and adding the FIST rating of the calling model. I'd like to see a cap on the number of strikes that can be called in a turn because of the far limit -- picture a Rifle Platoon made up of ten (the max) Rifle Teams, who come with FIST/1. In a 1000-pt game they could all call down Strafing Runs (costing 250 points total) as their first activation. If that side goes first, while their opponents are still hemmed in the 2 sq ft of deployment zone, they could put a hit or more on everything. This can be done for 680 points, and you still have ten rifle teams slowly advancing across the field. The Terran player from last night wondered why he'd have anything but infantry and aircraft -- CAVs just served as targets. Strikes should also have range penalties to the drift roll (and, thus, have ranges), and probably require LOS (call it target-designation, maybe). Another possible balance, having read other's comments on how to deal with VPs and strikes, is to have strikes cost VPs, since you're using theater-level resources -- use too many and, while you may win the battle, you'll lose the war.
  18. Can you shoot a stunned unit again to kill it off? If not, you should be able to, though perhaps at a penalty (similar to the -1 for attacking supressed INF).
  19. The Kikyu is listed as type "Gunship/Scout", but it doesn't have Scout. Not necessarily a problem, just seems odd. On the Panther, having Independant seems redundant since its abilities are included in Scout.
  20. I like that a lot. We tested the 4"-shorter ranges as requested last night and, while it helped out, I think your combination is more slick. Combine the two (decrease all ranges by 4" and then use your range mods) and I think we'd have a winner. Say first range band is +1 (or just raise everything 1 across the board to reduce math) to give a point-blank bonus of sorts, and maybe another within 6". For IF just use fixed minimums - 6" = -2, 12" = -1.
  21. Good point. It should definitely be capped at once. Speaking of Accurized, it needs to scale somehow with the number of attacks -- somewhere around 10-20 per (someone with more time can run the statistics). Otherwise, it's better for models with more attacks. It's also slightly better for models with certain SA's, but I'd rather just round up on the base point value than have additional costs if SA's exist for simplicity's sake.
  22. Sure, we'll do that this Thursday. Would you like that done on a 4'x6'?
  23. So long as the moving model has the choice of stopping instead of taking the attack.
  24. Actually, I think 8x8 would be best, both plywood- and game-wise, allowing you engage and disengage, flank, and all that large-scale stuff that these rules support so well. Unfortunatly, that won't fit in many homes, and it raises problems with arm length.
  25. We tested the Ogre with 3 attacks and, while scary, we think it's the best option unless the point total is reduced. 3 attacks make it almost as scary as a Rhino, which is where it should be.
  • Create New...