New Playtest Pack V1.2

[AdrianH]

I've just spotted what appears to be a typo. The Shadow Omega's Light Multi-Phased Cutters appear to have 8D forward, 12D aft and port, 6D starboard. Either the ship is significantly unbalanced, literally, or someone has got the starboard and aft arcs mixed up.

[greenboy]

The gravatic shifter rules and the new skirmish choice make the Brakiri
great white star killers

[tschuma]

Now that the Whitestars have to get within 10" to fire the Neutron Lasers!

[Harry Lonsdale]

Since the Claweagle is now a 2-fer, and 2-fers must be in a squadron, what happens to a Claweagle that is attached to an enemy ship? Its squadron mates have to stay within 6", it leaves the squadron, ...?

[l33tpenguin]

The whole two-fer thing just needs dumped. Just make a PL below patrol! Or make two-fers worth a patrol and balance them accordingly.

These new rules to balance two-fers are just clumsy and awkward.

[Ike]

being narn and the only thing actually looking forward to was GQuan Fix and better rules for 2fers from 1.2 I was sadly disapppointed

I know we the players didnt come up with any brillant way of making the brick actually worth placing in a wall of battle

but we did come up with some better 2fer rules I thought

apparantly we werent vocal enough or post enough playtest results on this rule

but yes you have basically just added more probelms with the 2fer claw eagle, probably even more of a headache then the shokov/kos

drazi come in on a head on firing pass, claw eagle1 successfully boards a ship heading in the opposite direction, claw eagle 2 fails its opposed CQ check and now must do everything in its power to maintain squadron no matter how suicidal it is because according to the rules its not allowed to leave squadron

the whole point of this rule is to get rid of people init sinking, I appreciate that but you dont have to enforce crappy squadrons to do it

I believe we had to options that came out as best

1. In a Raid level or higher game during the movement phase if you activate an unsquadroned 2fer you must activate an additional ship or squadron
--thereby never allowing a single 2fer to sink, killing 1/2 a patrol point will reduce your sinking ships by 1

2. In a Raid level or higher game during the movement phase if you activate an unsquadroned 2fer you must activate an additonal unactivated and unsquadroned 2fer unless no such ship exists.
--I thought this was more fair to those of us stuck with the only option at patrol of a 2fer*, now it requires a whole patrol point of killing before you get rid of a sink

*I realize that for a patrol point I could get fighters, but lets be honest narn consider the shokov/kos their super duper hvy ftr of awesomeness, why would you get some crappy ftrs when you could get a patrol boat. theres a reason hanger conversion was put in the refits

on the other had I am glad to see the 4+ CBD gone, off to check the 6+Crit save to see if it will help anything.... oh wait the only ship that I would consider doing CBD and that it would actually help is the GQuan but ive given up on that particular piece of mortar

EDIT--post kind of looks really critical, Im happy to see work being done, just sad that none of it was on stuff I had an interest in

[Triggy]

Ike - I think I agree that the simplest way to enact the 2-for-1 ship rules would be as you say, for every 2-for-1 ship activated in the movement or shooting phase (or other phase for that matter) then at least one other 2-for-1 ship must be activated at the same time too (so long as there is at least one other ship on the board).

There are problems though if these ships are in separate squadrons - this would allow players to activate multiple squadrons at once and I can't really see a way round this other than changing the wording of the rule to "then at least one other ship must be activated at the same time too (you are allowed to count ships in the same squadron for this purpose).

[noobdelux]

a nice fix would be to get rid of all 2 fers.... cause several of them are as good as anothers race`s 1 patrol ship

[tschuma]

Or if a race even has a Patrol Level ship, like the Brakiri!

[Triggy]

Or if a race even has a Patrol Level ship, like the Brakiri!

They would have done but the Kabrokta miniature came out a little bit larger than they intended!

[l33tpenguin]

2 fers are moved in the fighter movement phase!

[silashand]

Personally, I'd just make it so you have to buy 2fers as a squadron, i.e. you buy the actual squadron of ships and can't break it up, but can add in other ships if you desire up to the max of 4. JMO...

Cheers, Gary

[Tolwyn]

I dislike the idea of2flers since the publishing of 2nd Ed. the Sho'Kos/Kov is already worth another races' 1 point Patrol ship. Make the others comparable and trow the entire 2 for 1 think to the scrapyard. That would be the idea I favourize.

[Ike]

what happens when one is crippled/slowed/adrifted and cant keep up

or say you have 2 patrol so 4 ships in a squad and your opponenet has 2 actual patrol ships but they split up and you want to send 2 after each

or my personal favourite, you successfully manage a stand down and prepare to be boarded and just want to detach a single boat to guard it (or for that matter detach 2 from a squadron to do it)

current incarnation of rules state your not allowed to break squad unless the other ship is destroyed

which means I must make every effort to maintain squads no matter the condition of the ships, im not allowed to peel off from a 4 ship squad of 2fers because that would involve breaking 2 off and forming a new squad which only the gaim can do

enforcing a squadron when so many conditions exist in the game that can kill the squadron with out actually destroying the ships is, well call it what you want, i find it annoying as hell

this is what I atleast am trying to get away from

So as I see it, original problem: in higher PL games ie.Raid+, people are using single 2fers as ini sinks

current fix: enforce 2fers into squadron with something
additional issues: see above
Silashand-your particualr option falls under this one, enforcing a squad, just making the squad more limited in choice

suggested fix A: in movement phase, if activating a single 2fer you must also activate something else
additional issues:well besides misinterpretation of whats said I dont see any, kindly point any out if you do

suggested fix B: change current fleet lists to remove all 2fers
additional issues:besides the fact that PtB have not said anything on this suggestion(infact have possibly added another 2fer as of 1.2) and the fact that there will be large arguements over the changes, see Whitestar threads. I dont really see any gameplay issues with this one

suggested fix C(possibly new): Make them move in the figther phase
additional issues: swinging the pendulem to far, the original problem is not every one gets 2fers and people are using them for ini sinks, now your saying that people with only 2fers cant use patrol points to sink. Sinking will happen, the game is based on ini, there is going to be sinking, just to line up bore sights. we are trying to be ballanced not nerf the ships we are given

obviously I favour option A(actually a slight variation of A), its one rule, and elegant, not alot of work involved

[Ike]

I dislike the idea of2flers since the publishing of 2nd Ed. the Sho'Kos/Kov is already worth another races' 1 point Patrol ship. Make the others comparable and trow the entire 2 for 1 think to the scrapyard. That would be the idea I favourize.

I hate how so many people say that, sure one of them can beat a gaim scout, but its a scout its fragile, the vree are most likely dead, but then everyone can do that if the vree doesnt have terrain

against everything else you would need 2 and the only haha checkmate wins are against the poor dilgar

[l33tpenguin]

How bout,
You must move at least 1 patrol point worth of ships at a time. If you move less than 1 patrol point, you must move a second ship.

No sinking, no weird squadron rules, no worry about splitting forced squadrons.

Fixed

[Triggy]

So as I see it, original problem: in higher PL games ie.Raid+, people are using single 2fers as ini sinks

Why are you limiting this to raid+ games? People are using them as initiative sinks even in patrol PL games. I see no reason why any rule on moving ships together shouldn't apply to games of all sizes.

I like the wording of having to activate at least one patrol FAP of ships at a time - it will still need careful wording but the principle is sound.

[l33tpenguin]

During your movement, you must move either single ship or full patrol point, which ever is greater. Squadrons and hunting packs are exempt from this rule

[Grunvald]

For ini sink or 2fers why not sometyhing along the following:

When assigned as a squadron at begining of game they will remain locked (not as a squadron but as a turn)

ie they all activate together whether they have bee split apart etc.

This might solve a few problems like the claweagle, one making crew check and boading and the other doesnt.

I not saying it perfect but it might lessen a few problems!

[Da Boss]

So as I see it, original problem: in higher PL games ie.Raid+, people are using single 2fers as ini sinks

Why are you limiting this to raid+ games? People are using them as initiative sinks even in patrol PL games. I see no reason why any rule on moving ships together shouldn't apply to games of all sizes.

probably basing it on what is already in P+P??