Matt & Co.A little concerned. . .

[Soulmage]

I didn't play the old Starship Troopers. . . but have been eagerly awaiting Starship Troopers Evo and planning on getting in on it.

However, I am a little concerned by reading the first thoughtsof those who are familiar with the game when they take a look at the new cards.

My concern is that keeping the Starship Troopers system as close as possible to the BF:Evo system had taken precedence over writing excellent rules that fit the nature of the game well.

IMO, it would be a mistake for Mongoose to adopt that strategy. I understand that it is desirable to have easy crossover from game to game, and I'm not saying the two systems should be radically different. However, I do believe that there are some areas in which some divergence is appropriate.

Bottom line is, if the game is not enjoyable due to rules that don't quite fit the genre, it doesn't matter how easy the game is to learn because people will not be excited about getting into it and/or will quickly bow out once they discover the play experience.

Ultimately, you don't want two different games using identical rules anyway because then the play experience becomes nearly identical as well - you basically just have additional armies for BF:E.

A couple other thoughts:

1. Some concern has been expressed about the cover rules promoting a static game. Not sure if this is true or not, but it is something to be avoided at all costs! A static game is a dull game in the sci-fi genre at least. It may be more realistic and is probably appropriate for BF:E, but its not a good call for Starship Troopers.

2. I'd have to echo concerns about nukes not taking out the big bugs in one shot. Seems like the big bug rules need to be altered, or nukes changed, one of the two.

3. My overarching concern is that Mongoose is not going to take advantage of the feedback on this forum to actually make alterations to the game rules. You've got a bunch of experienced players on here that seem to me to have valid concerns about the play experience of the game. Certainly, there is a fair amount of "different is bad" amongst the old group, but I think there are some significant points that are and will be made that Mongoose should take into consideration and make changes to the rules while they still have time to do so.

The alternative is to work much like a certain other company. Ignore things that are very obvious from a player perspective then either have to fix things on the back end with a FAQ or errata - or tick off your player base because of vague or nonsensical rules that never get cleaned up.

Anyway. . . my two cents. . .

 

[AlphaStrike]

As a former fan of SST, currently enjoying BF Evo, I understand a few of your concerns. But SST did need tweaking, no doubt about it.

The new rules, on the whole, seem to work well. And with the extra rules pertinent to each unit (which are printed on their stat card), it is claimed that games of SST will play very differntly to BF Evo.

However, I am totally on your wave-length when it comes to cover. I've played half a dozen games now, with three different friends, all with a reasonable knowledge of games. We've found games can be static. Cover is just so important - people are scared to move their tanks into the open! To be fair, though, we weren't playing on a 6 x 4 foot board, but then I suspect we aren't alone in that - how many people can fit one on a table in their house?

I have noticed that the subtleties of the game reveal themselves slowly as you play. Suppression, for instance, is far more important thatn may be immediately apparent. Learning which units to target to edge oppoents towards their shatter point, or to achieve a mission objective (we are trying variant game types) is important too.

Like you, I hope that SST - similar rules not withstanding - will seem like a game in its own right. It was great fun first time around, and it deserves another shot at glory.

 

[Makaiju]

I didn't play the old Starship Troopers. . . but have been eagerly awaiting Starship Troopers Evo and planning on getting in on it....

However, I am a little concerned by reading the first thoughtsof those who are familiar with the game when they take a look at the new cards....

My concern is that keeping the Starship Troopers system as close as possible to the BF:Evo system had taken precedence over writing excellent rules that fit the nature of the game well....

Anyway. . . my two cents. . .

I also loved the old game and 100% agree, the old rules needed some touching up.

One of the things that most people I worked/played with hated, is not being changed AND seems to cause most of the fuss here is "how" the rules are communicated.

Mongoose regulary documents their rules not in a single comprehensive description. Instead they list a simple to understand rule and later talk about when that rule doesn't apply or is altered to meet a different goal.

The old rules would state things in one chapter like "you can only move, shoot, charge or ready". Then ready would be used later to describe priming a weapon to for shooting. So you spent an action called a "ready action" to 'ready' your weapon. However they are two different acts using the same word to describe themselvs. Even later on it would say "you can use a psi talent as a ready action". That caused all kinds of confusion because people couldn't keep straight the idea of "using an action to preform a task" and "using an action to prepare to perform a task."

I personally don't think that Mongoose would have had that problem if their rules were all up front because when you write about certain parts of a rule at different times, people tend to change their inflection and in turn can make the following of their intent rather difficult.

That was the old rules.... constant stating of "This is how a rule always works" and a chapter later you get "This is the exception to an earlier rule" and even later "this is the exception to the exception rule".

In other words the simple explanation is that you never know how the rules are going to work until you have read every single page of the complete rule set.

Since Mongoose has been very open that all we have are the 'core rules', we don't know how SST will eventually play. We have a general rules feel but the rules that make SST special and keeps that mythos in tact wont be known until the advanced SST rules come out later.

So take most of what you hear here with a grain of salt (As the saying goes) and wait to base your own opinion on what you see coming out with the SST:EVO rules later.

 

[L-Bug]

Fact; the rules of SST were very very good. All the dynamism one could wish for in a wargame and all the uncertainty of winning/losing every turn of a true strategic game!
Now, we wait for months and months for ST Evo to come to us and to be honest I'm also concerned about the quality and the "feel" ST Evo will have. In my humble opinion it's never a wise thing to fix a thing that's not broken and that's exactly what you guys at MGP are doing. That's why we "Old Garde" are so anxious and sceptic about ST Evo. How can something that was already so good become even better? A little tweaking of certain rules and a second edition rulebook would have been sufficient. I certainly hope you will fullfill all the expectations your fans have, because for us it's also "the more players, the better".
Yours Bugly

 

[gorkamorka]

Lets wait and see about this new thing before we get worried.

I suggest in that time you go play a couple of good games of the SST using what you have, and then coming back and compairing the two seriously. The proof is in the pudding, and unless you know whats broke, you won't know the changes.

1. Artillery...

2. What do you do about the big smart bug???

3. Why cut off my legs with removing a reaction?

4.The validity of the larger units, and what do you do about the issue of not being able to move fast enough to get away from them.

5. Did we fix the skinnies, or do we get to suffer through the unconjointed armies for sake of sales, again?

6. More of a scale of the game,Now that I can get all of those bugs onto the table, please don't overprice them in points, compaired to what they do. Vice versa with MI. Full scale rules for a full scale war.

7. AIR ASSETS, like we've been promised.

8. Please stop making models just to hose my wallet with.

9. QUALITY CONTROL

10. Stop making disjointed rules without thought, give them a reason.

 

[Voracioustigger]

1. Some concern has been expressed about the cover rules promoting a static game. Not sure if this is true or not, but it is something to be avoided at all costs! A static game is a dull game in the sci-fi genre at least. It may be more realistic and is probably appropriate for BF:E, but its not a good call for Starship Troopers..

I have MANY points to counter your idea that SST: Evo will be a static game.

1) With the exception of Forth vs. LAMI... I don't think that I have yet playtested a static game (even then there is at least some positioning going on)
2) The "Jump" ability alone almost requires you to be mobile. If you can jump over a wall, then hide behind another wall 12" away (that is a more strategic position)... why WOULDN'T you do it?
3) The Jump ability cannot be used in cover, so there will be a LOT of units that will avoid cover like the plague. I don't think you'll see many exosuit armies sitting in cover... 7+/10+ is nice... but being out of sight is better.
4) Ummmm.... ARACHNIDS! I don't think I even need to explain this one.

SST:Evo will play a LOT more fluidly than BF:Evo... Static games are not something to worry about (unless you play LAMI... but then you chose a static army... so that's your own fault!)

2. I'd have to echo concerns about nukes not taking out the big bugs in one shot. Seems like the big bug rules need to be altered, or nukes changed, one of the two..

Well... Nukes DID get a big boost in evo... It now hits about 50% more total area than before (6" zone vs. 5" zone IIRC), and while it isn't as powerful against big targets, it is better vs. horde armies. Also... should a nuke REALLY just obliterate everything? If so, then shouldn't we just remove all terrain in the firezone and make like a 3" deep crater? You JUST said that there was no need for realism... and now you say that a less powerful nuke is unrealistic, so it should stay the same... Is MGP supposed to make SST realistic only when you think it should be, and keep it fake other time?

Another thing to think about... If a cockroach can survive a nuke... then why couldn't a GIANT cockroach survive a pee-wee nuke? Maybe it needs a tweak, but just because something is changed doesn't mean it is worse or not as it should be!

3. My overarching concern is that Mongoose is not going to take advantage of the feedback on this forum to actually make alterations to the game rules. You've got a bunch of experienced players on here that seem to me to have valid concerns about the play experience of the game. Certainly, there is a fair amount of "different is bad" amongst the old group, but I think there are some significant points that are and will be made that Mongoose should take into consideration and make changes to the rules while they still have time to do so..

I know that at least I take your (the forum's) concerns into account when I give feedback to Matt, but you also have to realize that a lot of the feedback we get is misguided. I'd say about 90% of the feedback comes within a day of getting the new information... So without any playtesting or even in depth thought, many people think they already know that rule or change X, Y, & Z are all wrong or suck or whatever. The feedback that I listen to are the posts that begin like this... "I tried out the updated rules in a game, and I think X doesn't work or Y is too powerful/weak."

If you can't take the time to provide evidence to prove your points, then why should Matt listen to them?

That being said... Matt and all of the testers read the forums often, so everything is heard and taken into account.

The alternative is to work much like a certain other company. Ignore things that are very obvious from a player perspective then either have to fix things on the back end with a FAQ or errata - or tick off your player base because of vague or nonsensical rules that never get cleaned up.

Anyway. . . my two cents. . .

Can I have an example of these nonsensical rules, and an explanation of why they are nonsensical?

 

[Makoto]

2) The "Jump" ability alone almost requires you to be mobile. If you can jump over a wall, then hide behind another wall 12" away (that is a more strategic position)... why WOULDN'T you do it?
3) The Jump ability cannot be used in cover, so there will be a LOT of units that will avoid cover like the plague. I don't think you'll see many exosuit armies sitting in cover... 7+/10+ is nice... but being out of sight is better.

Umm... If I can stay in cover with the 7/10 why would I leave it just to jump behind a wall that protects me only from one side? Especially if jumping will make me just 4/8? (should the rule remain)
Also - 7/10 (or 8/11 character should traits remain) makes a pretty strong dugout, even w/d10 accurate it's merely 50% for a hit. Why leave it, especially most enemies will take the bait and pour heavy weapon fire into those exos instead of rest of the army?
Finally being out of sight is good, but being able to fire from good cover is definitely much better.

 

[Galatea]

For the Nuke I agree. It shouldn't be able to kill a King Tanker with one shot, a Tanker probably yes, but not a King.
Also it does not have to. A Nuke reducing an unharmed Tanker to a point where you just have to hit it with one more Missile is quite enough.

Also I think the direct fire rule is nice, but crap when it comes to atomics.
Atomic warheads shouldn't be able to use direct fire - it appears just silly.

Cover:
Exos with 7/10 (and a 2+ Save!) won't get out of cover.
Why? Well, if they are hit in cover they have Target 8/Kill 10 and a 2+ Save.
If they are hit in the open by an indirect fired Missile they have Target 4/Kill 8, making them an easy bait.
Especially if attacked by Hoppers.

And if they are hit in cover they can shoot back - with Sixguns and Firestorms. Makes them even more effective in gunning down the enemy than they would be out of sight.

 

[Soulmage]

Alright . . I can see you're gonna make me post a long response! LOL!!

First of all IMO the tone of your response is misdirected. I pointed out that I have NEVER played the original starship troopers. So the idea that I would be disagreeable to change simply because it is change is wrong.

What I am is an "interested outsider" looking at the game objectively, and becoming concerned with some of the issues being raised. This is a game I would very much like to get into, but I want it to be an excellent, not just a good, product. I know that it can one of the best miniature games on the market, so I will be sorely disappointed if its not because adequate attention was not paid to feedback in time to make changes.

1. Some concern has been expressed about the cover rules promoting a static game. Not sure if this is true or not, but it is something to be avoided at all costs! A static game is a dull game in the sci-fi genre at least. It may be more realistic and is probably appropriate for BF:E, but its not a good call for Starship Troopers..

I have MANY points to counter your idea that SST: Evo will be a static game.

1) With the exception of Forth vs. LAMI... I don't think that I have yet playtested a static game (even then there is at least some positioning going on)
2) The "Jump" ability alone almost requires you to be mobile. If you can jump over a wall, then hide behind another wall 12" away (that is a more strategic position)... why WOULDN'T you do it?

Just because you CAN move, doesn't mean its in your tactical advantage to do so. The rules need to ensure that there is plenty of tactical advantage to a mobile approach to counter the significant tactical advantages provided by cover in the current RAW.

3) The Jump ability cannot be used in cover, so there will be a LOT of units that will avoid cover like the plague. I don't think you'll see many exosuit armies sitting in cover... 7+/10+ is nice... but being out of sight is better.

Again, it doesn't matter at all that you can't jump in or out of cover if your best bet is simply to footslog into cover and stay put.

Out of line of sight isn't better because you are handicapping your own ability to degrade the enemy. If I have a (presumably) expensive Exosuit squad, every turn they are not shooting is wasted points.

The key in any game (or battle) is to concentrate the bulk of your forces against the minority of his and destroy your opponent in detail. Achieving that objective is something that would promote movement. However, in a game with a limited table size, the enemy can be sufficiently mobile to negate the advantages you can create through positioning (as bugs would be vs. MI). In that circumstance you are better off having extremely well defended fixed position.

In other words. . . more incentive to move needs to be provided, or the value of cover needs to be reduced to prevent static engagements by at least half the forces playing. . .

2. I'd have to echo concerns about nukes not taking out the big bugs in one shot. Seems like the big bug rules need to be altered, or nukes changed, one of the two..

Well... Nukes DID get a big boost in evo... It now hits about 50% more total area than before (6" zone vs. 5" zone IIRC), and while it isn't as powerful against big targets, it is better vs. horde armies. Also... should a nuke REALLY just obliterate everything? If so, then shouldn't we just remove all terrain in the firezone and make like a 3" deep crater?

Yes, a nuke should really obliterate just about everything.

Removing all surface terrain such as buildings and trees might not actually be a bad idea. (and would definitely make for some fun tactical play!!) The crater while not a bad idea either would have practicality issues associated with it, but even those could be gotten around.

You JUST said that there was no need for realism... and now you say that a less powerful nuke is unrealistic, so it should stay the same...

Actually I said nothing of the kind concerning the relative 'realism' of nuclear weapons. Please respond to MY post, not the posts of others.

I also didn't say it should "stay the same" I offered a possible way to clarify the rules as well as allow it to kill big bugs in one shot. . . which I think is a good thing that mirrors the movies well.

Is MGP supposed to make SST realistic only when you think it should be, and keep it fake other time?

I think I've already covered this above. . . :roll:

Another thing to think about... If a cockroach can survive a nuke... then why couldn't a GIANT cockroach survive a pee-wee nuke?

For one thing. . . a cockroach cannot survive a nuclear blast!! :roll: A roach has the ability to endure higher doses of radiation than humans and survive, but that helps not at all against heat and blast overpressure which is what we are talking about. Who cares if the bugs die a month later of radiation poisoning!

Maybe it needs a tweak, but just because something is changed doesn't mean it is worse or not as it should be!

Again. . . I've never played before. I couldn't care less about the way things were. . . all I care about is rules that play well and produce a fun game. So this comment is totally misdirected at me. . . .

3. My overarching concern is that Mongoose is not going to take advantage of the feedback on this forum to actually make alterations to the game rules. You've got a bunch of experienced players on here that seem to me to have valid concerns about the play experience of the game. Certainly, there is a fair amount of "different is bad" amongst the old group, but I think there are some significant points that are and will be made that Mongoose should take into consideration and make changes to the rules while they still have time to do so..

I know that at least I take your (the forum's) concerns into account when I give feedback to Matt, but you also have to realize that a lot of the feedback we get is misguided. I'd say about 90% of the feedback comes within a day of getting the new information... So without any playtesting or even in depth thought, many people think they already know that rule or change X, Y, & Z are all wrong or suck or whatever. The feedback that I listen to are the posts that begin like this... "I tried out the updated rules in a game, and I think X doesn't work or Y is too powerful/weak."

If you can't take the time to provide evidence to prove your points, then why should Matt listen to them?

That being said... Matt and all of the testers read the forums often, so everything is heard and taken into account.

Well, I agree there are certainly people who fly off the handle at the drop of the hat. I do not happen to be one of them and I give my concerns significant thought before I voice them. I share your frustration with people who do not take that approach because I feel it dilutes the impact of "real" feedback.

The other side of that coin is people who post canned responses on various subjects instead of reading and understanding what is being said and responding appropriately. :wink:

I am glad to hear that they are looking at these forums and I hope that they are able to sort the "real" feeback that they really need to pay attention to, from the static.

The alternative is to work much like a certain other company. Ignore things that are very obvious from a player perspective then either have to fix things on the back end with a FAQ or errata - or tick off your player base because of vague or nonsensical rules that never get cleaned up.

Anyway. . . my two cents. . .

Can I have an example of these nonsensical rules, and an explanation of why they are nonsensical?

If you read carefully what I wrote instead of simply skimming it and posting an off the cuff reply to what *YOU* think I am saying. . . . you will see that the "non-sensical rules" in question do not belong to MGP and are just an example of a bad approach to game design/publishing that I am using to make a point.

 

[B_Steele]

In actual gameplay practice, by the way, a Mobile Infantry Exo squad will want to move away from any obviously good piece of cover if he is fighting a Bug or Skinnie player due to their ability (with many units) to base their Tunnelling or Ambushing units off that terrain piece as well.

I know when I am playing those two forces I almost always look at the best cover points on the field and write them down as my Tunnel or Ambush points. So sure, if an Exo squad wants to be subject to a Tanker's crushing close combat or be absolutely smoked by a Neural Beamer squad of raiders (which...WILL kill them, by the way...it's nasty), they can stay put. Otherwise, it can be good to have the ability to bounce out.

Ultimately it is up to the players, but being able to leap and fire in the same action (effectively adding the jump to the range, if you want to think about it that way) is a huge boon.

Okay, back to work for me.

-Bry

 

[B_Steele]

Also, I forgot...

Remember that Cover does zilch for you in Close Combat. Being able to leap away from a CC unit and blasting at them is a good reason to not be all dug in either.

Okay...serious this time, back to work.

Bry

 

[Xorrandor]

Out of line of sight isn't better because you are handicapping your own ability to degrade the enemy. If I have a (presumably) expensive Exosuit squad, every turn they are not shooting is wasted points.

One thing that may not be obvious from the outset: a Jump action includes a free shot at some point in the middle. So jumping doesn't keep them from shooting, and they can jump out of cover, shoot, and jump back behind cover if they want to. I'm using cover here to mean behind walls, not Cover as in the woods and ruins that one can't jump out of.

Well... Nukes DID get a big boost in evo... It now hits about 50% more total area than before (6" zone vs. 5" zone IIRC), and while it isn't as powerful against big targets, it is better vs. horde armies. Also... should a nuke REALLY just obliterate everything? If so, then shouldn't we just remove all terrain in the firezone and make like a 3" deep crater?

Yes, a nuke should really obliterate just about everything.

Removing all surface terrain such as buildings and trees might not actually be a bad idea. (and would definitely make for some fun tactical play!!) The crater while not a bad idea either would have practicality issues associated with it, but even those could be gotten around.

Well, a weapon that costs 300 points may or may not obliterate just about everything; calling it a nuke or a glob of cosmic hairgel doesn't make a difference there. If the advanced rules include the ability to damage terrain, then you should actually take down any destroyed building, I suppose. The argument is the 300 point weapon that in first edition could kill big bugs with ease has changed into a 300 point weapon that they can shrug off with ease. Sure, it gained 44% more area, but does that match what's been given up?

I know that at least I take your (the forum's) concerns into account when I give feedback to Matt, but you also have to realize that a lot of the feedback we get is misguided. I'd say about 90% of the feedback comes within a day of getting the new information... So without any playtesting or even in depth thought, many people think they already know that rule or change X, Y, & Z are all wrong or suck or whatever. The feedback that I listen to are the posts that begin like this... "I tried out the updated rules in a game, and I think X doesn't work or Y is too powerful/weak."

If you can't take the time to provide evidence to prove your points, then why should Matt listen to them?

That being said... Matt and all of the testers read the forums often, so everything is heard and taken into account.

Sorry I can't provide playtest examples, but all anyone plays at my FLGS is GW, and I can't quite justify the hour-long drive to get in a test game. I think I have provided some evidence to prove my point about baby nukes (in another thread), even if it is probability based...

 

[Makaiju]

I didn't play the old Starship Troopers. . .

For the record it's me and Alpha Strike that seems to have caused some confusion.

You have never played SST under the old rules. (per your own words) AS and I have. AS and I both feel some changes were needed if the game was going to last the long haul.

everyone mostly directing their comments directly to you, because you started asking the first question, but they are sometimes refering to that someone else said without making it clear they are changing the person they are talking to/about.

I just wanted to point out that your comment about the 'static' game being a bad idea and then saying 'nukes should kill everything' is slight in conflict. Only slightly because your opinion is your opinion and in turn always valid. However by a nuke not killing a bug out right, they are avoiding being a static game.

I think one of the things that really makes all of use miss speak is that SST was a pretty sweet book that used a made up technology called Atomics or personal nukes. In the book (heck and the movie) unsheilded people tossed around so called 'nucular weapons' like they were hand gernades without any consiquences to themselvs. In fact sometimes the exploses/damage mimiced a regular explosive devise and not a real nuclear reaction. That is SST specific mythos and SST style.

It's also why there are certain parts of the rules that will sound odd if you think 'unversal rule system'. How can a nuke not kill an abrams tank? (or at least it's crew) It shouldn't and Battlefiled:Evolution can make the tank go bye bye or make nukes not available. However SST troopers can toss so called 'nukes' at each other like bottle rockets. Same core rules but unique genre rules.

That's what Mongoose is hoping to create but like everyone said, until the real SST:EVO rules are out no one knows what will really happen with the games feel and game play.

 

[Voracioustigger]

@ Xor

As for playtesting, I don't fault you for not trying it... but I do fault the people who say "this needs to change" instead of, "you should test this more." Just looking at stats on paper will NEVER tell you how valuable something is in a wargame. I'll look more at how the nuke works, but first consider this (and also use it as proof that the playtesters have given this a LOT of thought).

Another thing you all seem to be forgetting about the new nuke rules is that they ALWAYS hit. Sure... before you hade about a 70% chance of it at least hitting your target, but now you have a 100% chance of hitting every target in the fire zone. The nuke has gone from a slightly risky choice, to something that will at least make a lot of points back and destroy MOST anything in the fire zone.

Also, you all complain that it is so much worse vs large enemies... I don't buy this at all. Before, you either had to risk artillery fire and possibly do nothing or fire direct and maybe kill nothing but worker bugs/cliff mites. You may have a smaller chance of killing big bugs outright, but you now have nearly a 100% chance of at least damaging them compared to around 70% before IIRC.

Another thing that you don't take into account is that the nuke was probably already overpowered. If began in a game where the most expensive units were around 300pts. Now there is the King Tanker, Queen bug, and others that are over 300pts and the mere fact that a weapon like the nuke exists makes taking them extremely risky. In SST: Evo, I think just about every race but the skinnies is going to get something pretty early on that will be worth 300pts or more (some units FAR more expensive) and having a nuke that could kill them in one shot would severely limit their use. How many of you use non-tunneling King Tankers? Queens? Not many of you I'm sure.

I don't think the nuke is worse... it's just different. This is one of the tweaks in SST that needed to be made. When you have a weapon that is a good counter to something that's called balance, but when you have a weapon that just automatically trumps another unit, that's just stupid. If makes for an imbalanced game where people cheese out on certain units. The previous nuke made it suicide for anything big to walk out into the open... now they can walk in the open with plenty of risks, but they are no longer assured of death.

As Steele said, I think after you guys try it out, you'll see that it's more balanced this way.

 

[Soulmage]

Another thing you all seem to be forgetting about the new nuke rules is that they ALWAYS hit. Sure... before you hade about a 70% chance of it at least hitting your target, but now you have a 100% chance of hitting every target in the fire zone. The nuke has gone from a slightly risky choice, to something that will at least make a lot of points back and destroy MOST anything in the fire zone.

Also, you all complain that it is so much worse vs large enemies... I don't buy this at all. Before, you either had to risk artillery fire and possibly do nothing or fire direct and maybe kill nothing but worker bugs/cliff mites. You may have a smaller chance of killing big bugs outright, but you now have nearly a 100% chance of at least damaging them compared to around 70% before IIRC.

Another thing that you don't take into account is that the nuke was probably already overpowered. If began in a game where the most expensive units were around 300pts. Now there is the King Tanker, Queen bug, and others that are over 300pts and the mere fact that a weapon like the nuke exists makes taking them extremely risky. In SST: Evo, I think just about every race but the skinnies is going to get something pretty early on that will be worth 300pts or more (some units FAR more expensive) and having a nuke that could kill them in one shot would severely limit their use. How many of you use non-tunneling King Tankers? Queens? Not many of you I'm sure.

I don't think the nuke is worse... it's just different. This is one of the tweaks in SST that needed to be made. When you have a weapon that is a good counter to something that's called balance, but when you have a weapon that just automatically trumps another unit, that's just stupid. If makes for an imbalanced game where people cheese out on certain units. The previous nuke made it suicide for anything big to walk out into the open... now they can walk in the open with plenty of risks, but they are no longer assured of death.

As Steele said, I think after you guys try it out, you'll see that it's more balanced this way.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I think the "nukes as bottle rockets" comment earlier is also accurate. I think I'm on the other side of the fence now on the issue.

. . . although I do think that the ability to destroy surface terrain would be something very cool and could add an interesting tactical dimension to the game.

 

[Gauntlet-]

well as a real small side note-

How many people actually play with a queen? I mean seriously, thats an extremely small number of players,

How many people take non-tunneling tankers is a better question

I think mongoose had 2 options, weaker nuke with similar area effect, OR the same nuke with much LESS area-

That being said, i'm not worried about losing the dynamic aspect of the game- moving is valuable in and of itself, why? The Bugs- board control is very important, and eventually they Force you to move somewhere else, usually where you don't want to go- but the MI have the sheer speed to find the ways out.

Frankly cover that you sat in was pretty useless in the old rules, now its useful....

What irks me is the shooting during any point of a jump, because they can ignore 90% of terrain, as long as you follow the 6 inch height LOS idea. The problem being this also lets you see and pick any target model in a group of bugs....

Ill be the one to say this- Please Test that more, see how 4 inches of height works, and maybe restrict the shooting to before OR after the movement of the jump.... even mixing matching....

well I really wish the cards simply had the old traits listed with their new definitions Right There on the card for those who wanted to read it... that way I don't have to worry about reading it for slight differences...

I never had a problem with Piercing 1 2 or 3 and Hits 1 2 6 or 10 Those were absolutely intuitive... my feeling and perception is that this is all in an effort to simplify the wording for a younger audience...

Well good luck to them

 

[Xorrandor]

I'll look more at how the nuke works, but first consider this (and also use it as proof that the playtesters have given this a LOT of thought).

I didn't expect the playtesters had just done it for fun. I would in fact expect the changes to previous rules to be more extensively tested, simply because they were changed. My original point was to find possible typos: one possible one was that all the old weapons that used to be Killshot were now using different rules, but one of the new weapons (Eapt Blaster Cannon) still used the old Killshot rules. From there I started figuring out just how much nerf had been added to the fission cores of these nukes, and I perhaps got overexcited at that point.

Just looking at stats on paper will NEVER tell you how valuable something is in a wargame.

Ignoring stats on paper will NEVER allow balance in a wargame. There simply aren't enough playtesting hours in the year to test every combination, enough times for luck and skill to even out across your samples. You really want both playtesting and statistics, IMHO...

 

[MongooseMatt]

I have noticed that the subtleties of the game reveal themselves slowly as you play.

That is pretty much how we designed it - there are not going to be any experts with this game system yet, as you chaps have just not been playing it long enough!

It comes down to this - if you are finding you are becoming static in cover then, tactically, you are at a disadvantage. Basically, something has gone wrong. As you carry on playing, you will find ways to beat the 'turtle' approach of opponents, and these all require mobility. . .

 

[Galatea]

I never had a problem with Piercing 1 2 or 3 and Hits 1 2 6 or 10 Those were absolutely intuitive... my feeling and perception is that this is all in an effort to simplify the wording for a younger audience...

It doesn't simplify anything, it just causes confusion.

 

[Xorrandor]

I never had a problem with Piercing 1 2 or 3 and Hits 1 2 6 or 10 Those were absolutely intuitive... my feeling and perception is that this is all in an effort to simplify the wording for a younger audience...

It doesn't simplify anything, it just causes confusion.

I agree, this doesn't really simplify the wording. And if you're going for a younger audience, don't fool around: make your product as close to WH40K as possible . I suspect that it is an attempt to simplify the base rules, even if that makes individual cards more complicated. This is fine for BF:Evo, where multi-hit models are rare and are expected to have special rules. I'm not sure it makes as much sense in SST, though.

And I'm not sure that "Hits" is all that intuitive, actually. Sure, the total damage is easy to remember, but is it obvious that you drop down to one action with one Hit left? Is it obvious how many dice are needed to suppress the unit? These aren't hard to remember, but they aren't encompassed in the intuitive meaning of "Hit Points" either.