New Playtest Pack V1.2
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Triggy said:
Presumably though, we are only talking about this in the movement phase? I'm uncomfortable with it applying in the shooting phase too.
As you say though, the wording however is going to be crucial - if you've only one two'fer left, you should be able to move it individually.
Regards,
Dave
Da Boss said:
thats pretty much it, I tried to include the original P&P rule as much as possible, basically I just wanted to throw out the enforced squadron part of it
Foxmeister said:
I believe all of the attempted fixes are specify that its during moving that this takes place not firing, triggy was refering to l33tpenguins must activate a minimum of 1 Patrol point for movement
and yes I also agree that if there is only 1 2fer left, let it do whatever the hell it wants
Ike said:
Sorry, but I fought more then ones against an armada of 2floers and lost because I was silly enough to try to play a fair list without them, that's because I hate the entire 2fler idea and only several things can make me think different:
1. Scrap the whole 2fler thing and make them worth 1 point Patrol choices
2. Make the twoflers be really worth 1/2 Patrol point in Damage, Crew, Weapons and all, not 0,75 or 1 Patrol choice they are now
3. Make larger ships more resisdend against criticals ast hey are much too powerfull and can brake a game which would otherwise have become an enjoyable one.
Having swarms of Sho'Kos / Sho'Kov or Thetys to fight against which are each worth a single Patrol ship in capabilities not 1/2 and having Precise SAP or Beam DD weapons isn't a fair thing
Tolwyn said:
im going to say thats a more of who you play with then the game any fleet list has its cheese factor if you look hard enough(okay almost every list)
and its been agreed that swarms of smaller craft are going to beat the larger ones hence why the change in FAP table
which is really not my arguement with you its that the shokos/kov is worth 1 patrol or even close to 1 patrol
its resilient, probably about the most resilient ship the narn have with its dodge ability, and that it can actually CBD and be combat effective, I admit those things should die more often then they do
posted 1for 1 against any patrol lvl ship it loses, except against scouts who probably has 25% chance of wining, posted 2 for 1 against them the only one I think they can beat hands down is the dilgar and vree, dilgar due to no active defence and vree cause well they are fragile and need to hide behind things
it doesnt have the fire power of patrol lvl chips (incidently its a 1AD beam, no DD) just seems to survive longer then it should
Harry Lonsdale
Mongoose
How about TBS?Triggy said:
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Amen.Harry Lonsdale said:
The G'Quan to be upgraded properly. Sorry, but you walked right into that one.Triggy said:
I got a chance to playtest the G'Quan yesterday in a battle between 3 x G'Quan and 3 x Primus. I don't have a good enough memory to recall a blow-by-blow account, but I did try out a strategy of keeping the G'Quans well spaced apart; each one could then use its boresight beam against an enemy attacking another G'Quan. It might even have worked if I'd remembered to use CBD more often (that's what comes of playing Shadows too often, I don't get into the habit of using CBD because they don't have it
).Apart from that, the main things I noticed were that the G'Quan's secondaries are poor. Not the range, as most people complain; when two lumbering ships head towards each other, both hoping to use their front beams, they're bound to spiral inwards. But the G'Quan's secondaries are only single damage, whereas the Primus' secondaries are double damage, and with the number of dice being thrown around, that was significant.
So I'd like the G'Quan either to have double-damage secondaries, or upgrade its beam to 6D (putting it on a par with the Omega) and maybe make the energy mine slow-loading.
One amusing moment was where I deliberately e-mined one of my own ships.
Due to the way things had moved, I could place an e-mine where it would hit two Primuses and half his fighters, but only if it also hit one of my G'Quans as well. Said G'Quan had taken plenty of damage and enough crits to severely hamper it anyway; if the crits hadn't included "No SA", it would have rammed the nearest Primus next chance it got. Fortunately, the e-mine didn't do any damage to the G'Quan. Unfortunately, it didn't do much to the Primuses either. It did get the fighters, though. 
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Wait, I think I've seen this sketch before...
"Other than armour/redundancy, and TBS, name one thing that people might like if it was in P&P."
"A fixed initiative system?"
"Other than armour/redundancy, TBS, and a fixed initiative system, name one thing that people might like if it was in P&P."
:lol:
"Other than armour/redundancy, and TBS, name one thing that people might like if it was in P&P."
"A fixed initiative system?"
"Other than armour/redundancy, TBS, and a fixed initiative system, name one thing that people might like if it was in P&P."
:lol:
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Triggy said:BTW, TBS will not be in P&P
Are we being listened to at all?
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Probably the most annoying part is that TBS is more of a tweak than a change. All it does is lower the target number to hit by one, and raise the target number to reroll by one.
In all seriousness, I've re-proposed the armour/redundancy and the main issue seems time needed to test it rather than that it isn't popular.nekomata fuyu said:
And yes, the G'Quan in all likelihood will be getting a bit more than the +1AD and +5 damage (and no, it isn't more damage/crew)...hint, hint...
TBS would be unofficial and that's Matt's issue with it. Given that it's unofficial and already widely known here he thinks that's enough. The way I take that is that we ought to step up the usage of TBS, using it in playtesting and tournaments and campaigns!
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Triggy said:
But it gets +1ad and 10 damage already.
Triggy said:
To be fair has their actually been more than one game played with the TBS system.
Previously BBS was used (IMHO it is better than the present system) in a number of games with reports on here and in a tournament but got no official recognition - what makes you think this will be?
re your version Space Station rules - are they going in or is the present system staying as is.
We are looking to play a Station Assault next week (war level) station to see what happens.
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Considering just how popular it seems to be, combined with it being a relatively minor tweak of the beam mechanics, I would be considering it as an official change. It would certainly sidestep the problem of introducing house rules...Triggy said:
sidewinder
Mongoose
Does anyone remember the accurate trait from first edition?
SylvrDragon
Mongoose
sidewinder said:
Didn't exist. Back then it was called Anti-Fighter, but then Anti-Fighter didn't exist as a ship trait.
