Should it stay or should it go?

[roughneck GIR]

I think the only thing they could add is some scatily clad women with large breasts!

As the result of an editing mistake, you are going to be rewarded with a "large woman with scant breasts"... :lol:

LMAO!

 

[Sgt Xin]

Must Add : Clarification to Ready Actions.

 

[Grah]

Must add: proper cover rules, none of this 'well if they can see to fire at one of your models that isn't in cover then all of it's unit isn't in cover'. Nor this 'well a size 2 CHAS can jump 6" in the air and so can get LOS over size 7 cover regardless of the size and location of what he is looking at.
And if you add proper cover rules then there is no need for the bugs to resort to the ultra-cheesy (but without cover rules, absolutely necessary) 'jam in 15 cliff mites as ablative armour for a Plasma bug' tactic.

Must go: Exo-suits with two firestorm missiles. Too powerful.

Must change: Infiltrator bug rules - almost pointless fielding one of these in 'cloaked' mode at the moment.
Burrower bug normal movement up to 4 at least.
CHAS are too cheap, points-wise.

 

[daggers]

Priority Levels (at least in their current form)
Deployment Areas and Tactics (should be defined by the scenario, as should emplacement assets)

agreed with this as I think it needs fine tuning a bit
though I prefer scenario based / themed games

Lose 1” range (Increase the LZ for hand grenades to 2” rather than one, will make them more useful)

 

[Poko]

must stay: all the main rules-just clarifying is enough as the rules are.
must go: grizzilies with 2 firestorms(although this is more of a armylist change)-they are a no-brainer right now.

 

[Mac]

Must Change

IGOUGO Initiative System
Keep the Action/Reaction system, but move to a card based initiative system using a standard deck of playing cards. Something along the lines as what has been used in "The Sword and The Flame" set of historical rules for years. Get one card for each unit and bonus cards for Command Assets (NCOs, LTs, Brains, Overseers). Each unit still only conducts two "actions' during a turn, but the increased number of cards gives you a better chance of activating your units before your opponent. Special abilities (Heroic Surge, Brain Bug bonus actions, etc.) work as normal.

Also adds a great deal of excitment and suspense at the table.


Artillery Fire Scatter System
While an interesting approach, I hate looking up the charts all the time. Maybe a simpler system would be either the Scatter Die commonly available in several forms or a "Long/Short" Die roll. Roll a D6 and a D10; declare one "Long " or "Short" before the roll, the other die becomes the other automatically. Subtract the results and that is where the template lands.

EXAMPLE:

I call "Long" for the D10. The "Long" die roll is a "2" and the "Short" die (D6) roll is a "6". The template would land 4" short of the target point, in line with the firing figure.

Variation on this system could be two different colored D6s or D10s. Instead of declaring the type, declare the color as "Long" or "Short" before the die roll.

EXAMPLE:

I call "Long" for the blue D10. The "Long" die roll is a "2" and the "Short" die (a red D10) roll is a "6". The template would land 4" short of the target point, in line with the firing figure.


Must Stay

Pre-Measuring
Leave the side bar on Pre-Measuring (soft cover, p.17) as is. I'm an old grognard. I'm darn good at range estimation, cause I've been doing it for over 20 years now (generally +/-1"). I like having the choice of playing without pre-measuring. The arguements for or against pre-measuring can fill MBs of space and I don't wish to re-hash it here. Suffice it to say, I agree with the side bar that this should be left up to the players. This way EVERYONE is happy.

Measuring Point
I think Center Point or Head for Size 1 and 2 models would be acceptable. Anywhere on body for models Size 3 and above (no arms, legs, wings, etc).

Your basic Arachnid warrior isn't too smart, but you can blow off a limb, and it's still 86 percent combat effective. Here's a tip: Aim for the nerve stem, and put it down for good.

Must Add

Range Increments
Mostly for large game tables (6'x8') or people who want to simulate more "realistic" ranges (esp in BF:Evo), an optional Range Increment system might be worth while. A Range Increment would allow a weapon system to fire beyond it's listed range at a negative modifier to hit.

EXAMPLE:

A Morita Rifle has a range of 24" (at a scale of 1"=2m, that's all of 48m or about 50 yards). Using a Range Increment system, this would become its "effective" range. The next increment would 24 1/16" to 48" and the weapon would recieve a -1 penalty to all attack dice rolled. This would mean the player would have to roll a "6" to hit a Warrior Bug.

Range increments could continue until either a weapon is totally ineffective or to a set limit of increments. This would not be used for LZ (Stream) weapons. A weapon trait could be developed that ignores one (or more) of the Range Increment penalties for weapons such as the Morita Sniper Rifle, a M82 Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle or the M256 120mm main gun on an M1A1.

Not having access to the BF:Evo playtest rules, I don't know how "historically accurate" you guys are shooting for with regards to weapon ranges.

Yes, that was intentional.

Hope this gives you guys some food for thought!

Mark

 

[daggers]

Must Change

IGOUGO Initiative System
Keep the Action/Reaction system, but move to a card based initiative system using a standard deck of playing cards. Something along the lines as what has been used in "The Sword and The Flame" set of historical rules for years. Get one card for each unit and bonus cards for Command Assets (NCOs, LTs, Brains, Overseers)..

Please don't do this, the system works fine and by pulling in a set of cards you are complicating the whole thing

Must Stay
Range Increments
Mostly for large game tables (6'x8') or people who want to simulate more "realistic" ranges (esp in BF:Evo), an optional Range Increment system might be worth while. A Range Increment would allow a weapon system to fire beyond it's listed range at a negative modifier to hit.

EXAMPLE:

A Morita Rifle has a range of 24" (at a scale of 1"=2m, that's all of 48m or about 50 yards). Using a Range Increment system, this would become its "effective" range. The next increment would 24 1/16" to 48" and the weapon would recieve a -1 penalty to all attack dice rolled. This would mean the player would have to roll a "6" to hit a Warrior Bug.

doesn't this make the game a lot more complex as you'll have to calculate / remember the damages at certain ranges, resulting in you having to look them up or memories them.

One thing about the Indirect fire that would make life easier is why not have 2 tables rather than 4
one for long one for short

just a thought

 

[Makoto]

Must Change

IGOUGO Initiative System
Keep the Action/Reaction system, but move to a card based initiative system using a standard deck of playing cards. Something along the lines as what has been used in "The Sword and The Flame" set of historical rules for years. Get one card for each unit and bonus cards for Command Assets (NCOs, LTs, Brains, Overseers)..

Please don't do this, the system works fine and by pulling in a set of cards you are complicating the whole thing

Ditto that - current system is good and fluent, there's no need to overcomplicate a toll that's good already and it would add whole lot of mess to the game. Not to mention the need for an extra deck of cards.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I have to say, I don't find the arty rules too complicated. Pick a target, declare odds/evens and short/long, and roll. it's damned handy for bombarding enemy units in heavy cover as you don't need LOS to fire.

 

[Quark]

PLEASE DO NOT USE THE CARD DRAW INITIATIVE SYSTEM!

Other than that I can't think of anything that must stay or must go, but the terrain rules need re-worked or at least definatively explained in terms of what happens when I use jump or hover-If a size 2 model is on a size 3 hill it counts as a size 5 model-why is that not so when jumping, etc...

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I certianly agree that the core rules are great and don't need any tweaking. It's just some of the more nebulous sections of the rules - cover, terrain, interaction between air and ground units, stuff like that.

 

[Col_stone]

no card drawing please,
The ready action trouble is mostly just which ready actions are "ready for (next action)" and which are "complete actions"

and keep the airphase!!!
I'm looking at a way to use the SST-system for other games aswell, (40k, the FW-way does not appeal at all)

 

[emperorpenguin]

Must Stay: reactions. the actions.

Must Change: no incentive to use artillery fire mode of nukes, javelins etc when direct fire is so much better.
Cover rules are odd.

Must add: Morale & suppression for the non-bugs. The one real weakness of the rules IMO. 40K gets slated for poor morale rules so SST should lead the way with good morale rules. Flinching & OOC (OOC is fine as a rule but there should still be the possibility of running) just doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Voracioustigger]

I think it might be cool to have an initiative based system, but is it really NECESSARY when we already have an action/reaction system? Doesn't this system already make up a lot for the I go you go type of game?

 

[Gauntlet-]

Yes it does- the I-go u go with reactions is the best way to ... well go

ALot has been said so I wont repeat too much

Cover/terrain, especially concerning angles from heights due to jump shooters...

In general cover saves should be made better, frankly you could even ditch the armor save issue, and instead simply state that units in cover count 'kill' results as target unless its killshot or Flame

my point is, make cover better, as it stands getting cover is a challlenge because of MI mobility and it slows you down, and it wont be useful enough to warrant it.

Also- make rules for destructable terrain, it adds alot of tactical options when you know you can burn down the forest in your way.. Plus no other game does that effectively

and im sure ppl will love it.


Also Bunkers and buildings as it stands are death traps because of collapsing and all LZ weapons re-rolling (which few remember anyways)... i think players would prefer them to be advantages.


Persistent Must GO

 

[emperorpenguin]

good point I'd forgotten that killshots mean no cover save.

cover does indeed not play enough of a role

 

[Soulmage]

The terrain rules in 40k and Fantasy are atrocuious. Sounds like folks aren't happy with these either.

I would say coming up with terrain rules that are easy to use, flexible, and add a tactical element to the game and a priority.

 

[daggers]

good point I'd forgotten that killshots mean no cover save.

cover does indeed not play enough of a role

cover saves should be expanded to kill shots

 

[Hiromoon]

There were revised cover rules put to the playtest group before the SST:EV stuff arrived.....

 

[Mac]

Must Change

IGOUGO Initiative System
Keep the Action/Reaction system, but move to a card based initiative system using a standard deck of playing cards. Something along the lines as what has been used in "The Sword and The Flame" set of historical rules for years. Get one card for each unit and bonus cards for Command Assets (NCOs, LTs, Brains, Overseers)..

Please don't do this, the system works fine and by pulling in a set of cards you are complicating the whole thing

All games are a balance between "Playability" and "Realism" (yes even in a fictional setting). The IGOUGO system is the easiest way to determine who goes first. I've seen too many games that use an IGOUGO system end on the first turn, when one side goes first and shoots up the other side so bad that they have little or no chance of pulling off a "win".

WizKidz, for both D&D miniatures and Star Wars Miniatures (the fastest selling game in the US today, IIRC) uses a staggered IGOUGO system, where each player gets to alternate moving two (2) models during the turn. This breaks up the turn quite nicely and allows players more interaction on the table top as they react to each other's moves, not unlike chess, checkers or Tic-Tac-Toe.

The Crossfire WWII game allows Player #1 to continue taking actions with his units (squads and individual vehicles) until the opposing player can take a combat action against one of the units. Then the initiative changes until Player #1 can can take a combat action against one of Player #2's units (can't be from the squad that triggered the initative change). As a side note, Crossfire doesn't use ranges either, as the game scale puts a standard table at around 150m. This is well within the effective ranges of all weapons (except pistols and grenades) used during WWII.

I've played many games (including games that weren't originally designed that way) throughout the years using a card based initative system using a standard deck of playing cards available for around $1US. If a Black Card (or Spades in a multi-player game) is drawn, Player #1 moves a unit (and other players still get Reations). When a Red Card is drawn, Player #2 moves a unit. It is only slightly more complicated than tieing your shoe laces. Far less complicated than learning to use the internet and message boards.

Must Add
Range Increments
Mostly for large game tables (6'x8') or people who want to simulate more "realistic" ranges (esp in BF:Evo), an optional Range Increment system might be worth while. A Range Increment would allow a weapon system to fire beyond it's listed range at a negative modifier to hit.

EXAMPLE:

A Morita Rifle has a range of 24" (at a scale of 1"=2m, that's all of 48m or about 50 yards). Using a Range Increment system, this would become its "effective" range. The next increment would 24 1/16" to 48" and the weapon would recieve a -1 penalty to all attack dice rolled. This would mean the player would have to roll a "6" to hit a Warrior Bug.

doesn't this make the game a lot more complex as you'll have to calculate / remember the damages at certain ranges, resulting in you having to look them up or memories them.

Again, it is only slightly more complicated than tieing your shoe laces. Far less complicated than learning to use the internet and message boards. Each range increment adds a -1 modifier to all hit dice. The first (1st) range increment beyond the listed effective range adds a -1 modifier. Add a second (2nd) range increment, it becomes a -2 modifier, and a -3 modifier when firing at a model in the third (3rd) range increment. It is simple addition and subtraction, which someone should already be able to do. If they can make an army list that is......

Again, I think this would depend on how "historically accurate" MGP is trying to make weapon ranges for BF:Evo. At the scale of 1"=2m (roughly on par with figure scale) that makes a 48" wide board a whopping 96m across. Well within the effective ranges of all modern assault rifles and MGs. The biggest hassle of the Range Increment system would be on the Game Developer's side. They would have to reexamine the point cost of ranged weapons, which they may well be doing anyway. If the fine people at MGP are going to try and tell me an M16's range is only 48m, well then BF:Evo wouldn't be very "historically accurate". And I really don't see an M16 losing about 90% of it's range in 5-10 years.


Mark