So whats happened to my game

[combatdroid113]

okay been away for some time to blow off some steam over teh Battlefront EVO thing. So whats happened? How are the new rules and when will we see the compilation of the old rules? How is the game now catching on?

 

[Aniyn]

It's still not out yet.

 

[combatdroid113]

ahh glad someone answered... things must be grim here though theres a 5 page thread on Dogs - I still have to say you did not realise? :shock: Though a name like Caleb dogs would have rung bells with the fanatics. Also theres a scarily large thread on at-43 i think ill have to put asidea day to read it :shock:


So when do we think the new rules might be out? IS there a campaign aspect to the game or is it still 1 shot?

 

[tneva82]

So when do we think the new rules might be out? IS there a campaign aspect to the game or is it still 1 shot?

First models out april, rulebook later 3 months later and yes campaign rules are likely there(they are in BF:evo, why not in SST:evo as well. Same rulesystem so all it needs is little bit of renaming here and there...)

 

[Bluefool]

Main rulebook 3 months later? *gurk* I was expecting that at launch....oh well...

At least its getting closer....

 

[Voracioustigger]

So when do we think the new rules might be out? IS there a campaign aspect to the game or is it still 1 shot?

First models out april, rulebook later 3 months later and yes campaign rules are likely there(they are in BF:evo, why not in SST:evo as well. Same rulesystem so all it needs is little bit of renaming here and there...)

There is a lot more that needs to go into SST:Evo than BF:Evo.

BF:evo, for one thing, did take several months to get to where it is today, but it had the basic SST rules to go off of, and because all of the armies are so alike (stat and ability wise), balancing wasn't too much of an issue.

SST on the other hand needs a LOT of time spent balancing 4 armies that are NOTHING alike. I'd say the Forth and MI are about as close as they come and they still make the MEA and the USMC look like identical forces. Then you also have to remember that you have to balance tunneling (non-existent in BF:evo) and Close combat for bugs (CC is really a non-factor in BF:evo) and a more significant Air phase (there is a LOT more Air/ground and Air/air interaction in SST). All that put together, along with other factors like the fact that entire armies can jump/hover/fly etc, makes SST a MUCH more complicated game.

It doesn't need a bit of renaming, it really is a very different game... now that may be in large part because of the armies, but there still need to be significant rule modifications to keep some SST rules from the original SST rules in check.

 

[Turtle]

Also certain rules work differently. For example, the tanker bug has the same Tough ability, like BFE tanks, but a killshot does 2 wounds instead of outright killing it in one hit.

This is part of a big refocus of SST from the deadly BFE style where you have to stay in cover, to SST's more fantastical scifi world.

 

[Galatea]

And I still don't understand why they don't work with hitpoints.

I have seen the BFE Cards in S&P - I DONT WANT THIS FOR SST!

They are FAR too complicated. Traits where far easier (and yes you CAN cover alls those effects with traits).

 

[Turtle]

Oh please...

Don't start this stupid argument again.

 

[Voracioustigger]

And I still don't understand why they don't work with hitpoints.

I have seen the BFE Cards in S&P - I DONT WANT THIS FOR SST!

They are FAR too complicated. Traits where far easier (and yes you CAN cover alls those effects with traits).

/agree with Tuttle...

Yes it's easier for us, but if you just list traits on the cards, then that sort of defeats the purpose of being able to play from the cards. The nice thing about the cards is that there really isn't anything that you need to know about the unit that isn't listed on the card, which is much friendlier for the new (or younger) gamer.

 

[Galatea]

So what's the problem with simply naming the Traits as the Title of the special rules?

Or just wirte them on the frontside - there is enough space.
If any one can't remember what a trait is doing he may still read the full text at the back of the card.

 

[Turtle]

It's a pointless issue.

Pointless

When you sit down at the table to play, this will become a complete non issue after 1 or 2 play throughs. I know this because I've actually played the game with 6 games under my belt, including two at 1000 points, and I'm someone who likes traits too.

So don't turn a really pointless little detail into some big deal.

 

[tneva82]

SST on the other hand needs a LOT of time spent balancing 4 armies that are NOTHING alike.

And this means they can't use campaign system(which btw has nothing to deal with invidual units...)...HOW?

WHAT HAS CAMPAIGN RULES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH INVIDUAL UNITS/RULES???

 

[MaxSteiner]

I don't care either way, because I can see both sides of the issue, but I am begining to see a pattern, whereby someone raises a concern and you tell them its pointless arguament, because you say so Turtle.

SST:Evo is still in developement, so theres still time to raise concerns, Mongoose is really good at listening to players comments, so why not let people discus it?

Having it all on the cards good because new players can just learn the rules from them, no need to look through a book.

HOWEVER

Having traits makes sense, because, durring play you can simply ask 'What traits does that have?' they tell you and you know! Without having to stop and read a card.

As Galatea says, the ideal sittuation would be to retain the Traits as titles for the rule descrition on the card.
Lets try and save all the bitter arguing (Which as everyone knows I enjoy more than anyone) for the time when we actually have the rules.
(For the record though I think they should make a clear distinction between Evo and SST style gaming as you suggest turtle, a Tanker should be a LOT scarier than a tank )

 

[Col_stone]

As Galatea says, the ideal sittuation would be to retain the Traits as titles for the rule descrition on the card.

I agree

(For the record though I think they should make a clear distinction between Evo and SST style gaming as you suggest turtle, a Tanker should be a LOT scarier than a tank )

a tank without tankers is pretty harmless :wink:
ok.. that was not very funny but i couldn't stop myself

 

[MaxSteiner]

lol man Im slow today took me a while to get that