What will happen to the original SST

[MaxSteiner]

Heard that once or twice before
Still assuming the rules, the sculpts, the release dates, distrubution, proof reading and art work are all sorted out you could be right.

 

[BuShips]

Heard that once or twice before
Still assuming the rules, the sculpts, the release dates, distrubution, proof reading and art work are all sorted out you could be right.

Max, try getting out your "reading between the lines" glasses. :wink:
Scipio was probably the hardest critic of MGP and their tribulations with SST. Brighter days are ahead.

 

[MaxSteiner]

Scipio was the harshest? Honestly? :lol:
Im well aware that Scipio's been let into a little secret, and obviously its cheered him up alot, hell even I'd appear more cheerful if that happened . And honestly I do hope things are as rosey as they're being painted.
But you can't just forget all the 'game saving' things that didn't pan out.

 

[BuShips]

Scipio was the harshest? Honestly? :lol:
Im well aware that Scipio's been let into a little secret, and obviously its cheered him up alot, hell even I'd appear more cheerful if that happened . And honestly I do hope things are as rosey as they're being painted.
But you can't just forget all the 'game saving' things that didn't pan out.

Good, I see that you have the sense of it. I was getting worried there for a sec. :wink:

Yes, I'd say that being their most loyal customer laid the framework for his being a harsh critic when things fell off the table. Not many of us here can claim published work that was folded into the very rules that we bought. The work on the Forth and the DUI graphics are examples. Also, how many of us can say that our reading of the original book would affect our lives in the ways that it has for our Scipio. For me, jumping out of perfectly good aircraft over a hot LZ will only happen to me in my imagination and I'll venture Scipio knew what HALO meant way before any game thought of using the acronym. :wink:

I for one will wait for as long as it takes for MGP to set things up again. I guess my major clue is that they haven't dropped the license yet and that can't be cheap for them to keep going. :idea:

I also understand fully your comments as well that this waiting is "tough" with what has come before. :roll:

 

[ScipioAmericanus]

Scipio was the harshest? Honestly? :lol:
Im well aware that Scipio's been let into a little secret, and obviously its cheered him up alot, hell even I'd appear more cheerful if that happened . And honestly I do hope things are as rosey as they're being painted.
But you can't just forget all the 'game saving' things that didn't pan out.

Good, I see that you have the sense of it. I was getting worried there for a sec. :wink:

Yes, I'd say that being their most loyal customer laid the framework for his being a harsh critic when things fell off the table. Not many of us here can claim published work that was folded into the very rules that we bought. The work on the Forth and the DUI graphics are examples. Also, how many of us can say that our reading of the original book would affect our lives in the ways that it has for our Scipio. For me, jumping out of perfectly good aircraft over a hot LZ will only happen to me in my imagination and I'll venture Scipio knew what HALO meant way before any game thought of using the acronym. :wink:

I for one will wait for as long as it takes for MGP to set things up again. I guess my major clue is that they haven't dropped the license yet and that can't be cheap for them to keep going. :idea:

I also understand fully your comments as well that this waiting is "tough" with what has come before. :roll:

Hi BuShips!

Yells atcha, Bro! How have you been!!! You made me

Me? MGP's "most loyal customer?" Wow. I never even thought of it that way.

Ha! Never jumped over a "hot LZ!" LZ's are for LEGS being ferried in by helicopter. *pukes* LZ=Landing Zone, DZ = Drop Zone.

REAL soldiers go into DZ's!!!!! :lol:

Luckilly, I've never jumped into a "hot DZ." If I had, I likely wouldn't be typing this now! That would have meant a MAJOR screw-up. Trust me, it's scary enough when you air land and realize that all those "pretty green lights" outside are some guys shooting at YOUR plane. *shudders*

Ah! HALO. High Altitude, Low Opening. Oh yeah. It's a video game about a ring planet. Hmmm... haven't played any of them (but I have played Bio Shock! lol).

To me, "HALO" means going out the a$$ end of an aircraft on oxygen over Arizona and seeing the lights of LA. A totally captivating experience. And then an instructor steers over to you and makes you do all kinds of procedures. Totally spoils the mood. :-(

Max: BuShips is right. I have probably been MGP's HARSHEST critic. Not out of animosity, certainly, but out of a desire to make SST the game we all know it can be. I threw up my hands in frustration and walked away for a while. And again, BuShips is right: Heinlein's book was probably the most important influence on my career path in the Army. Indeed, I even teach the novel to my cadets.

There have been many faux pas with SST, and I will not argue that. Indeed, I have ranted about many of them ad infinitum.

But...think about this. If I (arguably SST's harshest critic) am excited, then maybe good things are indeed coming?

Keep the Faith, Brother.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Galatea]

Just believe when I see that.
I'm not painting all black but if MGP wants to get my state of being mistrusting and wary pass away there are some things they have to do right first.

 

[ScipioAmericanus]

Just believe when I see that.
I'm not painting all black but if MGP wants to get my state of being mistrusting and wary pass away there are some things they have to do right first.

Alles klar! They will.

Regards.

 

[BuShips]

I stand humbly corrected . I never thought of separating an LZ as for heli only and DZ for paras. Makes perfect sense, though. My learning curve just went up a pixel, heh. Well, it just proves my point that a DZ is what CAP troopers would know about while an LZ is what those Light Armored Troopers would call it when getting a taxi ride onto the surface. :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, if I may ask, where did you pick up your scrap metal hitchhiker? Am I confused?

 

[Galatea]

Alles klar! They will.

I hope so.
I like the games they produce and hope they will finally get it right.

 

[L-Bug]

I hope too for some good news from MGP !

I'm also one of them ranting players, telling MGP to go places or to stick things in places, but then again it's because I leeeeeuuuvv SST and hate it that no new players are attracted and old players stop playing because of endless delays.

So, for once, I'm posting a positive reply on this forum ; )
Keep up the good work MGP, we're eagerly waiting.

Yours Bugly

 

[Gregor]

so - what were the tweaks that folks are playing to SST v1 ??

 

[Galatea]

- ignore the rule "wounded" (makes Exos almost unplayable)
- ignore the "cannot take actions of his own" part in the Ambushing Warrior rules (which made the asset completely worthless)
- add a regain command rule -> squad passes next two action to promote any model to new squad leader

- Clarify the "persistent" trait
- Streamline dice allocation (if there is a Squad with all models of the same type it doesn't make sense to allocate dice).
- Clarify dice allocation when models with different target/kill are in one squad (highest results hit nearest models)

That's it basically, I don't think there were much more.

 

[Gregor]

Thanks. I must admit to being a fan of SST v1 and would simply like to see a smoothing out of some rough edges.

Thanks for the amendments mentioned.

I also think that if you fire a nuclear weapon, or any other ordnance, you ought to count it as a loss - otherwise in competitions there is less than the army size available for the opponent to score against - makes a big difference in some scoring systems (eg Mongoose's).

 

[Paladin]

I also think that if you fire a nuclear weapon, or any other ordnance, you ought to count it as a loss - otherwise in competitions there is less than the army size available for the opponent to score against - makes a big difference in some scoring systems (eg Mongoose's).

Agreed. Any points that are "used" or expended always count toward the enemy's victory points in just about every other game. At best they are tied to the shooting/casting model. If you kill the source you get the point for his weapons.

THough it may not make as much difference with the Evo Shatter Point rules. By making the point of loss a percentage of your # of troops you are already shrink your army in terms of # of units and make every death more expensive toward winning.

 

[Hiromoon]

Bwha? So Hunter/Killer Missiles in Warhammer 40k count for the Enemy's VPs?

I'm sorry Paladin, but I gotta disagree on this point: The weapon, once expended, doesn't and shouldn't count towards the Enemy's VPs, as it's use has effectively denied the enemy the chance to claim those points. Now, if it's a Nuclear Warhead being toted around by a Cap Trooper lugging his rocket launcher, and said trooper gets killed before he gets to fire it, then the enemy can claim those points.

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

Yup. That's why I always put my Nuke trooper in a drop pod, and as soon as he lands fire it at the biggest bug I could find. Felt a lot like Heinlein's original vision, and made for very interesting looks on Hiromoon's face

And I feel ya, Scip. Heinlein's masterpiece change my outlook on life, and I wouldn't have joined the military otherwise. Course, I never got to do a HALO jump...*grumbles*

 

[Gauntlet-]

I kind of feel like the nuke should work as such:

If you kill a 300 point model/s with the Nuke the enemy gets No points, and you get 300

If you kill 250 points of models, then the enemy gets the left over value of your nuke, IE 50 points. You still get 250.

This way the enemy gets a little something if you wasted your nuke inefficiently, and you of course are just as well off as before.


I dunno what would work, but I feel something needs tweaking there.

 

[Hiromoon]

... made for very interesting looks on Hiromoon's face

Well, it makes up for my highly accurate plasma bug fire I suppose...

 

[Xorrandor]

I'm sorry Paladin, but I gotta disagree on this point: The weapon, once expended, doesn't and shouldn't count towards the Enemy's VPs, as it's use has effectively denied the enemy the chance to claim those points.

What does "claiming points" represent, then? My assumption was that it meant those assets could not be used in future battles. We get points for troops not because they have little point counters on their armor that we are trying to collect, but because their loss is assumed to hurt the enemy war effort. Similarly, nukes that are used are not available to be used in future battles; so, you should get VP for them. What do VP represent to you, that expendable munitions don't count toward them?

(Note: this addresses the question of "should", not "does". The rules for this or other games can have silly loopholes, but if you want to argue "should", I'm curious as to the reasoning.)

 

[BuShips]

My own feeling on this is that the points spent upon a nuke could of course be spent on troops or air assets, etc. Thus, points expended are ponts expended.

In attrition tactics you just try to make the points that you use up in casualties cause even more casualties to the other side. In a way, a nuke is kamikaze points. You expend the asset in the hopes of causing more damage than the loss of the asset causes you. If you blow up nothing but sand, the enemy counts the points. If you cause 350 points of enemy casualties then you "net" 50 points in the trade. Another way to look at this is that if you took those same 300 points and bought a Slingshot and then flew it into a Plasma Bug kamikaze style, you then cancel out his points along with your own. Points is points, guys. :wink: