You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Demian Rose
Sorry, I just moved...
I've replied to you both off list.
I have a platoon of GZG 15mm NAC that I finally (two years of patiently awaiting final paint dabs and basing) got around to finishing. They still need transport, but they are ready to rock and roll.
Before I decide if I want to come up with completely unique stats, I was curious if anyone has looked at converting Stargrunt values to Defiance.
Not that I know of, but I'm happy to hear from folks who've tried. I've done a 40K stat conversion and tnjrp has done a Warzone stat conversion.
The most current errata list is now posted as a download from the MJ12 Defiance webpage. It includes all changes that have been made since mid-March, so some of you who purchased the book later than this will notice that certain of them have already been corrected.
Many of the changes are clarfications of wording that was a bit awkward and a good amount of them relate to the combo weapons discussions that have occurred here on this forum.
IS is now #1, followed by IS:TMW at #2.
Defiance is #4
From #2 to #4 in less than 24 hrs (oh wait, it's at #3 now...???...)...
That's it, I guess I'm going to have to purchase *more* personal copies of Defiance?
Heh... Iron Stars is #1 at RPGNow.com
How could you!?
Now Defiance is #2. :evil:
:wink:
The reported errors have been noted and I will try and go through and fix them this weekend. Several sound like cut and paste errors in the transition from Word doc to layout doc to final PDF.
-Demian
I would rather prefer to see the cost tied to the actual number of options taken -- a sort of "progressive tax model" if you like. Something along the lines of "1 additional frame = 50% discount to the cost of the additional frame, 2 additional frames = 40% discount to the combined cost of the additional frames, 3 additional frames = 30% discount to the combined cost" maybe
Hmmm, I see your point, but don't like adding in fiddly math if I don't have to do so.
On further reflection, I'm inclined to leave things largely the way they are, with the one restriction being 4 max frames, and see if anyone can find a "cheesy" weapon that goes against the spirit of the rule.
@SW: I love these conversions! Makes me want to break out the FROG BAP! Actually, come to think of it, I think I lost it... :cry:
@JC: I agree with you that U.S.S. armies are best described as "field-able" armies, i.e. they do not and cannot decsribe the entirety of a national force. This is intentional. There is no particular "point balance" reason to restrict frame number, it just makes for a more consistent overall "feel" to each army.
-Demian
*quote*Given the fact that many games tend to end as platforms for competetive gaming (by design as per Wh40k or -- at least apparently -- by accident), IMHO it could well be a hard and fast rule: up to 4 "free" frames per single "counted towards the frame limit" frame is plenty. Even Tech Level + 1 would seem to be enough (although at Level 3 it of course amounts to the same thing). If somebody wanted to make monster combo frames he could as well do it by adopting a house rule.
Minimum cost to add a frame on the other hand seems a little suspect to me as it might direct people towards "points juggling" with combo weapon frames to get the maximum "bang for the buck". Which is non-conductive to making characterful armies.*quote*
I like the TL+1 idea. Can you give me an example of a scenario where point cost minimums would lead to frame juggling? In a sense, one could argue that there should be a minimum cost for the sake of flexibility alone. Plus, many weapon frames already cost 20PV or more, even without effectors, meaning that the +5/+10 minimum won't make a difference very often.
-Demian
speaking off infranites......
how would one build a long range smoke launcher?
Good question. In theory, it will require playtesting more than any mathematical formulae, though its cost would still vary statistically by the weapon frame attributes used to shoot the smoke grenade. My gut says price it the same as a 9+ AOE template of the same size for -1 LOS and a 7+ AOE template for -2 LOS. It would have the same tabletop duration as a smoke grenade.
Let me know if you try this out.
this rule would keep me from building the infranites as close as possible to the original rules. off the top of my head they have three combo weapons(one with four ammo types-vehicle weapon though), but they don't have that many frames. and it gets expensive to build combo-weapons!!!!
i also couldn't build ANY warzone army where i try to stick to the fluff saying that every assault rifle and smg and most pistols can have an underbarrel grenade launcher or flamer.
okay, i'm going to calm down now. sorry if that came across as harsh, but i feel very strongly about this.
I backpedaled on restricting the number combo frames. I think that 4 total frames per weapon is a good suggestion, and will likely state it as such, instead of a hard and fast rule. I still like the +5/+10 PV minimum for the simple reason that it prevents the cost-effectiveness of building a weapon with 8 different single ammo rounds while not really affecting most other constructions.
Hey Folks,
We are planning on doing a formal print run for selling to stores. Does anyone have specific ideas about what would be worth putting on the back cover to attract gamers' interest, in terms of a text description (we already have a graphic in mind)? In other words, what do you think the game offers the typical gamer that makes it worth purchasing?
-Demian
Isn't the errata available through the main Defiance site yet? IMHO it won't do to direct people to an errata file that requires you to sign on to something...
I plan on waiting a few more days to see if anything else crawls out from under the woodwork. Then, I'll post a "complete errata" on the MJ12 site.
-Demian
I changed the errata on the yahoo group to update the combo weapon design process and make it less abusable. I ultimately decided against making an absolute maximum on the total number available, but did think that enforcing a minimum cost for each extra frame and restricting total number of frames to 4 would reduce the potential cheese of making a series of "ammo 1" frames that could be fired at will based on the target type in question.
-Demian
It didn't occur to me either (until I read the Star Marines list) that you could combine more than 2 weapons in a single frame or that you don't count the frames included therein unless they are also separately available
The rule as it should be interpreted effectively actually allows you to "overload" infantry/vehicle frames with quite a lot of different weapons as the actual limit of the different weapon frames available to each is actually almost solely dictated by the cost limits of the weapon frame classes (SI, PI or VE weapon). Which does potentially have quite a bit of impact on the army creation, so methinks this is something that should be made more explicit in the FAQ.
Consider it done. I think that the vast majority of the time combo weapons are - in fact, you pay quite a premium to have extra round capability if you think about it - but as you both point out, there are a few ways in which unscrupulous players could violate the intent of the rule. As an unofficial stopgap:
-no army list may contain more than 2 combo weapon frames, +1 per each level of frame variety (i.e. max of 4)
-the minimum cost to add a second round is +10 PV for parallel, +5 PV for tandem.
-no weapon may have more than types of round
Let me know what you think. This is easy to change in the core book.
-Demian
A quick clarification: the covering computer adds 1/3 to the final cost of the sidearm?
No, I meant try it as a "sidearm covering computer" that is 1/3 of the normal covering computer cost.
Yes and yes.
Extra grenades do not count as extra frames. Grenades, CDWs and vehicles are all outside of the frame rubric.
The rifle you mention would best be designed in one of two slightly different ways:
A tandem combo weapon with three frames, one of them a GL frame.
A tandem combo weapon with two frames and the one-shot GL augmentation.
Despite likely costing more, the advantage of the latter is that you would not need to spend a round switching between frames to fire the GL.
Note that a combo weapon only counts as one "frame" for purposes of strategic rating, unless each part of the weapon is also available separately (as is the case in The Humna Confederacy army list). In other words, to count as a "frame", a given weapon must be use-able by itself.
While I will be the first to admit the drawbacks of having a formal point system, I personally believe that the advantages of play balance and ease of pick-up play outweigh them. To respond to your (and Mr. Tuffley's) issues specifically:
1) Firstly, while even though it may be possible to gauge the effectiveness of a single unit, when you look at the group as a whole, the groups effectiveness is more than the sum of its parts. In other words, you have to look at the group holistically.
I would actually argue the opposite. That is, it is *impossible* to gauge the effectiveness of a single unit outside of the larger game context. This is why I explicitly point out (no pun intended) in the rules that PV comparisons between individual troopers are essentially meaningless. I designed the Defiance point system to be in fact itself "holistic". This is why I take pains to stress the need for a mixture of troop types. Without a wide variety of infantry, weapon and vehicle types, the underlying assumptions of the system - for example, the average AR or average line-of-fire distance - will break down.
Secondly, the effectiveness of units is extremely context sensitive. For example, if you design a bunch of units that have really powerful long range weapons, that's not going to do them a load of good in heavily forrested areas.
This is exactly correct, and is why Defiance is careful to define the tabletop parameters under which the point system will be balanced. I have been fiddling off and on with Defiance: Close Quarters Battle, a slight variation of the VG rules for underground and dense terrain fighting. It has required a total reworking of the point system, with the knowledge that troop "value" is context-dependent.
Finally, and this is where I think the "heresy" part comes in, having a point total destroys the mission based atmosphere of the game. Instead of creating imaginative campaigns in which the odds are never even, a point system encourages a competitive mindset in which you simply throw armies at each other.
This is perhaps the strongest argument against the "point system mindset". But there is no reason that a point system is incompatible with missions in which the odds are uneven. In a sense, one has to have a general concept of a point system to even know if and when the odds are uneven. IIRC, even Stargrunt itself has a suggestion that "2 PI equals 1 SI", which is a very basic but still formalized "point system". Players will always want some way of measuring the relative effectiveness of different troop types. Explicit point systems - well, good ones any way :wink: - simply try to engage some mathematically based reasoning on top of the general intuition we all have after playing with a system a few times. In my opinion, the ability to easily ballpark a particular mission, e.g. "you're outgunned 4 to 1 but you have access to a defensive bunker" is much easier with a statistical point system than without.
With regards to your comments on Gaussian distributions, I agree that they are more "realistic". In my opinion, there is a constant tension between "game" and "simulation" and you in essence have to trade less of one for more of another. In this context, "balance" is more of a game effect, and therefore I chose to use largely even distributions to maximize it, at the expense of some amount of realistic simulation.
Interesting discussion, Dauntless!
-Demian
Hmmm, maybe we could start collecting ideas and any playtesting input to begin writing a "player-designed augmentation sheet".
A few comments:
@SW: Covering computer for sidearms only? Definitely a possibility. If you wanted to try it out, a quick 1/3x mulitplier should suffice. I like the idea of one-time jump packs and also "gliders", with the stipulation that the latter must always begin the game at flight level one or higher and cannot climb. Fire twice is tricky, because it would so vary in point cost between troopers...still, as an individual aug. one-off it's certainly point costable - one can just say that it doubles the cost of the weapon and adds a +10 PV premium on top of that. Reinforced armor is a bit of an oversight on my part - right now, you can add a field save to leaders, but not extra armor without making the unit exclusive. Try out a +10 PV plus +5 PV per new AR integer less than zero (if applicable). So, going from +1 to 0 costs 10 PV, 0 to -1 costs 15 PV, -1 to -2 costs 20 PV and -2 to -3 costs 25 PV. It should be an individual, not a unit augmentation, to avoid any possibility of min/max-ing.
@McBane: you anticipate me! Actually, the Starslayer army list has a movement type called "phase" that allows figures to "walk through" certain terrain. Since a publication of this list would probably wait for artwork, I might just add the formal rules for now.
@Brother Jim: The idea behind Defiance is that most models will die to a well-placed shot. I do, however, see that some backgrounds have small troopers that are "extra extra tough". If your opponents agree, one option is to use the size 3 chart for size one and two figures, with the restriction that MV and AR combos are restricted to those from the size 1 or 2 chart. Make sense?
The problem with the Planetstorm UNE from a game balance perspective is that one can easily tell that there was a tunnel-fighting Legions of Steel force that was then expanded to an open air fighting force. But the tunnel fighting troops and weapons were ineffective on most tabletops, making the OOB much more compact from a practical standpoint.
My advice would be to ignore or modify any of the UNE trappings that seem designed for underground fighting, and make a "battlefield" army list. You can always make a second "underground" army list of you so chose.
SW, are you finding that 35 frames isn't enough to build a USS UNE list?
The forcewall grenade is a fun concept, but I remember it tranlsating very poorly to a tabletop setting. Still, it would be fairly easy to design and point cost...
Yes, you get a cookie. 
I have posted a "so far" errata in the yahoo group files section. Is there some way to post files on this forum?
-Demian
I am thinking about writing a Defiance list for them. I will let you folks know if I have time to do this.
Welcome to the forums, Taarnak! If you get around to working a list out for these figs, let me know. I'd like to post it.
-Demian
Has anyone tried modifying the rules to use multiple dice rather than a single d10? I like the breadth and depth of the rules for the most part, just not the stochastic modeling that goes into it (i.e. the die mechanics). Life generally follows a bell shaped distribution, not a flat one. Problem is, changing the die mechanics is akin to basically rewriting all the modifiers from the ground up.
I agree that life tends to follow a bell curve, though one can see plenty of examples of bimodal distributions and certainly a goodly amount of linearity, especially when qualititative variables are involved.
Despite the fact that most aspects of the Defiance mechanics are quantitative, I decided to go with linear stats. There are several reasons for this:
1) Foremost is the ability to control game balance within a reasonable range of values. Bell curves not only make modifiers difficult, they also force a mentality of extremes on any given value, i.e. the ability for one good roll to have a hugely powerful effect.
2) Perhaps as practically important is the ability to write a point system that anyone can use, i.e. without need of any complicated formulae.
3) In a sense, if you design your system broadly enough, bell curve effects will still come about in a supra-ordinate sense. For example, there is a complicated interplay between anti-vehicle, anti-infantry, PI, SI, high FR, low FR, and high damage probability (where each modifer has a relatively smaller effect) and low damage probability (where each modifier has a relatively larger effect and can even lead to an impossible roll). Though I have not and would not attempt to define this meta-system statistically, it plays as if it were a bell curve, i.e. players who have a large variety of troops tend towards the middle of the die roll range (5+ to 7+), while those with a small variety split the difference (e.g., 3+ vs. 9+).
In the end, while a few specific effects would probably be best designed singly as a bell curve distribution - in the case of indirect fire one where you are likely to be near the target, but very unlikely to hit it dead on or miss by a far distance - the overall advantages of a mathematically simple system outweigh them in my opinion.
-Demian
I am happy to give comments on any lists folks can draft up. I intend to collect as many as possible and make them available as downloads.
-Demian
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Demian Rose
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.