451

(13 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Taltos wrote:

Kevin, you did a great job of explaining exactly what I was going to say with this:

underling wrote:

In games involving multiple orders (or actions) being given to units, based on command point expenditure, I think the above tactic is entirely reasonable and within the spirit of the game.
In order for one unit to be able to do that it has to be given enough orders to accomplish that. And the more orders a unit is being given the more command points that are being spent, at the expense of not moving other units.
So I don't think the above effect is a bad thing at all.
Kevin

I think this quote does fully support option 1 or 2...

But now I think I see how the front arc restriction makes sense logically, even if I don't quite agree with it and my more loose, play to bash and have fun approach. But I would never pretend to restrict the other folks' fun by saying that they couldn't do it their way. Now that I better understand the intent of the original wording, it makes sense, and probably works better for the pure hexless crowd. smile

I would still suggest that the Front arc be limited to the distance of a single movement order.  I.e. if a unit has 4" movement, then that rule should only apply if there is an enemy within 4", but then you've also removed the uniqueness of impetuous units to some degree.

I agree with Noel, though, I'm certainly not going to tell you you can't do it whatever way you want.  And I'm all for frothy goodness.

Let's not get touchy here, it is just a game after all big_smile

if you want, email it to me and I'll post it somewhere.

454

(13 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Pillbugs are the footnote on page 11

So, a unit that begins 16" away from another unit, but within the front arc may not wheel and move and wheel and flank?

hmm. I think that might be too restrictive.

455

(13 replies, posted in For the Masses)

right, NOT in ZOC.

and pillbugs will never be able to wheel in FtM it goes against all that is well and good in this world or any other.

456

(13 replies, posted in For the Masses)

I like the Zone of control rules and wheeling very much. 

ZOC is one thing that didn't translate very well to hexless, but the simple yet obvious answer is to double the from ZOC. Wish I'd have thought of that.

The wheel rule is very nicely stated.

I have a question about the contact rule.  When you say front arc, do you mean inside the ZOC of a unit? if so I think that's fine, but if you mean just in front of a unit but not in ZOC, then I don't think it should be as restrictive.

In the "hexed" rules, any element can pass by a unit and go around if they have the movement. I don't necessarily want to give up that tactic in hexless.

Thoughts?

The part where it says "in the compendium" wasn't enough for you?

big_smile

um,

LRS with inverted range modifiers in the compendium is about as broken a combinations you can get.

How do you counter that combo?

459

(2 replies, posted in Discussion)

Good tidings

Good cheer

and God bless

460

(3 replies, posted in Discussion)

yep.

according to the submission rules,

jimbeau wrote:

I don't want to squelch free thought, but if we don't have a common language to speak, nobody will know what the heck anything is smile

We must deliver the ships in Drake notation. All other submissions will be trimmed if this is not followed. Current ships are grandfathered.

probably not as clear as it could be, but I will continue to trim posts that do not contain ship designs.  Not to be a jerk, but the Basin is there to share designs, not to chit chat or discuss how to use the designs, there are better places in the forum for that kind of discussion.

461

(3 replies, posted in Discussion)

But this guy reminds me of me

http://incompetech.com/photos/Full/pdog2.jpg

hmm...

462

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

japridemor wrote:
murtalianconfederacy wrote:

I noticed that you could, theoretically, have a ship with range 3 missiles and that, in a CSCR encounter, it could batter a ship with range 12 weapons (K or E-type) from the safety of the flag squadron, and that didn't appeal to me at all.

Yea, maybe the VBAM crossover should include a check for longer ranged ballistic weapons before it assigns the Ballistic special ability? Otherwise, like you pointed out it is more like a close up rocket volley than a true ballsitic weapon. I think I'll add that check to the house rules we use.

I don't really understand how a range three weapon can do anything from within the safety of the flag quadron?

You'd still have to close to within three hexes???

463

(19 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

Aces has a list of raw data for 90+ aircraft for tons of WWI fun!

(That was compiled from aerodrome.com but is in a nifty and easy to use list format which you could use for comparison)

What mean by Copyright issues is that the pictures used may (and probably are) copyrighted

sounds like it's time to break out the VBA and write a macro. Of course where you're going to store all those images is beyond me.

That might make the spread sheet a little big smile

and are there copyright issues associated with that?

hundvig wrote:

Who actually plays with turn limits?  Outside of specialised scenarios or convention events where things have to end at a certain time, I can't remember the last time I played Starmada (or any other starship combat game) with a set turn limit.

Used them to great confudity (is that a word?) in the VBAM Campaign wherein both Noel and I used the "end of game" to our advantage.

Things change when you play a campaign.

you can design the ships to fire CD because...er...erm...because

468

(34 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

Yeah, we kick butt!

469

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

are you coming over tomorrow?

470

(3 replies, posted in For the Masses)

I wouldn't recommend it.  You can try, but our experience with Ogre-like force make-ups has been less than fun.

It was a conscious design decision, we didn't like the idea of a single warrior (of any race, size, or class) being able to wade through thousands of enemies and come out unscathed.

The problem with making a monster-only army is that you have to have the command points to run all those monsters.

471

(8 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Rabble can only move with a "reform" action.  as Kevin indicates.

A source of much frustration for some, but I like the ability

472

(4 replies, posted in News)

http://allaboutminiatures.libsyn.com/

In addition to my poor grammaticalizing in the actual speech, I plug Defiance and some of the forum games

download it and listen to me wax poetic about the days of yore and why I like Aces better'n blue max smile

473

(0 replies, posted in News)

add yourself darnit!

http://www.frappr.com/mj12games

474

(1 replies, posted in Discussion)

I'm off tomorrow to visit with Dan before his impending doom...er... marriage

I'm not ignoring you, I just may not be able to post!

475

(6 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Zerloon wrote:

Apply Special (Varies – As, Ca, Cy, Qu): I don't understand this passage:
"The cost for this factor is the same as the cost for the special being applied. Round up in the event that a special has a fractional cost. No special may cost less than one full point."

taltos wrote:

The cost of the special as listed in the table on page 28. At one time it was meant to work as if paying for the special ability while building a unit, but that was too unwieldy. It appears that we didn't get the text cleaned up enough... nice catch.

Yup, one for the errata (wherever that is now)

Zerloon wrote:

Change Terrain (3 – Cy) : I think that should be forbidden "change terrain" in the middle of a unit. This phrases "Element that finds itself in Impassable terrain is unable to move." mean that with only 3 ME I can effectly block a unit for the game... not fair I think.

taltos wrote:

ah, but it would be for the game... the spell has to expire unless the Mage spend the same spell over and over...

Yep, spells expire at the end of the tunr unless the mage can spend the points to keep it alive the next turn.

Zerloon wrote:

Despair (4 – Ca, Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

taltos wrote:

smile I often wish it were cheaper. But, it certainly isn't the factor I choose to use the most, so I think after some play you will find that it is probably about right. Since the beneficial effect is random, and no effect in the case of a bad die roll. Could be wrong, but it has worked out reliably at this cost for us so far. If you find it too cheap in play, let me know, we can always discuss good tweaks.

I also do not think it is too expensive, it is offset by the fearless and steadfast specials and really hasn't had a ton of effect on battle.  but, if you find it overpowered, raise the cost to 5.

Zerloon wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

taltos wrote:

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

Never had a problem with the cost of this one.  I could get the maths out again, if you'd like, but right now you spend roughly 60% of the average for the first point to remove 15% of the average ME.  If you start adding the 2, you can reduce a spellcaster to 0 rather quickly.  and think about it, you don't have to reduce it to 0, just below the threshold of points he or she needs to maintain the spells they have out.  But you can change it if you want.

Zerloon wrote:

Holy Fire (4 – As): should cost less or be more effective. For the same point you get Rancor, that have the same effect but on all target...

taltos wrote:

Holy Fire and Rancor are the exact opposite of each other - same die shift affect. I do not see the issue you are indicating.

I don't see the opposite, I see one working vs undead and the other working for everyone.  hmm. Maybe we need to modify a bit. noel?

Zerloon wrote:

Protect (3 – Cy): I think the target hex should become also impassable, or maybe you can't shoot througt it. Otherwise Shield is much way better.

taltos wrote:

You may have something there. Shield protects against all damage and Protect only works against ranged attacks, yet the latter is cheaper.

* Either the prices should be reversed,
* It is easier for Assurance mages to provide protection
* Noel just plain missed this.
* Or I am forgetting something.
* A combination of all this.

We missed that, protect should be 2 and shield should be 4 (more elements on the average are affected by shield.

Good catch.

Zerloon wrote:

Wasting (4 – Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

taltos wrote:

Now this is, my favorite factor. OTOH, I rarely cast it by itself, so its cost never feels low to me. Now, it isn't permanent, so the cost seems right on the surface. It is all about timing and having your mage near combat.

Never had a problem with this effect, the mage is extremely vulnerable when he or she gets in spell range.  The only time I've seen this work has been bad for the mage.  I like the effect and I think the cost is okay.  the effect is impermanent (like al leffects) and needs the maintenance to keep up.

But, as I've said before, change it if you want smile