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
I'm currently working on a Space Dwarves army list that will be compatible with Grymn, Scrunts and, of course, Squats.
I should have it done in a week or two...
-Demian
Sorry, should be more like size 8, DC 12. Got a bit carried away there...
In terms of mathematics, there's no reason to limit size or damage capacity, so a size 10 figure with a DC of 24 is probably balanced...if anything, it's a bit underpowered, since it will rarely be able to use terrain to avoid being targeted by just about every enemy within 60".
Still, woe to the army that only brings AI weaponry. :-)
-Demian
How big is it in 28mm scale?
A better pic:
I was trying to mimic the Assault Trooper from the Human Confederacy army list and it told me the combination of move, type, AR and size was not allowed...
One thing that should make things simpler is that, in the updated rules (currently two-thirds finished), tables 2.1-2.3 of the Army Customizer will allow for SI or PI, i.e. 2.1 is no longer for SI only and 2.2 is no longer for PI only.
One other quick thing: the current remplate only allows for one officer to be entered...maybe a second cell for "officer type 2" would be the easiest solution?
I was trying to mimic the Assault Trooper from the Human Confederacy army list and it told me the combination of move, type, AR and size was not allowed...
One thing that should make things simpler is that, in the updated rules (currently two-thirds finished), tables 2.1-2.3 of the Army Customizer will allow for SI or PI, i.e. 2.1 is no longer for SI only and 2.2 is no longer for PI only.
One other quick thing: the current remplate only allows for one officer to be entered...maybe a second cell for "officer type 2" would be the easiest solution?
I definitely need a tripod to take good close-ups with my digital camera, but here's a pic during which my hands were fairly steady...
Just a quick note:
I received some of the first casts in the post yesterday and they look quite nice! We are currently working out details of distribution, but I'm guessing it won't be long before they're available for purchase.
-Demian
The excel macro for the army customizer has been updated, and now gives an output that mimics the format of the army lists in D:VG. PM me if you want the newest file, which is still beta-ish.
-Demian
They are quite nice...would make good "national" units of Assault Troopers for the Nordic Alliance...or maybe the Boers.
As wreckage and tnjrp suggest, either crew-served or the integral weaponry rule might work well.
I go back and forth on SZ and vehicles. The main reason I split them into size categories was for unit targeting purposes, but perhaps that issue should take a backseat to the ability to design small hardpoint targets...heck, one can easily imagine a size 2 robot that would be tough enough to count as a vehicle in terms of being resistant to most small arms fire.
Thoughts?
Hi David,
Welcome to Defiance!
You are correct, the best way to represent John Woo type dual pistols is to purchase a FR2 (or 4) pistol and name it "dual wield pistol".
If it is 10 PV or less, it will technically be a sidearm, but the designation is more related to how unit orders are resolved than how big, small, powerful or wimpy a weapon might be. Since many FR2 pistols will be over 10PV (especially if you add effectors), they would be fine as primary or secondary weapons. In theory, primary pistols can suppress, but, depending on how "realistic" you want to be, you might consider giving them limited ammo, in which case they could not suppress.
Cheers,
Demian
Actually, using IF tactically (instead of statistically) in your case is a great idea. You are "wasting" points on IF to maximize points spent on HTH.
-Demian
Yes, primary weapon is *per frame*. It is meant as a logistical distinction more than a power distinction.
As tnjrp points out, the major issue players must confront when dealing with terrain is deciding which objects will be impassable and which will allow for shooting over (this can be varied by figure size if desired).
With regard to low AR PI having a cover advantage, there is some truth to that, since the enemy will be nearing the 9+ to 10+ to 11+ statistical cliff at most ranges. This was the primary reason for making SI more maneueverable and giving them the extra -1 LOS and within 1" bonuses to terrain cover.
I agree with tnjrp that the flight rules work best to represent "jumping" APCs. I have considered making "hover" a vehicle augmentation, since it doesn't quite need to be a type of movement in and of itself. Thoughts?
With regard to IF, playtesting suggests it follows the general rule of Defiance army building: have a wide variety of troops and weapons, but be careful of choosing too much or too little of one type. This applies to basically all of the "effects" in the game.
If one spends too many points on IF, it will begin to approximate the airstrike situation, which is a high-risk, high-gain approach to the first turn or two, after which it becomes much less effective. The reasons for this are that enemy units can spread out onto the tabletop, and that IF can not be used within 15".
-Demian
Iron Mammoth sculpted the greens of the Defiance Assault Troopers.
Just saw a depressing front page announcement here:
I have yet to hear from IM myself, but will let folks know as soon as I do. If anyone has any information, please post it here.
David Drage: are you still checking this forum?...All the best to your family, in any case.
-Demian
I LOVE the perspective on this piece! Can't wait to see the final product...
Hey Folks,
Inspired by a renewal of the topic, I thought I'd start a new posting regarding ideas for Defiance campaigns. A few thoughts:
-augmentations, attack chits and stat line changes are easy to balance against each other; any ones make more or less sense than others?
-I was thinking of a two-tiered system, whereby indidividuals gain experience, but the army as a whole also does, in some proportion to how many experienced members it's amassed; any ideas about how to do this easily?
Okay, so I decided to go with simple being generally better. Any comments on these as "official"? I plan on putting them into the supplement (which is half finished, by the way):
-for each 1000 PV (1500 PV?), must choose 3 units, each of which gets its own initiative card and can be no larger than 500 PV (750 PV?)
-All infantry must be purchased as elite quality, with the exception of a "special" hero (see below)
-Unit One: Commander of Elite Quality - only unit type allowed to have command levels
-Unit Two: Grunt Squad of Elite Quality - only unit type allowed to have leadership levels
-Unit Three: a "special" that can be either hero(s) with crew-served weapons, vehicle from following list: LV/ME/AME, or stand-alone hero (any quality)
-Demian
The percentage of vehicles can always be limited, so in low-average PV games, the "armored fist" (like the name!) would probably be no more than one large vehicle/mecha or possibly a 2-3 member squad of very fragile vehicles.
I would say that size 3 would be fair game for officers or squads, if players wanted to spend the points thusly. Specials would be limited to vehicles and crew-served weapons, and vehicle squads would be fine - for the latter, you'd probably just need to make wimpier infantry to compensate for the PV investment.
We could always just define three activation units, in terms of card assigment - since everyone's eite, this doesn't affect orders at all:
1. squad
2. commanders and heros
3. vehicles and specials
Wombat's method works fine as long as each player has a roughly equal PV for greens, regulars and elites...it does add a bit more luck to the first few turns of the game, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Love the discussion, by the way, and tnjrp's mod seems like it would work well. I do think that some way of keeping the total number of units per side roughly even would be necessary to avoid lop-sided initiative or that which mimics IGOUGO.
I especially like tnjrp's way of defining a "special forces assault unit" or a "gang" in a particular way, e.g. 1 hero, 1 commander, 1 squad of close-knit grunts (with ldr), and a choice of a "special" (vehicle, crew-served weapon, etc). The trick would be balancing point values, but if the scenarios are varied enough, there's no reason unequal starting forces and gains/losses couldn't be incorporated a la Necromunda.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Demian Rose
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
