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 → Defiance → The Army Builder Question Thread!
I agree with wreckage that the easiest solution is to build a separate weapon that has a better damage number. This also represents the logistical difference between the two weapons.
Remember that all AOE weapons in Defiance are FR 1.
In Planetstorm, multiple AOE rounds could be fired from the same figure and scattered separately. Given the time scale of Defiance, I found this approach to be less realistic and involve more dice rolling than fire clusters.
i was afraid you would say that........... 
........
now i have to re-calibrate my brain.......... :evil: ........
:?: but i don't know what i did with my sonic scewdriver and hydro-spanner..... :?: 
I'd have to check, but there is an equivalent to "weapon link" specifically for vehicles. You have to purchase it seperately if I remember right.
Question:
Does the maximum HTH Rating cost include the Reflex cost ???
Or is it just the HTH Rating cost ???
Repeating the question because i still don't know and it's kind of important for figuring the cost of all infantry frames
Thanks
Question:
Does the maximum HTH Rating cost include the Reflex cost ???
Or is it just the HTH Rating cost ???
Yes, reflex costs are included.
thankee, kind sir !
Just seeking a little guidance: I'm making a Kryomek force and they really lack any kind of ranged weapons except for some Cones, a very few Pistols, and a grenade launcher. Their ONLY ranged weapon is an unlimited-range template weapon (which comes in infantry and vehicle mounted types).
My first question is, can this work?
Okay, here's another: why can't an APC be "Jump" capable (eldar grav tank) and how would you reflect a tank that sort of "hovers" (other grav-tanks)? They seem, in most soft sci-fi, to be able to traverse the most sticky of terrain, but not to gain altitude.... with Defiance abstract cover system that might be impossible to reflect, in which case I'm content with that.
My first question is, can this work?
Hard to say without trying it out, obviously. Cone weapons are expensive but fairly short ranged so loading up (almost) nothing else may not be cost effective against large numbers of longer ranged points effect weapons, depending on the terrain and the scenario obviously. But I do have a feel that the most crippling lack an army can have is to have no IF weapons at all. It's damned hard to flush out a "dug in" enemy who howers just on off-side of the terrain depth limit without having any of those. I would think the Kryomek have that covered with their launcher weapons?
why can't an APC be "Jump" capable (eldar grav tank) and how would you reflect a tank that sort of "hovers" (other grav-tanks)?
I've always considered the DVG flight rules being adequate to reflect this sort of movement, myself. It does leave a bit of gap at "movement that can ignore some terrain, but not all of it" (well, the flyers can't be said to be able to ignore ALL terrain, but very few people have really high terrain features on the table), of course.
Yes, cone weapons seem like they might be too expensive to be cost-effective. I think a high ROF short ranged weapon does OK at reflecting streams of alien digestive fluids anyway; I might work with that a bit more. Meanwhile, I actually expect they will have a considerable superiority in IF weapons, but it might take a try or two to get it right- I haven't played enough to have a "feel" for how IF will play out.
I don't think you can gain massive benefits for designating a lot of poweful IF weapons either. Because of its mechanics IF is good against a static defence and less so against a mobile force. So a force that has paid a lot of PV for IF could find itself outmaneuvered and I should think it all would balance out pretty nicely. Not that I have tried a "bombard army from heck" approach in D:VG, mind you.
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
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?
Sounds good to me. Hover aug could be as simple as "limited flight" i.e. flight level 1 or 0 only.
Hover as an augmentation sounds good. Regarding an over-investment in IF, it's more that the rest of my army is heavilly geared towards manouvre anyway. Ideally I hope to disrupt the enemy and make staying out of range of my assault troops less attractive. In short, it's imbalanced in one way, so maybe unbalancing it in another will compensate a bit 
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
is it possible (and rules legal) to purchase IF for non-AoE attacks ? i want to write up Tau and their Smart Missile system is non-AoE but indirect, also FR 4.
thanks
jim
IF is only available for AOE weapons. I would suggest making Smart Missile Launcher a parallel combi weapon with a wide-area AOE IF attack and a FR4 attack. The former would represent launching a number of fragmentation warheads at a single target.
Would calling it (Smart Missile) a phase weapon suffice? I mean, its tactical advantage is to ignore intervening terrain, right?
Would calling it (Smart Missile) a phase weapon suffice?
Umm, quite. Didn't think of that, silly me. Obviously used too few phase weapons 
However, you can't make that FR4 either, so Brother Jim would still have to muck up something about targeting requirements slowing down the fire rate...
Well, the Smart Missile sounds like another word for "death rains from above!", in which case IF with an AOE might be more appropriate. There's Weapon Link to consider, and also, can a Phase Weapon be given an After Burst? This would represent a swarm AI ("artificial life" actually) reaching an optimal fire solution and bringing in many rounds on-target, whereas failure to achieve the first kill would represent a sub-optimal or even counter productive strategy on the part of the software "agents".
Also, Impact Rating can be used to represent several rounds in a tight grouping.
can a Phase Weapon be given an After Burst?
Didn't seem to find anything in the rules saying it can't be done. After Burst aug is indeed nasty for the surprise value it has, especially the AV one. Of course it also means it doesn't come cheap, although I confess to having a bit of doubt as to the costing in conjuction with FR2+ weapons...
Hi,
I am new to Defiance and I must confess I have only skimmed through the rule book, so maybe my question could easily be aswerd when I read the book thoroughly. I wonder how to design troops wielding two pistols as their main armament. By definition pistols are sidearms ( so the cannot fire supressive fire) and I think the easiest way is to simply buy the two pistols, but as far as I understand a SI unit may only fire one weapon each turn, making the second pistol obsolete. so should I buy only one pistol with a high rate of fire and assume that this ROF is derived from the second pistol and when I do this should I define the pistol not as an side arm, but as a primary weapon ( which it in fact is for this unit) ?
ciao
david
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
Having some Warzone: Capitol Orca battlesuits, I wonder how to build them in Defiance.
For those of you who dont know orca battlesuits: they are small bipedal vehicles or PI maybe size 3 mounting a heavy weapon on their side ( rocket launcher/flamethrower/cannon) and a light anti infantry weapon. in addition there is one infantry tooper riding this unit wielding a heavy MG. so every battlesuit mounts 3 weapons. should I design theese units as light vehicle ( and maybe even allow them a third weapon slot) ? of course I could design the suit( and then I would classify the suit as PI) and its rider as two separate units but then I have to create some sort of " cavalary" rules, that either the transporting suit or the trooper is affected by incomming fire etc.
so...what do you think!
ciao
david
p.s. Beeing a "design for effect" guy I think I will design them as a light vehicle with only two weapon slots: one heavy main armament and one HMG with an increased FR due to the additional light anti infantry weapon.
I think I dont like to make the two soldiers of this suit to be different targets-thats simply too fiddly in my opinion.
Orca is a bit tricky espcecially if you want to factor in the trooper riding piggyback. It is also "overarmed" for its size. One of the examples where a "closed" game can trump an "open" one, even one as versatile as D:VG.
In practice, you'll have to abstract it somehow.
I will design them as a light vehicle with only two weapon slots: one heavy main armament and one HMG with an increased FR due to the additional light anti infantry weapon
As vehicles are at least SZ=4 the Orca is a tad bit small IMHO to be a vehicle. Of course SZ is not directly linked to the model size, but if you want to use "real" vehicles alongside it as well it might look a little odd. If you do go that route, I urge you to consider making the Orca into a mecha (doesn't look agile enough to be an anime mecha). You'll also have to note that light vehicles and mecha both only have 2 weapon slots in the first place, so you can't really utilize the full weapon load as individual weapons even in this case.
Another way to build the Orca might be to abstract it into a Crew Served weapon. That would probably be the angle I would use.
Got the weirdest feeling of deja vu about this post BTW. Must've written something very similar about a similar subject in the past, although can't conciously recall where and when. Strange how the mind works, ehh?
Thanks for your fast reply.
yes, the orca is really a overarmed model ( and I think it was even overarmed in warzone-maybe the number one reason I have 7 of them; beside the fact that I bought them with a large discount)
well,I think too, that the maximum size should be 3 and I also think that an orca should not be a mecha; they arent simply that maneuverable.
Now I have to think about the "crew-served weapon" approach, but maybe thats a solution.
Designing them as a vehicle should be no problem because it seems to be possible to design Size 3-vehicles ( so maybe I should even design them as very small AFVs (maybe M6,AR-1; DC 2 or 3; Damage chart: Exposed Weaponry or Weak Superstructure))---maybe this approach is too gamey.
Now- how about designing a mixed PI/ SI squad with the SI units unable to move on their own ( this would give an attacker the opportunity to choose to attack either the SI trooper or the PI trooper of the closest model) ? Of course I have then the problem of mixing frames in one squad; and the squad will be very expensive.
ciao
david
mj12games.com/forum → Defiance → The Army Builder Question Thread!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.