Man Battlestations Forum
Warcradle Naval Games => Dystopian Wars => Topic started by: erloas on August 26, 2017, 06:54:53 pm
-
So barring someone buying up the IP the rules pretty much have to go to community based if they are to evolve. And even if someone does buy up the IP, a community set of rules would give them a very good starting point for any revamp of the "new official" rules.
I would like to start with what direction we want the gameplay to go. What do we want the game to play like? Not things like specific rule changes like "I want to see the % large in list building change by 5%" or "ships X, Y, and Z in 'this' ORBAT need more defense/firepower/etc." What are the goals of the rule changes, rather than what specifically are the rules. Something like "a stronger focus on ship size diversity" or "more reasons or ability to take mixed theater forces" would be good though.
Personally I would like to see games last more rounds, not necessarily longer games but games that go 4+ rounds instead of ones that end in 2.
More advantage to out maneuvering or out flanks someone, which would in turn make smaller ships more valuable.
Simpler mechanics for fixed channel weapons.
Make rocket and torpedo attacks more thematic and function differently than "guns that can be countered with AA/CC."
More variety in scenario and win conditions, especially so no "one list" can be the best option for every scenario that might come up.
More focus on "balanced lists" so focusing on any one single type of thing is rarely going to be better than a more balanced, inclusive list.
More, too, but that seems like a good place to start for the OP.
-
With 2.5 just out
Shouldn't we give it some time and see?
-
with some if the fleets not having orbats, most of the main fleets not being finished regards Commodore doctrines etc. and the ridiculousness of the new carrier and strato carrier rules I am strongly in favour of reverting to 2.0 and staying there. just using the new orbats for ships that were released after 2.0 (for those luck enough to get their kickstarter ships)
community adjustments are alright in some cases but having to check which mixture of house rules you and your opponent want to use today is just messy when 2.0 was a great ruleset anyway
-
I actually come down on the side of Fracas for the most part. 2.0 was a pretty good ruleset, yes, but I also feel that the core rules for 2.5 made enough improvements over the 2.0 version (especially the boarding, commodore, and SAS sections) that we shouldn't just junk them because of some needed ORBAT adjustments.
Fair point about not all fleets having ORBATS under 2.5, but I'm not sure how big of an issue that is; the vast majority do, and the ones that don't were very minor factions in terms of model count and, I'm guessing, player base. Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Scandinavian Teutonic Order and the Canadians that didn't get their 2.5 orbats released; are there others I'm not thinking of?
-
The problem is that most of the fleets only got a "get you by" list, with the main ones due out a month ago. The temp ones didn't have the full abilities - I mean, just compare the Egyptian and Covenant Drone SAS stats.
Plus, we never got anything for the League of Crimson...
-
We can tweak the model profiles I guess
-
The problem is that most of the fleets only got a "get you by" list, with the main ones due out a month ago. The temp ones didn't have the full abilities - I mean, just compare the Egyptian and Covenant Drone SAS stats.
Plus, we never got anything for the League of Crimson...
Those are good points, and I definitely think these are issues the community should address. I'm hopeful we will be able to get access to the draft stats that were being worked on, and push those out for folks to use. I still think the core 2.5 rules are the way to go for now, though.
-
I think we should keep the game alive with a campaign
-
I understand that 2.5 brought some improvements but for every improvement I feel it brought a WTF moment. 2.5 was.just too incomplete for my tastes, but feel free to run with it, it's your hobby too after all.
the problem with community tweaks is that you end up with multiple rulesets and end up having to fight over which one to use. one person might like mannbattle 1.0 because it makes their sas super strong, but fanstormarmada 1.0 makes battleships better, his opponent brought 6 of them and isn't budging on which rules he wants to use.
-
I understand that 2.5 brought some improvements but for every improvement I feel it brought a WTF moment. 2.5 was.just too incomplete for my tastes, but feel free to run with it, it's your hobby too after all.
the problem with community tweaks is that you end up with multiple rulesets and end up having to fight over which one to use. one person might like mannbattle 1.0 because it makes their sas super strong, but fanstormarmada 1.0 makes battleships better, his opponent brought 6 of them and isn't budging on which rules he wants to use.
I agree completely; it's a topic I've spoken about in the past on the MBS podcast (see my Ruckdog's Report from Ep 18). Ultimately, there is no "perfect" solution to this problem, short of another company taking over the DW IP. In the case you mention, the best way I can think of to avoid that version conflict would be to coordinate the rules ahead of time, if possible.
I think it will take some time for the wider community to come to a consensus on which versions of each game will be the go-to for pickup play and events. My first instinct is to use the most recent version of the game that was officially released as the starting point, hence 2.5 for DW. For DW specifically, one thing to consider is that some folks managed to get their hands on physical rule books for 2.5 (lucky devils!). It only seems natural to me that they would want to use them. Also, there are all the new models that were in production for the KS, again some of which have made their way to backers, and which only had "official" stats in the 2.5 orbats. Granted, the stats for the new DW models could pretty easily be converted to 2.0, and as was discussed above there were some factions/models that never had their 2.5 stats released. So, no matter what version of the core rules we go with, some custom ORBAT adjustments will be necessary.
This is why I am hopeful that the efforts of the DW play test group will not have been in vain, and the revised and/or expanded 2.5 Stats they were working on will find its way to the light of day.
-
There are sub factions that never got a 2.5 update, again yes it's not complete. Unless we ourselves make some changes, some are easier than others due to models that are shared between factions and their close allied sub factions.
-
The V2.5 clearly bring some improvements to DW, but the main issues is that orbats are not finalized (without speaking about a few rules problems). The released versions are early draft that have been released to make the community wait for final ones, but they are stuffed with mistakes (lots have been reported on SG forums but not taken into account) and the impact of rule modification on overall balance of the game have not been tested.
As a result, I'm really splitted between keeping for a while the V2.0 (with was stable and rather well balanced), or jumping to V2.5 and making the required modifications to rrules and orbats, to make them usable... :(
-
With 2.5 just out
Shouldn't we give it some time and see?
I think most people had a pretty good idea of 2.5 by now. Obviously there will be a lot that didn't too.
I would personally base any adjustments off of the 2.5 rules, but without anything even approaching a community consensus on what we want to do, it is hard to do anything. And many people coming in and saying "I would like to see it almost the same" is also a very valid response and if that was the case then we have that to go with.
Some changes too would come from ORBAT balancing, and we know that needs to be done because it was an unfinished job. For instance games lasting into later turns could come from lower AD pools or higher defenses or more HPs and all of that could be done in the ORBATs. Of course knowing whether or not people want games to go more turns is key to deciding to make those changes or not. At the same time if people want everything to die faster then making any of those changes would be counterproductive.
There are also a few RAI vs RAW questions that people have, and knowing which one to make "official" would be easier if we knew what most people want the game to play like.
Or a ship like the much maligned Stolz, does it suck because it has a fixed channel weapon or some other reason? Do fixed channel weapons simply need a change across the board or is it only an issue with a couple models, or is it not really an issue at all?
-
I'm with the " v2.5 is only just out" crowd. I like what the rulebook did for the game. I can play 2000pt games in 2 hours or less and that's a good thing.
Personally, I would focus on leaving the game as it currently is, and hope the Beta testers just give us the stats they were working off of and not worry about the NDA. By this point who would care if they released them to the public?
Any company that takes over the games aren't likely to run with much, and they certainly wouldn't use a fan made version of stats. They'd want to do things their way.
As I see it now, there isn't too much wrong with the current Orbats. A few mistakes here and there in the Core faction orbats, but the Alliance Nation ones are more or less perfect. I had an early version of the STO and Operational Orbats given to me by Neil himself. Nothing particularly bad in either, except some spelling mistakes or missing figures for Sustained Assault on the Eider Mk3. But everything else was good. I will tidy up the Orbat I was given and update it to have the list of the Lend-Lease options that they were to come with as well and then I will post it up for Ruckdog to add to his repository here.
To this end, I've made it my mission to make some STO models and 3d print them. Some of you may have seen my endeavours on Facebook already.
So Yeah, overall I say leave community rules for a while. We don't need to mess with the framework that Spartan made for us just yet and there is plenty of scope within the current framework to make stats for new factions fan made Orbats.
For example, I've got a Portugese Empire set of stats made that Neil was impressed with. Probably still needs some fine tuning, but it would work.
-
For now I think the only thing we should work on is correcting the mistakes in the orbats :)
Update editions is easy to get around, use a single resource download site and keep it correct and tidy.
-
Hi guys !
For information, we've just started today in the french DW community an initiative to establish a "2.51 FR" version of the rule (FR is not for translated in french but for "in application in France" ;) but translation may come later... :D).
The purpose is to have a standardized version for our community until something may appear in the furtur if another company buy DW intellectual property.
We will make a few ammendments on the existing V2.5 rules and correct orbats in order to make them usable and better balanced. Theses rules will be used in tournaments and events in France.
If you are interested by this, I will report here about this process.
-
Yes I am interested in the 2.51 mods
-
No problem ! I keep you informed, and the 2.51FR will be made available on our site.
(And if you read a bit french, you can come at our place to contribute to discussion ! its here : http://spartan-forum.forumactif.fr/ )
-
That's a good idea, it would be nice to get everyone working together to come up with a standard set of rules, there's a lot of errors in the current orbats that i'd like to see cleaned up to bring us all to the same slate.
-
we discussed a lot abot the better process to come to a stable version that can support your DW games for several years.
There are things that go wrong in the rule, and also there are a lot of errors and issues in the orbats. But all of this is linked because changing rules modify balance of the game and therefore implies to modify the orbats... So we decided to work on rules first and then, when we will have stabilized a version of the rule, we will work on orbats (not only typo and obvious errors, but also ill-models issues that should have been adressed for long by spartan (Indendance, washington, and so on). ::)
-
What do you see is wrong with the rules? Is there a list we can FAQ?
-
Unfortunatly, the closure of SG forum was such a bad surprise that I don't know any extract from the V2.5 rules question and answers section...
About required correction, we are working on them, but one of the most about carrier relaunch action. the re-created SAS come in play without an activation marker, this means that a single carrier with carrier (9,2x4 wing) give you 5 activations, with 2 bombing/torp attack that are mearly impossible to prevent : you activate the 2 wings and send them to death, then activate the carrier to re-create 2 SAS, and then activate the 2 new SAS with potential full strenght bombing/topr run on enemy model that are less than 16'' from the carrier. That is clearly completly broken !
-
While this exploit is possible, It also strikes me as a very rare occurrence. First, you have to assume that both of the initial waves are completely destroyed, which isn't always a given for most factions (Russians have an easier time with that ). Second, it assumes that the carrier survives long enough with sufficient CP to get within that 16" threat radius to pull off the "double strike" attack with 2x4 SAS once again.
Is it possible? Yes, but to be honest I'm not sure it's a likely enough scenario to be considered game-breaking.
-
It will not accure this way in turn 1, but begginning with turn 2, there are usually enough SAW in scrapyard to rebuilt SAS.
secondly, carrier are rather fragile, but Sky fortress in stratospheric HB are nearly indestructible. With new rules, my Savannah makes it to enemy fleet with enough carrier action point to relaunch 2 SAS bomber or torpedoes... And additionnaly, since the V2.5 release, I never loose a skyfortress...
-
From experience it's a very powerful potential but so difficult to achieve, your dependant on the waves of bombers being destroyed completely on the way in.
-
The issue with getting 5 activations out of a single carrier is that it really isn't going to happen very often at all, and if it does, what you are getting is activations, not damage. If a SAS is wiped out completely during its attack run it means it didn't shoot a single torp/bomb and has done no damage. We *know* that having a SAS wiped out completely is not that common because if they were regularly wiped out during attack runs it would make them rather useless. The fact that SAS are generally pretty dangerous means that in most cases a decent number survive any given attack run. Short of having CAP on an already high AA model, or a very lucky set of AA rolls, statistics say you're not going to be wiping out a unit of SAS that started out at full strength.
A normal SAS unit (with DR2) at 4 SAW would require 8 hits to wipe out, and since AA is blue that means you have to have 12AD to have a 50% chance of wiping out the unit. How many models/units do you know that have 12AA? Even a unit of 1x3 SAW needs 9AA to have a 50% chance of wiping out, 9 AA is possible but not common. And a 1x5 needs 15AA to take out. That's just not going to happen.
There might be other reasons to change activation markers and relaunch actions, but that particular problem is a "paper problem" more than something you're actually going to see on the table.
-
My initial concern is the ships that have incorrect text or missing segment e.g. The Tunguska which has hunter-, thus meaning it gets +1 to hit everything.
-
A game is several turn, not only one...
For exemple, on turn 1, you send ahead your fighters to dogfight enemy fighters and fast air models. This begin to send some SAW in your scrapyard, as well as inflicting some damage to enemy. Your skyfortress will climb to stratos and move forward.
On turn 2 you continue to sacrifice your fighters to clear enemy fighters and attack flying models. Mid turn 2 you easily should have more than 8 SAW in your scrapyard. late turn 2 you activate your skyfortres to recreate 2 SAS (fighter or bomber/torpedoes if any models is within 16 or 20'' from the skyfortress) this 2 new SAS will be able to activate immediatly and will be able attack the target for which they have been put in air.
And so one... on turn 3 all your initial fighters should have been killed already one time, meaning more than 15 to 20 SAW has been back to scrapyard, offering enough spare to rebuild the turn 3 wave of SAS... At this point the skyfortress is in the middle of the enemy fleet, and can directly rearm and replenish SAS (which therefore don't loose a round to come back to the carrier du be rearmed) instead of relaunching from the scrapyard is there is not enough SAW there...
And carrier points ??? try to compute the nomber or AD you have to send at a Savannah in stratospheric in order to prevent her from relaunching the 2 SAS ? 4 times 18+AD attack to remove 4HP (without using RB1 fire from surface)... It's just enormous !
You should try if you are not convinced that it is awfully powerfull...
-
I
A game is several turn, not only one...
For exemple, on turn 1, you send ahead your fighters to dogfight enemy fighters and fast air models. This begin to send some SAW in your scrapyard, as well as inflicting some damage to enemy. Your skyfortress will climb to stratos and move forward.
On turn 2 you continue to sacrifice your fighters to clear enemy fighters and attack flying models. Mid turn 2 you easily should have more than 8 SAW in your scrapyard. late turn 2 you activate your skyfortres to recreate 2 SAS (fighter or bomber/torpedoes if any models is within 16 or 20'' from the skyfortress) this 2 new SAS will be able to activate immediatly and will be able attack the target for which they have been put in air.
And so one... on turn 3 all your initial fighters should have been killed already one time, meaning more than 15 to 20 SAW has been back to scrapyard, offering enough spare to rebuild the turn 3 wave of SAS... At this point the skyfortress is in the middle of the enemy fleet, and can directly rearm and replenish SAS (which therefore don't loose a round to come back to the carrier du be rearmed) instead of relaunching from the scrapyard is there is not enough SAW there...
And carrier points ??? try to compute the nomber or AD you have to send at a Savannah in stratospheric in order to prevent her from relaunching the 2 SAS ? 4 times 18+AD attack to remove 4HP (without using RB1 fire from surface)... It's just enormous !
You should try if you are not convinced that it is awfully powerfull...
One thing...have you been playing that the two SAS placed with the carrier at the start of the game are the only SAS that can be rebuilt? That's how I understand the rules. So, with a 2x4 carrier for example, if the carrier's two SAS that it placed at deployment still have any SAW left alive, then the carrier can't use the rebuild action. Another option that could be investigated is to limit the height band from which carrier actions can be taken from. I'm hesitant about putting activated tokens on freshly rebuilt SAS, because I'm worried that it will negatively impact their utility too much.
It would require some play testing either way!
-
The question was brought up on the forums and clarified by Spartan Mike, though I realize at this point I can't actually back that up since the forums are down and anyone can make that claim. (Anyone tried the page caches on some search engines to see if much could be recovered?)
I'll paraphrase a bit since I can't remember the exact wording.
A SAS can only be rebuilt if a SAS is completely destroyed. [key there is SAS, not SAW] And that you have to have enough SAW in your graveyard to build the new SAS unit.
So if you have 6 SAS units, lets say 3x5 fighers (Local air support), as well as 1x3 and 2x4 from carriers. You could loose 1 SAW from each unit, and therefor have 6 in the graveyard, but you can't rebuild yet because no SAS unit has been destroyed. If the 1x3 unit is wiped out completely it could be brought back as a 1x4 with the larger carrier (as long as at least 4 SAW are in the graveyard). And the same way if a 1x5 (local air support in this example) is destroyed it could only be brought back as either a 1x3 or 1x4 because that is all the carriers can output.
Also in the rules clarification, the rules state CAP has to come from local air support and therefor has to be fighters. He said that carriers can't re-task CAP, they have to stay fighters.
edit: so I was mistaken, it was Spartan Josh. And yes, a decent amount of the forums are cached, no idea how long it will last but if there is something you have to find, I would find it sooner rather than later.
(https://vgy.me/AKU43H.jpg)
-
An easy way to understand the SAS issue is the trays, you can only rebuild if you have a tray in your graveyard to rebuild.
-
It's not said in the rules ! they only say you need to have enough SAW ! And Trays are optional game help, lots of players play without trays...
This doesn't solve the issue...
Here is the rule text :
"The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it."
So, it is not a mandatory to have loose a full SAS before, and SAW can come from the local air support looses. And nothing is mentionned about trays.
We all agree with the fact that there is an issu with that rule. we just need to find the proper way to solve it...
-
It's not said in the rules ! they only say you need to have enough SAW ! And Trays are optional game help, lots of players play without trays...
This doesn't solve the issue...
Here is the rule text :
"The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it."
So, it is not a mandatory to have loose a full SAS before, and SAW can come from the local air support looses. And nothing is mentionned about trays.
We all agree with the fact that there is an issu with that rule. we just need to find the proper way to solve it...
Except that we had an official clarification on RAI.
I think the key is the fact that the skill is re-build, not launch or build. You can only rebuild something that already exists, so you can only rebuild a SAS if a SAS was destroyed. That SAS is made up of SAW and the SAW must come from your graveyard. The point being that you are rebuilding a SAS unit and you can only rebuild once it is destroyed. SAS and SAW are not the same thing (related and interconnected, but not the same)
The problem with you're quote is you left off half of the rule, the full rule is:
Sometimes SAS will be completely eliminated by the enemy either through heroic Dogfights or sheer volumes of AA! In order to execute a Re-Build Carrier Action, a Carrier Model must spend 3 Carrier Points to Re-Build a lost SAS. The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it
I have highlighted the key points you left out.
Granted since the rules are moving into community territory we can change the "official" RAI if that is what we think is best.
I personally think keeping the limitation on SAS having to be destroyed to re-build a SAS is the way to go. About the only change I would see is something alone the lines of "if the SAS was lost in the same turn it is being rebuild then the re-built SAS keeps the activation/not-activated status of the lost SAS, if the SAS was lost in a previous turn then the rebuild SAS has no activation marker"
-
Keeping tracks of which SAS has been destroyed in the current turn and if it were already activeated or not sounds complicated and heavy to do. But why not... différents options have to been tested, event keeping the actual rules if you think that there is no problem with it... The only thing I was pointed out is that the rules are at least unclear and probably (IMHO) unbalanced.
-
I've played only three games since the new edition came out and seen a few games played, the potential is there but the practicality doesn't work out. I mentioned the trays as it's a good way to track your current units.
A force can be set up for carrier spam, FSA seem best due to lots of cheap carriers, this can be strong but your ships can easily be dealt with due to being of a weaker build.
-
Keeping tracks of which SAS has been destroyed in the current turn and if it were already activeated or not sounds complicated and heavy to do. But why not... différents options have to been tested, event keeping the actual rules if you think that there is no problem with it... The only thing I was pointed out is that the rules are at least unclear and probably (IMHO) unbalanced.
Unbalanced perhaps if played the way you initially outlined, yes. As it is, with the requirement for an SAS to be destroyed, not merely SAW, it is a powerful option that detracts from the fleet ability to do much else the more resources you dedicate to doing it.
That is, in a nutshell, how you try to balance such things.
-
Last week I played 2 test game with a Savannah on one side and no skyfortress on the other side.
First game, 800pts RoF fleet cleared out of the table in 3 turn,
second game 1000pts Chinese fleet cleared out of table in 4 turn.
Games were played with restricted rules (SAS rebuild only if tray avalaible in scrapeyard, and number of SAS rebuild in a single turn limited by carrier rule (meaning 2x4 SAS a turn foir a SAvannah)
In both game FSA fleet damage very low and most of damage down to ennemy large have been made by SAS Bombers from Savannah.
This just pointed out that the actual rules a really unbalanced...
We are looking for balancing modifications, probably :
- no carrier action if carrier is Stratospheric
- rebuild SAS enter whith an "activated" marker.
More test will be made with these modifications.
-
Maybe because you are playing with such small forces that it exacerbates the issues? 800 points is not a real game, and I know for a fact the game was not really tested at that level.
-
Without knowing lists and what happened it is of limited value. For all we know the FSA player could be really good and the other players new or working with really weird lists. (back when I played a game not to be mentioned the army I had chosen was considered sub-par, I went on to win something like 90-95% of the games I played. My brother also mentioned how tactically inept so many of the players in the area are).
Was the Savannah the key to victory? If the bombers did most of the work then what was the rest of the fleet doing? And if the bombers were destroying everything then they clearly weren't being shot down and rebuilt constantly (because a shot down SAS unit deals no damage). The Savannah was implied to be stratospheric the whole time, but did that actually make a difference? If the FSA had clear air superiority it could have been just as one sided if it had never left obscured (which is what it could do in 2.0). Would the outcome have been much different if the Savannah had been switched out for a San Francisco or a Saratoga?
-
I already posted a AAR for these 2 games in french on the french forum... don't have much courage to write them again in English :(
The fact is that players are of equivalent skills in both games, and 800-1000pt games are perfect for play testing purpose.
For the two games, the savannah was clearly the central unit of FSA victory. In the 2 games it goes straospheric as the first activation of FSA player in turn 1 and remains their until last activation in turn 3 at which point it fly down in obscured in the middle of enemy fleet (meaning in RB1 of any potential threat). In addition, in the two games the FSA had a clear SAS superiority but without tha ability to recycle SAS directly on the front line, this superiority wouldn't have been so deadly for enemy fleet.
I don't think the result would have been the same with Saragota or San Francisco, because they can cycle SAS directly in attacking range without exposing themselves to enemy fire, which mean they will be quickly killed by enemy fire, while the Savannah in obscured is completly safe...
But as I said, I think more play testing should be made arround this issu, including battle opposing skyfortress fleet against fleet carrier escorted one.
-
and 800-1000pt games are perfect for play testing purpose.
I accept you believe so, but the version 2.0 rules were apparently not tested at all at that level, and I really see no likelihood 2.5 was either. Especially when 800 points is such a bizarre number to pick.
If the game was untested at such points levels, there is little reason to expect it to be balanced at such, especially when we are using the 2.0 Orbats with added typos and a small fraction of extra units.
-
I don't agree : as an active member of the V2.0 beta test process, I assure that lots of game have been made at this level of point !
In addition, for balance purpose, such size of game are really relevent because it allow to point out the balance issue more easily and quickly. And a problem that appears in 800 pts because of a unbalanced model will also happen in a 1500 pts game where a player field 2 of this model !
-
The rulebook is quite clear as to how Re-Building works. It was even clarified on the Spartan Forums long before it shut down.
You can only re-build a squadron if One of the SAS you had on the table at the beginning of the game has died. It doesn't matter if the SAWs are taken from casualties of another SAS as the individual SAWs do not matter for the calculation.
To quote the important part of the rule from the rulebook, word for word:
In order to execute a Re-Build Carrier Action, a Carrier Model must spend 3 Carrier Points to Re-Build a LOST SAS.
It goes like this.
You start with 4 SAS on the table. At some point in the game one of those SAS is destroyed
4SAS - 1SAS = 3SAS
At a later point, a Carrier Re-Builds a new SAS
3SAS + 1SAS = 4SAS
Later in the game 2SAS are destroyed (or lost)
4SAS - 2SAS = 2SAS
Then the Carrier activated and Re-Builds a Single SAS as it does not have the points to create 2 of them at the same time
2SAS + 1SAS = 3SAS
See? Its does not matter how many SAWs you have in your scrapyard. They do not even come into the equation. It only matters how many SAS you have on the table and how many you started with. You cannot have more SAS than you started the game with and that is because the rule says you can only rebuild a LOST SAS. Not half of the loses of 2SAS, but one full SAS that has been sent to the scrapyard.
There is nothing wrong with the rule or the rulebook. Your just wrong. The rulebook is clear and it has been clarified before. And it is not hard to keep track if an SAS has died. You just look for a tray in your Scrapyard.
-
I already posted a AAR for these 2 games in french on the french forum... don't have much courage to write them again in English :(
The fact is that players are of equivalent skills in both games, and 800-1000pt games are perfect for play testing purpose.
For the two games, the savannah was clearly the central unit of FSA victory. In the 2 games it goes straospheric as the first activation of FSA player in turn 1 and remains their until last activation in turn 3 at which point it fly down in obscured in the middle of enemy fleet (meaning in RB1 of any potential threat). In addition, in the two games the FSA had a clear SAS superiority but without tha ability to recycle SAS directly on the front line, this superiority wouldn't have been so deadly for enemy fleet.
I don't think the result would have been the same with Saragota or San Francisco, because they can cycle SAS directly in attacking range without exposing themselves to enemy fire, which mean they will be quickly killed by enemy fire, while the Savannah in obscured is completly safe...
But as I said, I think more play testing should be made arround this issu, including battle opposing skyfortress fleet against fleet carrier escorted one.
Two 2x4 bombers did all that damage? Where they always destroyed completely AFTER attacking? Did the targets not have any escorts or CAP? Wow! That's some bombing, especially if the bombers were not within four inches of the Saratoga or not completely destroyed. Maximum of 6/8 attacks-IF there are in range on turn one. This is not my experience. If I faced a Saratoga, a Rousseau or a squadron of Voltaires should make it a more dicey.
-
It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...
-
It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...
Perhaps it is so efficient because it is an illegal % of points spent on non-Core models?
-
It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...
Perhaps it is so efficient because it is an illegal % of points spent on non-Core models?
Are you shure ?
IMHO :
Savannah (180) + B72 (120) = 300 pts
40% of 800 MFV = 320...
But I may be wrong...
-
Yeah, I apologise, I have no idea what hungover maths my head was doing - but it isn't an illegal %. It is sufficiently large an outlay that the rest of the fleet must be pretty slim - but that wasn't the issue I presented.
The issue with small games generally is that things that seem broken in them aren't necessarily scaleable. For instance, if I take 800 points of FSA with:
Enterprise (Shield, Kinetic)
Annapolis (Shield) x2
Guilford x3
Then my list would be an incredibly tough nut for, say,
Kiyohime (Stoic) + Kitsune
Nakatsu x3
Nakatsu x3
Sui x3
Sui x3
But not for:
Ika
Ika
Ika
Chita x2
Chita x2
Zarigani x5
Onryo (Disruption)
Basically, and I wish I had just written this now instead of working those lists out, it exacerbates the inherent paper-scissors-stones elements of any wargame.
-
It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...
So there was basically no defense against these attacks- no SAS or Aerial hunter units? Basically if you succeed in the Rock/Paper/Scissors of force on force composition, yeah you can sweep. I get the point of Stratospheric providing an advantage to keeping the carrier intact, but that is just part of the picture. Placement, distance to targets, aerial air hunters all play into it. If you can get two sets of rockets or good guns hitting on 5s and 6s, for example, one could hurt the carrier points to mitigate. I almost always take a Heavy Bomber just to have a counter. An enemy Superfort- one with actual guns, would be a better. (Yes its 6 carrier vs. 8/9)
Your situation seems similar to taking a Dreadnought in a 800 point game. Superfort on one side and no effective air superiority on the other.
-
The difference bitween savannah and enterprise, or more generaly bitween skyfortress and dread, is the price range. The skyfortress is in the same price range as a battleship not a dread, therefore it should not take the game out of balance by himself alone, not more than another model of the same price range...
I would really be interested in your feedbacks. Do you manage to bit skyfortress list using list without one, or list without carrier ?
-
Your point about the points cost of Sky Fortresses is a good one, and one that makes no logical sense to me unless the theoretical opportunity for true Sky Dreadnoughts was being left open intentionally - guess we'll never know.
I don't play at 800 points, for the reasons above - games that are too small remove tactical ability as a determining factor.
In general, if I'm playing against a Sky Fortress, the aim will be, depending on the rest of their force, either to damage and then ignore it in favour of winning by killing other stuff, or it will be to bring it down asap (preferably by prize-ing) if they have too few other scary elements to worry about, or too many resistant to damage from range perhaps.
Either way, I rarely don't have an answer, largely because I play with Volley Guns.
-
The difference bitween savannah and enterprise, or more generaly bitween skyfortress and dread, is the price range. The skyfortress is in the same price range as a battleship not a dread, therefore it should not take the game out of balance by himself alone, not more than another model of the same price range...
I would really be interested in your feedbacks. Do you manage to bit skyfortress list using list without one, or list without carrier ?
My point being there are combinations that mean one side has a big advantage. The Stratospheric height level changes do add to that, but I don't see skyfortresses as OP now. Those with multiple weapons systems- like the Tourbillons suffer from occupying Stratospheric and bring one 5 SAS to the fight with six carrier points, really valuable, but not OP. In order to get the SAS cycle into play the carrier has to close or be closed upon the enemy. They can't get out of LOS. They a a big threat and need to be targeted. But, you can get to 5s and 6s against them, its just harder now.
That said, being able to do carrier operations at two height level difference doesn't sit right with me. If that were to change to one height level I would endorse that.
As for the bombing threat, it suffers from height level basic to hit effects as well, including Area Bombardment.
-
As for the bombing threat, it suffers from height level basic to hit effects as well, including Area Bombardment.
Sorry, I don't agree whith you.
rule book p130 : "Area Bombardment is considered to be an Indiscriminate Attack, with a ‘To Hit’ Number of 5 or (RED) 6, and may only ever Target the Surface Height Level."
The to hit number is not relatated to heigh level, so you can use area bombardment from stratospheric heigh and hit on 5+.
-
The difference bitween savannah and enterprise, or more generaly bitween skyfortress and dread, is the price range. The skyfortress is in the same price range as a battleship not a dread, therefore it should not take the game out of balance by himself alone, not more than another model of the same price range...
I would really be interested in your feedbacks. Do you manage to bit skyfortress list using list without one, or list without carrier ?
My point being there are combinations that mean one side has a big advantage. The Stratospheric height level changes do add to that, but I don't see skyfortresses as OP now. Those with multiple weapons systems- like the Tourbillons suffer from occupying Stratospheric and bring one 5 SAS to the fight with six carrier points, really valuable, but not OP. In order to get the SAS cycle into play the carrier has to close or be closed upon the enemy. They can't get out of LOS. They a a big threat and need to be targeted. But, you can get to 5s and 6s against them, its just harder now.
That said, being able to do carrier operations at two height level difference doesn't sit right with me. If that were to change to one height level I would endorse that.
As for the bombing threat, it suffers from height level basic to hit effects as well, including Area Bombardment.
You may be right as it is specified-sort of. I don't you are right that height doesn't matter. See page 100:
The ‘To Hit’ Number for Indiscriminate Attacks
Most sources of Indiscriminate Attacks will specify the ‘To Hit’ Number they use. If they do not, they use the Basic ‘To-Hit’ Number as determined by the Height Level - see the table on Page 127.
Is there an Indiscriminate attack from Stratospheric that isn't an Area Attack? Ramming?
-
The rule p100 is perfectly clear : Area bombardment is an Indiscriminate attack that specifies its "to hit" Number (ie : 5+) so, as the rule on p100 says, you don't use the basic "to hit" number defined by heigh level.