Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I've decided to put out a more refined version of my idea from the "Wave 4 Thread" for the community to look at without getting that thread off-topic. Basically, it is the outline for game rules to recreate those scenes from the movies which involve smaller craft shooting up large capital ships. Please add thoughts as to how this scenario could be made better- I'm going off napkins scribbles here.


The Board: The scenario is played on a larger-than-standard board- I would recommend a board at least 50% longer than it is wide. The Defending player must deploy in a strip equal to the width of one range band on the targeting ruler, located in the middle of the board. The Attacker deploy in a similar sized zone against one of the Short table edges. Players then take turns placing Objectives on the table. The objectives are emplacements as noted below. Objectives may not be placed within 2 range bands of the board edge opposite the rebels deployment or another objective, and may not be placed within 1 Range band of a long board edge.

--> Note: At this point, I have no idea how many objectives are suitable for fun play. Too many, and the attacker is going to have problems. Too few and it’s the defenders issue. I'd guess it would really depend on board and game size. Anyone got ideas for a guideline?


Forces: Players must agree to a game size as normal, and then may spend an additional 20% on "scenario forces". For Attackers, this means an additional 20% of their points may be spent equipping their ships with "Free" Torpedoes and Missiles. The Defender may use these points to buy additional emplacements (see below).

--> Note: I suggest 20% because it would allow a fairly normal Rebel Squadron to upgrade all its ships with Proton Torpedoes- this payload can also be taken on a single TIE bomber per 100 points. This means players don't need a huge number of new ships to benefit from this mission.


The Mission: The Attackers goal is to destroy all the objectives on the board. The defenders goal is to stop them. If all the objectives are destroyed, the attacker wins. If less than half the objectives are destroyed, the defender wins. All other results are a draw.

--> Note: It is fair to say that, if the attacker manages to destroy all the defenders forces, they win by default.


Emplacements: Emplacements is my term for Terrain features corresponding to pieces of a larger vessel, such as Turrets, Shield Projectors, or vulnerable points on the target (also referred to as “objectives”). Except where noted under the emplacements specific rules, all emplacements follow the same rules.

Immobile: Emplacements cannot move, and so take no maneuver in the Activation Phase. The exception is turrets, which may Swivel. The defender deploys any purchased emplacements during deployment, not within range 2 of a board edge or range 1 of another emplacement (including objectives), and no closer to the attackers deployment zone than the nearest edge of the defenders deployment zone.

Structure: All Emplacements use the same type of profile as a fighter. They have Hull points, Shields, and Agility (representing the difficulty of hitting the emplacement, not their agility). Emplacements may not take actions, and, with the exception of turrets, do not have Primary Weapon Values or Pilot Skill Values. Also, as emplacements are attached to something at the bottom of a 3-dimensional space, fighters may move over emplacements freely, and may even end their activation on top of an emplacement without penalty.

Attacking an emplacement: Attacking an emplacement works exactly like attacking a fighter; check range, attacker rolls attack dice, defender rolls defence dice, defender takes damage. However, there are several differences. First, as the critical hit deck is designed for fighters, do not deal face-up damage cards to an emplacement; instead, simply deal two face-down damage cards for each un-cancelled critical hit. Second, as emplacements are immobile, they cannot evade an attack, and rely on simply providing a difficult target to avoid being hit. They rely on armour to survive well-placed shots. As such, if the attacker spends a target lock as part of an attack, the emplacement treats its agility as “0” for the duration of the attack (this includes secondary weapons with attack [Target Lock]).


--> Note: I'll be back later to write actual rules on emplacements. Until then, what are your thoughts?

Can emplacements fire at ships?

I like it!

Only thing I would change for my games so far is keeping critical hits on emplacements as instakills.

 Manchu wrote:
I like it!

Only thing I would change for my games so far is keeping critical hits on emplacements as instakills.

hmm one critical hit equals instakill, you dont think that would make them too fragile? Though I guess kind of makes sense. Its not like in most movie battle scenes turrets are taking lots of damage. I think I would be ok with a instakill crit on most emplacements but maybe a shield generator takes more then 1?

Or to take it a step farther (maybe too far?) a custom critical hit result table based on the type of emplacement?

 ironicsilence wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I like it!

Only thing I would change for my games so far is keeping critical hits on emplacements as instakills.

hmm one critical hit equals instakill, you dont think that would make them too fragile? Though I guess kind of makes sense. Its not like in most movie battle scenes turrets are taking lots of damage. I think I would be ok with a instakill crit on most emplacements but maybe a shield generator takes more then 1?

Or to take it a step farther (maybe too far?) a custom critical hit result table based on the type of emplacement?

Well a shield generator would automatically (assuming the only hit to get through is a crit) would cancel the crit by virtue of just how crits interact with shields.

 ironicsilence wrote:
Or to take it a step farther (maybe too far?) a custom critical hit result table based on the type of emplacement?

I love that idea! That's the way to go.

 Manchu wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
Or to take it a step farther (maybe too far?) a custom critical hit result table based on the type of emplacement?

I love that idea! That's the way to go.

hmm I wonder if this is a slippery slope....if each type of emplacement has its own critical hit table does that mean that each type of emplacement needs more robust rules? Something like a turret is pretty straightforward in terms of game use....it shoots at stuff....but when you expand that to think of things like shield generators, comms equipment....do each of those types of emplacements need to have an actual purpose?

Personally I LOVE the idea of having a bucket of unique objectives that each serves a purpose in the game

I like it, too. It's scenario play after all. Save the simple stuff for boring old head-to-heads.

Name: Turret Emplacement (Basic)
'Ship' Type: Fortification
Faction: Any (if someone could photoshop both images together that'd be cool)
Pilot Skill: 4 (make them go in the middle of everything?)
Primary Weapon: 2
Agility (Armor): 1
Hull: 3
Shield: 0
Upgrade Bar: None
Action Bar: Focus
Squad Point Cost: 15

From this 'template' (or w/e we decide on) we can simply adjust/add to based on things, or even treat it like a pilot card so things like Shield Upgrade could be added for x points. This would also allow a player in a scenario to control the turrets (ala Death Star trench run)

I like that idea, especially the idea of being able to add upgrades to the turrets, I think this opens up the ability to add different weapon types for more points, maybe even repair droids.

Any thoughts on the basic point cost of a turret emplacement?

 ironicsilence wrote:
I like that idea, especially the idea of being able to add upgrades to the turrets, I think this opens up the ability to add different weapon types for more points, maybe even repair droids.

Any thoughts on the basic point cost of a turret emplacement?

I would say 10 points with how that is atm, but adding upgrades to the upgrade bar I'd probably make it 15 to 20.

Actually comparing it to the Academy Pilot, who is 12 points and has similar stats, I would say 15 points but give it Focus

I don't think Emplacements should get defense dice. I mean, you can still miss by rolling blanks on your attack dice. And they are just standing there. Emplacements should have "armor ratings" that give their damage thresholds instead -- namely, what kind of hit will damage/destroy an Emplacement.

Unarmored: any hit destroys
Light Armor: multiple hits on one attack -OR- a critical hit destroys
Medium Armor: multiple hits on one attack -OR- a critical hit damages
Heavy Armor: only critical hits damage

I would agree with Manchu on the 0 Agility.

I would also suggest making it have Hull 2 and adjust from there depending on how heavy of a turret is a la what Manchu suggested above. (Maybe baseline points to 10?)

For Turrets, I'm going to use Alfndrate's profile as a base, with just a couple modifications (such as adding Target Lock to the action dial). Combat-wise, they fight in the same manner as ships- with 90 degree fire arc. They would, however, have the swivel action. My thought with this is that there is then some positioning involved with turrets, and they do not simply rotate 360 degrees and focus. Instead, there is a 90 degree cone where they can focus (or target lock), two 90* cones where they can fire wildly, and one zone where they are not threat for a turn.

Action: Swivel- Change this models facing by 90 degrees.

In terms of upgrades, they have access to cannon upgrades (Ion, Heavy Laser and Auto Blaster). I'd also consider a new "Blaster" Cannon which functions like a blaster turret, but in cannon form (so regular firing arc, Rng 1-2, Attack 4) to simply add an option for increased mid-range firepower without the quirks of the other options. I would also consider Crew upgrades, as some of those look quite useful, the new system upgrades, and of course modifications. This is also the point where we can have fun inventing new upgrade cards for each.

For example:

Ray Shielding
System Upgrade (Emplacements only)
This model may not be targeted by primary weapons.

Edit: @ Manchu: Now we're cooking!

XX-9 Heavy Turbolaser Turret
Death Star Gunner 2
4 - 3 0
Special
Heavy Armor,Turret Emplacement, Capital Weapon
Action Bar
Focus
15 Points

Scenario Rule: Heavy Armor
Only Critical Hits can damage this Emplacement.

Scenario Rule: Turret Emplacement
Turret Emplacements have a single 90 degree arc but can be swiveled up to 90 degrees left or right once per each movement phase as per the Gunner's skill level.

Scenario Rule: Capital Weapon
When attacking ships with fighter-sized bases, only roll 2 attack dice.

@Manchu: Does it make sense to limit rotation to just 90 degrees? I can kind of see it as being rotate up to 90 degrees.

 Jin wrote:
I can kind of see it as being rotate up to 90 degrees.

Yeah, even better. I'll edit my post.

I was planning on building turrets myself, thought about it in the car and just saw this thread!
I was going to do the following:
Turret
PS: hadn't decided
Attack: 2
Evade: 0
HP: 3
Shields: 0
Crits=insta kill
Action: turret can turn 90 degrees. This would put the turret on a round base and use either the 1 or 2 90 degree the to move the turret. OR it could be on a square base with a square measurement piece to do the turn. Regular LOS applies. No focus, target lock is questionable, evades&barrel rolls=duh...no.

 Manchu wrote:
XX-9 Heavy Turbolaser Turret
Death Star Gunner 2
4 - 3 0
Special
Heavy Armor,Turret Emplacement, Capital Weapon
Action Bar
Focus
15 Points

Scenario Rule: Heavy Armor
Only Critical Hits can damage this Emplacement.

Scenario Rule: Turret Emplacement
Turret Emplacements have a single 90 degree arc but can be swiveled up to 90 degrees left or right once per each movement phase as per the Gunner's skill level.

Scenario Rule: Capital Weapon
When attacking ships with fighter-sized bases, only roll 2 attack dice.

I like it, and I think it's basically there... I just can't get over the 0 agility... I understand the why, but if I were in control of the turret, I would want a chance to defend, ala armor saves, evade, tough roll... I would have to play it as such before I was sold.

Though I think the Death Star Gunner might be a better type of turret emplacement, and might be more than 15 points, especially when it's pumping out more shots than your average ship. Admittedly, those ships also get other actions as well as movement.
Edit: Just read the Capital Rule, perhaps it could be changed to, "When attacking Large Ships, roll double the dice for your Primary Weapon" and just drop it to a PWV of 2

It sounds like a cool scenario but if your group doesn't use large ships like the Tantive, I agree that you should just drop the attack value to 2 instead. I'd also recommend for simplicity that you just make the movement for the turrets be turning to face any direction and give them the normal arc. That way, you can just place the turret on an xwing base with a random card insert for ease of use.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I just can't get over the 0 agility... I understand the why, but if I were in control of the turret, I would want a chance to defend, ala armor saves, evade, tough roll... I would have to play it as such before I was sold.

To me, rolling the dice implies something active, like dodging. Armor is a passive defense.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Just read the Capital Rule, perhaps it could be changed to, "When attacking Large Ships, roll double the dice for your Primary Weapon" and just drop it to a PWV of 2

Sure, that works for me.

 warboss wrote:
I'd also recommend for simplicity that you just make the movement for the turrets be turning to face any direction and give them the normal arc. That way, you can just place the turret on an xwing base with a random card insert for ease of use.

This is what I was envisioning, except limiting the turrets to a max 90% turn per movement phase.

I'm ok with the 0 agility in the instance of scenario driven play, in a game where your getting extra points to spend on emplacements. If i had to spend points from my main force to take an emplacement I'd want them to be more survivable but if its just extra points on top of my main force to account for objectives then im ok with 0 agility

This kind of "unit" really only makes sense in a scenario game anyway.

 Manchu wrote:
To me, rolling the dice implies something active, like dodging. Armor is a passive defense.

I know, I just don't like not having a hand in my defense. If you roll 2 hits my lightly armored turret (using the rules you posted yesterday), my lightly armored turret goes boom. Even a single "evade" gives my turret an additional turn of life. If you're rolling hot I might not be able to do anything anyways, but not giving me the chance to defend myself doesn't sit well with me (it's my one complaint about Warmahordes, my lucky rolling can't counteract your lucky rolling).

Regardless of whether or not I'm paying points, I would probably bump heavy armor up to like 20 points considering they can only be damaged by critical hits. Though depending on how prevalent Marksman is in your area, it might not matter.

So we're sitting with this atm?


Upgrades? Do you think they should be able to take Elite Talent Upgrades (ala Marksman, Veteran Instincts, etc...) I think allowing a turret to grab Draw their Fire might be a little too powerful, especially if you've got Heavy Armor.

I never write these things with the idea that they should be played competitively, i.e., be taken in lists. It's just for scenario play. If you want better gunners, just give them the power and don't worry about buying the card. Scenario play is not about creating exactly balanced encounters but rather about creating an exciting story. It's called "cinematic" -- but I know how well that term is received around here ...

As much as I can understand wanting to take an active roll in defense, it just makes zero sense here. A turret is a stationary emplacement -- it simply cannot evade attacks. The attacker's bad shots are simulated by the attacker's poorer dice rolls, not by you rolling defense dice. Armor also can't be a dice roll; it's just a thing that is there, passively defending.

As to lightly armored turrets -- not saying such a thing should exist. When I wrote the unarmored and light armor rules, I was thinking of something like a communications array or engine.

maybe a repair droid upgrade that gives a one time repair?

Again, I think you guys are stuck in the mode of list building for competitive games. If you want the turret to have more life in the scenario then simply improve its hull or armor ratings.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, I think you guys are stuck in the mode of list building for competitive games. If you want the turret to have more life in the scenario then simply improve its hull or armor ratings.

Taking the armor as agility out, the reason why I'm thinking of things the way they are is for balance, not competition. I don't intend on playing this game competitively. I would like it to be an option that an Imperial or Rebel player can take (i.e. Death Star Trench Run scenario).

Yes you can make them to be w/e you want, but creating a level of balance allows more use than just scenario play. If we were to do this for just scenarios, then there is no reason to give it a points cost, just set them down on the board, and have them fire away.

 Manchu wrote:
This is what I was envisioning, except limiting the turrets to a max 90% turn per movement phase.

How do you easily distinguish between a 90 and 91% turn?

 warboss wrote:
How do you easily distinguish between a 90 and 91% turn?

Good sportsmanship.

 Alfndrate wrote:
If we were to do this for just scenarios, then there is no reason to give it a points cost, just set them down on the board, and have them fire away.

The only reason I posted a points cost is because IronSilence described "extra points" given by the scenario rules for more Emplacements ...