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.

 warboss wrote:
I'd definitely not be a fan of a firm augment based on the cover as it wouldn't ever benefit agile units. I want them to occasionally benefit from cover within reason but not become unhittable. With just a 3+ for cover, anything "better" than a hunter just won't benefit with those schemes. At least with a benefit to augment, they'd get some but with a hard limit. I'd personally be fine with the THACO style cognitive dissonance of something "lower" being "better". In the end, it's no different from the system in the alpha anyways and the most popular scifi game uses something similar (saves).

Yup, that was the problem with a flat modifier to augment (that some models don't benefit from it). That's why I preferred a flat 'final score' that cover provided, like saying that hard cover always counted you as having rolled a 6 (if your roll was less than 6). However, it was felt that was too complicated to keep up with. Yet another of the things we tried that eventually got dust-binned.

 IceRaptor wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I'd definitely not be a fan of a firm augment based on the cover as it wouldn't ever benefit agile units. I want them to occasionally benefit from cover within reason but not become unhittable. With just a 3+ for cover, anything "better" than a hunter just won't benefit with those schemes. At least with a benefit to augment, they'd get some but with a hard limit. I'd personally be fine with the THACO style cognitive dissonance of something "lower" being "better". In the end, it's no different from the system in the alpha anyways and the most popular scifi game uses something similar (saves).

Yup, that was the problem with a flat modifier to augment (that some models don't benefit from it). That's why I preferred a flat 'final score' that cover provided, like saying that hard cover always counted you as having rolled a 6 (if your roll was less than 6). However, it was felt that was too complicated to keep up with. Yet another of the things we tried that eventually got dust-binned.

Hrm... hadn't thought about that.. similar to the current blitz hull down defense values. I'd have to see that in action to form an opinion but I'm not a fan of the current alpha idea of multiple instance cover grating unlimited bonuses. Shooting through 2 trees 3 inches apart on an area terrain piece should be the same ideally be the same as shooting through those same exact two trees in the same position but unfortunately as written the "instance" terrain version is twice as good. If anything, I'd err on the side of "deadly" rather than "safe" in the new edition of blitz with the added model count and the long history of whiffed shots in current blitz turning players off.

Personally, I would simply remove the multiple instance component. Cover is based on Line-of-sight. That's what matters. The percentage of the target covered would be important, not the amount of stuff in the way. It's simpler, and it forces players to move models around the terrain just as much.

Of course, the central question here is not what should cover do. It's what's the (approximate) percentage of models that should be in movement at any given point, and how careful should the players be when plotting their movements.

Some will be moving to get in better cover against some incoming models, some will be moving to get a good firing position, and some will be bracing to use the cover they already have and shoot. The exact impact of cover depends on that and on the desired lethality of the game.

On the other hand, having non-terminal cover stack makes a board containing only partial cover viable to play on, and adds more complexity to shooting. Instead of shooting being reduced to either having a perfect (or almost perfect) shot vs. not being able to shoot at all.

Because that's what shooting beyond detection range would boil down to:
- Clear shot
- Shot vs. +1D6 cover
- You can't shoot at all
without the additional cover modifiers. You'd get into "OMG, if you don't cover the table with full cover terrain, everyone will die instantly!" Infinity terrain situation and making every element of cover three inches tall.

 IceRaptor wrote:
I'm going to jump in on a few of these issues, since they are my decisions directly and I can provide context for a few of these changes.

I was the one who decided that field guns should not have IF. There's a couple of reasons for it, and while I identified this as a major change in the impacted models I felt the benefits outweighed the 'damage' to the Visigoth's (and Voltgier's) capabilities in the Blitz era. This may simply boil down to a decision you simply don't agree with, unfortunately. But here's the rationales.

I do understand there are reasons, but 1) I don't know if I agree with them and 2) the units that have gotten field guns vs. the ones that have received tank guns doesn't always make sense.

First, the scale / range argument. It's true that in both Blitz & Tactical, field guns could perform indirect fire. And in reality, a tank such as the Abrams can perform indirect fire. IIRC HGB/HGT, there was no limit on the range of the indirect fire - you could fire indirectly immediately beside your model, if you wanted. However, in reality most tanks have a shallow elevation - the Abrams is +20 / -10 which is a typical range. This means that 'indirect' fire is practically limited to long range engagements, against targets behind relatively low cover or targets far away from said cover. The drop shadows for such attacks would be huge. From an 'immersion' angle, the Visi and Volti models don't appear to allow very high elevations for their cannons - and so should suffer under the same restrictions. The question becomes - should be add specific rules to account for this (drop shadows, only fire at extreme range, etc)?

The no limit for indirect fire is, in my mind, a problem with the IF rules, not with the weapons per se. Probably the IF rules should have some kind of "minimum range" rules, TBH. Maybe not being able to use IF at the lower suboptimal range or something like that, that you could tweak weapon by weapon (in this example, cannons would have a longer "no shoot" zone, whereas rockets would probably have a smaller one.

The second issue with the Visi / Volti having IF is that it creates a cognitive dissonance for the player, which hinders their ability to map their expectations onto the model. A model's design should reflect it's purpose on the table, IMO. Take two players without any knowledge of the background, hand them an Aller and a Stormhammer and ask them what they think those models should do. I'll put good money down that the player will say that the Aller is a tank designed to smash things, while the Stormhammer is an artillery piece designed to sit back and shell things. And because the Aller is 'bigger' than the Hunter, it should 'tougher', right? Because bigger means tougher, as a common expectation. One major goal for the changes in Mecha Attack - which became HGBv5 of whatever they are calling it - was to make sure that dissonant elements were minimized as much as possible. A Mammoth should absolutely be tough as nails, because it looks like it is. Same for a tank, you should be able to roll up and smash things down. A model's form should closely align to its structure unless it simply can't be fixed any other way.

I'm of two minds about this. I understand that some people will see the tank and will think "tank", so they will be surprised. That said, I'm a fluff nut, and I'd still like for the models to follow it somewhat. And then there's the fact that I believe that having the two polar MBTs perform so differently made for a very interesting variation in playstyles.

I took the two considerations above and split the weapons into field guns and artillery guns. Field guns are direct fire cannon that you typically see on tanks, whereas artillery cannons have a pronounced elevation and fire indirectly. The split made is to such that a player can look at the model's statline and know what it's role is definitely, without needing to remember the minutia of each weapon. The weapon name reinforces that - artillery cannon is very easily parsed as 'indirect' because people think of artillery in that fashion. Weapons do not change how they work from model to model - only the PEN value changes - so players can easily start building up a map of what each weapon is good for and go from there.

Yes, I see that, and I even agree to an extent. Just not all the way through, in the case of the Visigoth.

Originally the Visi and Voli were supposed to be roughly equivalent to the Aller, since their form and price were all equivalent. Since the Aller's rail gun was deemed to be the 'better anti-heavy armor weapon' and they needed something extra for their cannon, so they got HE and AT rounds they could choose from, making them a bit more multi-role than the Aller. While Blast:3 isn't much, it's enough to give them a good anti-Gear punch in certain situations where the Aller can be more easily overwhelmed. Additional tweaks such as indirect rockets for the Visi we never got around to, but it's certainly something that could have broadened the model's role and given it more punch. As for the laser, it should probably be a MLC, but I don't know how Dave is mapping the weapons, honestly. There was an initial, rough mapping SLCs to LLCs, LLCs to MLCs, HLC to HLC. But I dropped that very early on, and I'm surprised to see the letters back.

I am too, seeing as many weapons don't have much to do with the tables. As for the Visigoth, I'll admit that what gets me is that it has lost all its IF capabilities, in my mind, for no good reason. I see your motivations for the split of field guns and artillery guns, but I don't know if I agree (see my problem with IF, above) and I believe that in the Visigoth's case, it should have kept the IF rockets, to still be able to act as a very short range support unit in a pinch (which, IMHO, reinforces the multirole philosofies of the southern gear).

IceRaptor wrote:

Albertorius wrote:Another thing that I've realized when cross checking this:

If one of every two weapons in the current lists have different damage, range or special qualities than the ones in the weapons tables... why in sweet hell are you guys still using weapons tables? Those don't help, only confuse.

The original intent was that this was absolutely not the case.

I'm not surprised about that ^_^.

Weapons were completely the same from model to model with only the exception of PEN values (or whatever the flavor du jour of damage was). So you knew that an autocannon was an autocannon was an autocannon, only the 'relevant targets' changed. To be fair, there were choices that had to be made about whether a weapon should be made into a new type, given a prefix or simply absorbed into an existing type of weapon. The autocannons are a great example of these - should a VHAC be simply a high power autocannon (PEN 7 for a HAC vs. PEN 8 for a VHAC), or a high rate of fire with lower damage (a HAC's PEN 7 but burst 2 instead of burst 1)? Do you make a new weapon type (GAC) or a prefix or trait (Gatling)? How does that fit with AA autocannons? So there's some give in take on this point, and maybe his approach is simple to mix traits onto weapons that need it.

I'd be surprised if range was changed from weapon to weapon though. That should generally accepted as something that shouldn't change at all. But then, I feel that the range attribute still needed work (with more time I would probably have dropped extreme and reworked suboptimal slightly). But c'est la vie.

I actually think that range is the thing that does not change (even though I could see it changing quite easily between "weight" classes of the same weapon ^_^).

I don't know about why the L/M/H stuff was brought back, but yes - it used to only be PEN based. The major frustration with that approach was unit updates. Changing every case of a AC:6 to AC:7 could be a real PITA, whereas changing LAC from 6 to 7 is fairly easy. The choice to use prefixes might be to help playtesters while the system is getting shaken out, honestly.

It is easy... but the way it has actually been implemented adds to the confusion, IMO. If a LAC is 6 damage in the weapons tables, but of all the LACs in the actual units, a third do 5 damage, another third do 6 and the last third do 7... is a PITA. You neve know what the hell actually does the weapon is shooting at you unless you ask, and unless you do, you don't really know if that specific weapon is good against your units or not. At least AC:6 or AC:7 are self explanatory.

 Albertorius wrote:

Yes. All rocket launchers should get the choice of getting AT rockets or IF rockets, too, but no such luck so far.

The reason for some models getting AT versus IF rockets was to 1) keep the weapon's purpose clearly identifiable and 2) simplify the various rockets types in HGB to one or two 'types', if possible. Whereas most HGB/HGT weapons had minor variations in their range or attributes, rockets were all over the board on range, rate of fire and purpose. You have everything from VLRPs with short range but high rates of fire to HRPs with very long ranges and high rates of fire, with many mixtures between them. If we want to simplify the rocket types, one type simply won't cut it - the range for a VLRP or LRP is simply too limited to represent a MRP or HRP well. So there were three types created - AI rockets, AT rockets and Arty rockets, mapping roughly to VLRPs, LRP/MRPs and HRPs. AI and Arty rockets were indirect, whereas AT were direct.

I think I have not made me very clear. What I mean is that a rocket pack should be a rocket pack should be a rocket pack (by which I mean, one line in the weapon tables), and that it should differ in the loadout (by which I mean, they should be able to be loaded with different ammo types, seeing as there are ammo type rules in the game). Just not at the same time.

My thinking was that the option between direct fire or IF rockets should be kept in the army list. Maye some units wouldn't actually have the two options (for example, let's say that Spitting Cobras couldn't pick direct fire rockets for their HRPs, or that Grizzlies only could get direct fire ones for their MRPs, or that Caimans only could get IF rockets... whatever), whereas others would have to actually select them during army creation (maybe Hunters can choose between the two types, for example).

The latter distinction was completely arbitrary, but we ran with it because it helped define units a bit more strongly. Most of the Gears have TMWS - we couldn't remove weapons, so instead of tweaked the rockets to give the models specific niches. A Grizzly uses its HGM for indirect, while the MRPs are for cracking armor in close and the HAC is used for general anti-vehicle work. The Spitting Cobra now has AT rockets and Arty rockets, each with a different role, and more closely matches the Grizzly's profile as well. The Chevalier variants with LFGs becomes the indirect support option (artillery guns), the variants with 3x MRPs become more nuanced as close range assault, etc.

But as I said, you can do that limiting the ammo types those units can select during army creation. I don't feel there's an actual need to have two weapon types. You could even add incendiary rockets into the mix, too.

And yes, the TMWS is a problem, I agree with that. But some units don't have it and still have gotten split .

Additionally, if you allow rockets to work in either mode, you have a harder time making them work across every chassis in both modes, without them being the 'go-to' weapon. In HGT and the fluff, their general strength was limited by their very limited ammo. However, here was never a clean way that we found to use ammo with large model counts in game (25-30 per side) and since MA was designed to fit that scale we had to work without limited ammo constraints. For a skirmish based game you could (and probably should) make different design decisions but that's any additional reason why rockets are implemented they way they were.

I don't feel rockets should be able to work in either mode. I actually think it is very senisble to separate IF rockets from DF rockets... I just think that the launcher doesn't really need to differ for that. A RP should only be able to shoot one kind of rocket at the same time, in my mind, but having the launcher be the same with different ammo add possibilities to the lists and for army variations, I believe (you could mix it up with army doctrines, for example).

 Albertorius wrote:

Also I'm not sure I like infantry on 40mm bases. I kind of feel they should be able to conform their bases to the terrain.
Using the three hex bases will let them fit better in a tight spot between terrain by lining them up. Every nook and cranny should be available to them.

I'm sure I don't. Too big, too unwieldy, I have waaay too many infantry units already based, and the 40mm bases don't fit in hexes, for when I want to play Tactical.

Infantry on 40mm bases allows an entire platoon to work as a single entity, and you don't have to worry about activation spam. That was an issue in previous editions - large numbers of infantry could swamp your opponent's activations - and this also meant that you didn't need the various combined model rules in play. Infantry were essentially another 'Gear' and took damage a bit differently, and had some special rules for how they dealt with terrain. However, infantry were designed after Gears (the primary stars of MA) and vehicles, and didn't get the attention initially that they probably needed. I suspect Dave would be amenable to any points you have about Infantry.

As long as three bases touching each other is still viable, I don't really have a problem... although I don't really see why they should have so big a base. It makes them a PITA for using them, more vulnerable to a lot of stuff, and less able to use cover effectively (both those last two I feel that are real problems: infantry should be able to get to cover better than anything else [maybe even in clear ground] and should be usually less vulnerable to many stuff).

 Albertorius wrote:

The no limit for indirect fire is, in my mind, a problem with the IF rules, not with the weapons per se. Probably the IF rules should have some kind of "minimum range" rules, TBH. Maybe not being able to use IF at the lower suboptimal range or something like that, that you could tweak weapon by weapon (in this example, cannons would have a longer "no shoot" zone, whereas rockets would probably have a smaller one.

Sure, and that's a reasonable approach to take. It's why weapons like the mortar have a very long minimum range, and frankly in one of the original drafts IF weapons effectively worked that way. The split range attribute was the *only* range for the weapon, so a mortar was simply 18"-36", whereas an autocannon was 6-18". Various things got glommed back onto weapons which made the extreme / suboptimal split come back into play, and that ideal was lost in the shuffle.

Even with such a construct however - tank guns are a bit finicky. Let's say you set the mortar as having a range of 18-36". Obviously, the tank gun should have a longer range than that, when direct fired. So let's say it's 12-72" or something to that effect. Now, what's the split on the IF range, given the drop shadow / cannon elevation notes from above? Do you set it at the half-way point of 36-72"? On a standard 4'x4' or 4'x'6' table you're not going to be able to use the IF range *at all*, effectively eliminating that capability. If you set the IF at 24-72" that might see play more often, but starts to encroach on the mortar's range - do you drop it to compensate? With a 6" move as the base of the system, there's only so many ranges you can play with on a normal table - IMO you start getting situations where you've effectively cut capability even if the model retains it.

I didn't want to leave any systems like that lying around - if you can't effectively use IF on a standard table, then for simplicity's sake just remove the IF capability. Given the very low number of tank guns I could see making the exception (for the case above) but we never got around to that. Most testing was supposed to focus on Gear vs. Gear at the start, with vehicles folded in later...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

As long as three bases touching each other is still viable, I don't really have a problem... although I don't really see why they should have so big a base. It makes them a PITA for using them, more vulnerable to a lot of stuff, and less able to use cover effectively (both those last two I feel that are real problems: infantry should be able to get to cover better than anything else [maybe even in clear ground] and should be usually less vulnerable to many stuff).

Honestly, given the scale compression, it would probably make sense to have a 25mm round / hex represent a single platoon, but we simply never got around to testing infantry much. The 40mm round in the prototype rules was mostly an aesthetics issue; it looks more 'platoon like' than 3-4 guys cramped on a single hex base. Again, my guess is that Dave is very open to discussion about infantry, so I wouldn't consider this a done deal - just make your case effectively and I bet you can get it changed.

 IceRaptor wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

The no limit for indirect fire is, in my mind, a problem with the IF rules, not with the weapons per se. Probably the IF rules should have some kind of "minimum range" rules, TBH. Maybe not being able to use IF at the lower suboptimal range or something like that, that you could tweak weapon by weapon (in this example, cannons would have a longer "no shoot" zone, whereas rockets would probably have a smaller one.

Sure, and that's a reasonable approach to take. It's why weapons like the mortar have a very long minimum range, and frankly in one of the original drafts IF weapons effectively worked that way. The split range attribute was the *only* range for the weapon, so a mortar was simply 18"-36", whereas an autocannon was 6-18". Various things got glommed back onto weapons which made the extreme / suboptimal split come back into play, and that ideal was lost in the shuffle.

Even with such a construct however - tank guns are a bit finicky. Let's say you set the mortar as having a range of 18-36". Obviously, the tank gun should have a longer range than that, when direct fired. So let's say it's 12-72" or something to that effect. Now, what's the split on the IF range, given the drop shadow / cannon elevation notes from above? Do you set it at the half-way point of 36-72"? On a standard 4'x4' or 4'x'6' table you're not going to be able to use the IF range *at all*, effectively eliminating that capability. If you set the IF at 24-72" that might see play more often, but starts to encroach on the mortar's range - do you drop it to compensate? With a 6" move as the base of the system, there's only so many ranges you can play with on a normal table - IMO you start getting situations where you've effectively cut capability even if the model retains it.

I didn't want to leave any systems like that lying around - if you can't effectively use IF on a standard table, then for simplicity's sake just remove the IF capability. Given the very low number of tank guns I could see making the exception (for the case above) but we never got around to that. Most testing was supposed to focus on Gear vs. Gear at the start, with vehicles folded in later...

I can see that, yes. Then again... I can't see the other IF guns firing "directly" either, and yet they can, unless I'm misreading. Either they are firing directly (in which case those are allowed for some reason) or they are shooting at range 0 without travel time whatsoever (which is another can of worms altogether, of course).

Frankly speaking, I get that two of the main reasons are to get further differentiation and to make it more verosimil, but for some reason, singling that one out when the rest get a pass seem... odd, to me.

Or in other words, a future tank rising its gun more than current ones spend my disbelief more or less as much as a mortar or a back mounted HRP shooting at range 0 without having to wait until the payload actually gets back ^_^.

That said, I have more of a problem with the Visigoth losing it's secondary role than with tank guns not shooting on IF. If it's MRPs were able to do IF, I wouldn't have much reason to argue.

 Albertorius wrote:

As long as three bases touching each other is still viable, I don't really have a problem... although I don't really see why they should have so big a base. It makes them a PITA for using them, more vulnerable to a lot of stuff, and less able to use cover effectively (both those last two I feel that are real problems: infantry should be able to get to cover better than anything else [maybe even in clear ground] and should be usually less vulnerable to many stuff).

Honestly, given the scale compression, it would probably make sense to have a 25mm round / hex represent a single platoon, but we simply never got around to testing infantry much. The 40mm round in the prototype rules was mostly an aesthetics issue; it looks more 'platoon like' than 3-4 guys cramped on a single hex base. Again, my guess is that Dave is very open to discussion about infantry, so I wouldn't consider this a done deal - just make your case effectively and I bet you can get it changed.

Might as well ^_^

 Albertorius wrote:

I can see that, yes. Then again... I can't see the other IF guns firing "directly" either, and yet they can, unless I'm misreading. Either they are firing directly (in which case those are allowed for some reason) or they are shooting at range 0 without travel time whatsoever (which is another can of worms altogether, of course).

Hurm... not sure, because I've not taken the time to checkout the Alpha rules. I *thought* we had settled that IF weapons had to fire IF all the time, but I'm not sure in retrospect. That was a back and forth point, IIRC. My gut was that weapons should be IF or DF and not be mixed for the sake of clarity, but I remember there being a few that the distinction felt awkward on. Though I might be getting mixed on the difference of DF, IF, high arc weapons, etc. It's been a while

 Albertorius wrote:

That said, I have more of a problem with the Visigoth losing it's secondary role than with tank guns not shooting on IF. If it's MRPs were able to do IF, I wouldn't have much reason to argue.

Seems like an easy enough fix to me as well.

 IceRaptor wrote:
Hurm... not sure, because I've not taken the time to checkout the Alpha rules. I *thought* we had settled that IF weapons had to fire IF all the time, but I'm not sure in retrospect. That was a back and forth point, IIRC. My gut was that weapons should be IF or DF and not be mixed for the sake of clarity, but I remember there being a few that the distinction felt awkward on. Though I might be getting mixed on the difference of DF, IF, high arc weapons, etc. It's been a while

Well, the only thing they say is that IF weapons have a -1d6 IF penalty, but they get less cover penalties and they can shoot wherever, so...

Also... now that I look at it, the weapons of the IF table, don't have IF, funnily enough, taking into account that the IF trait has other set of rules.

Seems like an easy enough fix to me as well.

Yep. Don't know if they'll do it, though.

 Albertorius wrote:


Also... now that I look at it, the weapons of the IF table, don't have IF, funnily enough, taking into account that the IF trait has other set of rules.

Not required, since they are from the Indirect Fire category and always get the -1D6, the IF Trait is added for weapon from other category that have the option to fire IF, but when doing so, suffer the -1D6 penalty.

riker2800 wrote:
Not required, since they are from the Indirect Fire category and always get the -1D6, the IF Trait is added for weapon from other category that have the option to fire IF, but when doing so, suffer the -1D6 penalty.

It should say that, though, because right now, it doesn't.

Right now, you have the IF trait, that states clearly it can be used to chain it:

Indirect Fire [IF]: This weapon may chain an attack to a forward observation action but counts as a weapon in the indirect fire category if it does (see 8.4).

...and then the Indirect Fire Weapons table, that says:

Indirect Fire Weapons: (apply the ­1D6 Indirect Fire penalty to attacks with these weapons)

So, what it actually says is that all the weapons on that list get to apply the penalty, but nothing else at all. You actually have to go all over the way to section 14.3a, on the EW actions, to learn that yes, weapons in the Indirect Fire Table, may chan indirect attacks to a FO action. Maybe they should clarify that on the table, too. Or better yet, just add the table header to the IF trait and put it on every weapon that needs it. It would be less complicated, you know. I really can't understand the rationale of splitting the two rules.

You have a point, indeed it should be added in section 8.4d that weapon from this category always get a -1D6 penalty for firing even if firing directly at models and that they may chain indirect attack to FO action.

riker2800 wrote:
You have a point, indeed it should be added in section 8.4d that weapon from this category always get a -1D6 penalty for firing even if firing directly at models and that they may chain indirect attack to FO action.

If they do that, though, they'll have:

- IF weapons that use the IF rules and are in the Indirect Weapons table.
- IF weapons that use the IF rules and are not in the Indirect Weapons table. But that work exactly the same way as the ones from the above category.

Because reasons.

Honestly, if they're to work that way, I don't see the need of having a table for them. Just give the trait to any weapon that needs it.

The IF table is required because those weapons always suffer the IF penalty when firing, even in direct.

While the IF Trait is for weapon not from the IF category that fire normally in direct (most being from the ballistic category), but if choose to fire indirectly, then they get the -1D6 penalty.

riker2800 wrote:
The IF table is required because those weapons always suffer the IF penalty when firing, even in direct.

While the IF Trait is for weapon not from the IF category that fire normally in direct (most being from the ballistic category), but if choose to fire indirectly, then they get the -1D6 penalty.

That is still because reasons. There is no rhime or reason of why one weapon gets in the table and another doesn't. You have the Field guns in, but the grenade launchers out, for example (And no, it's not because field guns are artillery weapons, they're not. The AGs are artilley weapons. FGs are very clearly multi-purpose cannons).

I don't think that way is optimal to differentiate that. It feel like it would be better with two Traits, an IF one and another, maybe Inaccurate or something, to make up for it.

Then again, I also feel that Beam, Missile, and maybe even Melee should be traits. And Ballistic doesn't need to exist, because they work as default weapons.

That could work, having only a weapon table and changing Category for Trait...

However, doing so will make data card more crammed, since you'll have to add more Traits.

riker2800 wrote:
That could be another option, but then you simply get a bigger Ballistic weapons table and need to add one more Trait, and go back to each model and add the new Trait...

I really don't see the issue with how it is done right now.

The issue is that you're using Traits for some things but not for others, so you end up obfuscating rules. Unless it is stated in the datacard that a weapon is ballistic, or Beam, or IF or whatever, you're missing out important information about it, that you'll only get to know if you go to the tables (which, currently, are also more hassle than worth it, due to the big weapon variations).

Let's say we do that for the vehicles, too. Hey, we all know a Gear is a walker, we don't need to add "W" to the movement! And a tank is obviosly not a Walker, let's get that "G" the feth out!

Be coherent. If you're using Traits, use it for everything, so as not to obfuscate rules where there is no need.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riker2800 wrote:
However, doing so will make data card more crammed, since you'll have to add more Traits.

I'd rather have the datacard more crammed than to lose info needed in the game. You'd still need to state what kind of weapon it is, if you want the card to be useful.

I kind of agree with Albertorius here.I do think weapons need to be clarified either sticking with the traditional weapon table or going to the system of attributes. The main thing (to me) is to minimize look-ups (I still don't have the weapon chart for any edition memorized, nor do I want to)

As to movement, I do feel it should be specified if it makes a difference. I think Albertorious might be being sarcastic here, but I've ha a weird morning and might not be piking it up clearly.

 Balance wrote:
As to movement, I do feel it should be specified if it makes a difference. I think Albertorius might be being sarcastic here, but I've ha a weird morning and might not be piking it up clearly.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic there, sorry for not clarifying. It was meant to say that I feel it is equally unreasonable to do that than to keep the type of weapon out of the datacard.

And we're back to mind numbing decisions like same exact model, different TV. At least he gave up on it for that one case, I hope he understands just how flawed it is to give factions discounts on models as opposed to greater/lesser availability.

Also, it looks like he added a bunch of Hunter variants, or I just missed them from the initial alpha northern list, (Hey I don't play North, so I don't look that closely at them). These variants are exact mirrors of the South, and variants they never got before. I thought the goal was to make the factions different, not the exact same?

They also seem to be floundering with what to do with Autocannons and Rocketpacks and differentiating them. Split fire seemed overpowered the moment I saw it, as it's basically a better area affect weapon, to the point where some models have rocket packs that will never see use. (just like the old version)

And one last bit, Fire seems broken because it ignores armor, making it oddly more effective than any of the anti-tank weapons at killing heavy tanks.

ferrous wrote:
And we're back to mind numbing decisions (...)

That's business as usual for DP9, sadly. This highly dysfunctional process is how they work, and they like it that way. Why change the winning formula that brought us gems like Arena or Blood Debt after all ?
The only difference, this time, is that it's wide in the open. Any questions that go beyond points of detail will be happily ignored by the writer, whose actual design goals remain thoroughly opaque. For example "why are we checking unit values, when the basic rules are not final ?" will not get an answer.

 HudsonD wrote:

ferrous wrote:
And we're back to mind numbing decisions (...)

For example "why are we checking unit values, when the basic rules are not final ?" will not get an answer.

Why both can be checked at the same time? And do you really expect rules to be completely final at this point?

riker2800 wrote:

 HudsonD wrote:

ferrous wrote:
And we're back to mind numbing decisions (...)

For example "why are we checking unit values, when the basic rules are not final ?" will not get an answer.

Why both can be checked at the same time? And do you really expect rules to be completely final at this point?

I assume you wanted to write "can't".
For the same reason you don't start pouring down the foundations when the building's site is not chosen.

riker2800 wrote:

Why both can be checked at the same time? And do you really expect rules to be completely final at this point?

I assume you meant "can't".
... and no, you can't try to assess a unit's value while said value is still changing, due to not-finalized rules !

Edit : No, I didn't coordonate my post with mrondeau.

You can try to assess a unit's relative value when the rules are still in flux when you have ridiculous cases like

Unit 1: has X and costs 10.
Unit 2: has X, Y, and Z and costs 10.

Those simple type checks and balances didn't seem to be a major part of cross faction analysis. I agree that some points values should change when the rules do (like if you make an ability much better or much worse) but we are where we are. The official playtesting lists was with a few exceptions dead and ignored since May of last year and they're trying to get a product on the table to sell by Gencon.

I agree in theory that this release would have been better served by a basic starter list for each faction (infantry, stock Jager/Mamba/Cobra/Iggy, stock light and heavy tanks for the south, stock Naga) to test out the rules for a few months instead of throwing everything haphazardly together with little apparent overall planning... but the cat is out of the bag. Fixing a broken model's stats or costs in the interim is still a practical minor improvement over leaving it in or till the last minute even if the rules are somewhat in flux. .

The problem with that is that's it's wasting testers' time. All those verification, for all models ? They will have to be redone anyway each time the rules change.

Even worse, some pairs will be compared with rules A, others with rules B, and so on. You think they are incoherent ? Imagine a situation where the models are costed for different rulesets!

You only work on unit costs when the rules are fixed and immutable, Doing it early is a dangerous waste of time.

 warboss wrote:
(...)
I agree in theory that this release would have been better served by ...

You're kind of supporting the point I'm trying to make there, that this playtest's management, is at best, quite terrible.
I also cannot believe they intend to have it ready for GenCon. Well, ok, this being DP9, I can actually believe it...

 HudsonD wrote:

 warboss wrote:
(...)
I agree in theory that this release would have been better served by ...

You're kind of supporting the point I'm trying to make there, that this playtest's management, is at best, quite terrible.
I also cannot believe they intend to have it ready for GenCon. Well, ok, this being DP9, I can actually believe it...

I do but I'm taking a more practical approach... lemonade from lemons and all. In any case, having any timely response to feedback is better than what happened during most of the previous 6 months on the "proof of concept" testing (not sure what to call the previous year as what we are in now is idubbed the "alpha"). There will be a paper product to sell at gencon (the "beta") so I'd rather than unit costs be partially fixed (even if only partly due to rules in flux) rather than keep blatantly broken ones in the first paid product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrondeau wrote:
The problem with that is that's it's wasting testers' time. All those verification, for all models ? They will have to be redone anyway each time the rules change.

Even worse, some pairs will be compared with rules A, others with rules B, and so on. You think they are incoherent ? Imagine a situation where the models are costed for different rulesets!

You only work on unit costs when the rules are fixed and immutable, Doing it early is a dangerous waste of time.

I again agree with you in theory but the actual practice and implentation varies significantly and that is what we have to work with. I haven't seen many actual battle reports so I doubt there are too many people's time being wasted by tweaks. Even in the private playtesting, my multiple (4 IIRC) public offers for playtesting games didn't garner any response once IceRaptor bowed out. While I don't doubt that someone out there is playing somewhere, I suspect theory is driving much more of the feedback than actual experience. Some things (like the original Warrior stats) were so broken that they didn't need any games to prove their utter ridiculousness so theorygearing has its uses. As I said above, lemonade from lemons. The info is out there and the schedule is likely set in stone so why not try to make the best of it and correct broken units even if only partially? You can keep berating your friend for taking the stupid shortcut that took you over an unpaved road that caused the flat tire or you can get out and help change it and look out for further hazards. Both are technically "right" but only the later helps the current situation.

Well said Warboss, not enough people are getting their hand dirty to help improve things.