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.

 Albertorius wrote:
The whole concept of the Antares star IS space magic, you know.

Not even close. Priestly goes into significant detail about the observations civilizations have made about the star over ages and describes the consequences of this predictable phenomenon on interstellar politics and warfare. It is presented narratively as a matter of science and technology.

 Compel wrote:
Space Opera doesn't seem right either, from what little I've read of the setting, the universe seems a little more sterile than that?

Space opera is fine as long as you're not thinking of chivalrous romance a la Jedi Knights on mystical journeys.

 Manchu wrote:
Not even close. Priestly goes into significant detail about the observations civilizations have made about the star over ages and describes the consequences of this predictable phenomenon on interstellar politics and warfare. It is presented narratively as a matter of science and technology.

Except when its not, of course. Like when there's no way to know when gates will emerge or sink in the star, or why, or how, or the purpose of the surrounding satellite, or how is it that the very same star is at the same time besides billions of star systems, across time, space and even dimensions.

The people in the setting approach the study of the star as a science, yes. Just like alchemists do with alchemy, or wizards do with magic. That the people in the setting approach it like this doesn't mean it's not magic, IMHO. Neither does a phenomenon being repeatable, quantifiable or observable.

As this is not going anywhere, I'd agree to disagree, here. Your concept of magic is different from mine, and I'm not sure I see anything wrong with it.

 Compel wrote:
Space Opera doesn't seem right either, from what little I've read of the setting, the universe seems a little more sterile than that?

Space opera is fine as long as you're not thinking of chivalrous romance a la Jedi Knights on mystical journeys.

 Albertorius wrote:
The people in the setting approach the study of the star as a science, yes. Just like alchemists do with alchemy, or wizards do with magic. That the people in the setting approach it like this doesn't mean it's not magic, IMHO. Neither does a phenomenon being repeatable, quantifiable or observable.

Then you end up with zero distinction between magic and technology with the result that everything is technology. A good counterexample is GW, although of course they knicked the concept. In the GW settings, magic is Chaos, the counteressence of Cosmos. Chaos as such does not exist in Antares. The star itself may be mysterious but it is cosmological. It is a natural object that exists wholly in the natural world.

Maybe the main issue with the term space opera as its generally understood is the romance angle, the idea that there is a story about a sympathetic and relatable protagonist growing as a person while having these tremendous adventures against a vast backdrop of war. That doesn't seem to exist in Antares. Antares seems to be much more a story about peoples rather than any given person. I have previously summarized the theme as a conflict between the notion that there is one best way of life that all should practice against the idea that there are many ways, one each for each people that only that people can determine for themselves.

 Manchu wrote:
Then you end up with zero distinction between magic and technology with the result that everything is technology.

I don't really see a problem with that. As the saying goes, sufficiently advanced tech...

A good counterexample is GW, although of course they knicked the concept. In the GW settings, magic is Chaos, the counteressence of Cosmos. Chaos as such does not exist in Antares. The star itself may be mysterious but it is cosmological. It is a natural object that exists wholly in the natural world.

As I see it, as a general rule magic exist wholly in the natural world, too. Even Chaos in the GW settings would be natural, I think. The Chaos realm is the whole of existence, and the different universes are just specific manifestations of it, solidified into a semi permanent form. Being formless doesn't preclude Chaos from being part of the natural world.

As to the Antares star, the rub is that it's a natural object that exists wholly in the natural world, but it does so in billions of places at the same time, which is not what you would call "natural" by any usual definition. It is, quite literally, one and many at the same time (something like God, actually).

Maybe the main issue with the term space opera as its generally understood is the romance angle, the idea that there is a story about a sympathetic and relatable protagonist growing as a person while having these tremendous adventures against a vast backdrop of war. That doesn't seem to exist in Antares. Antares seems to be much more a story about peoples rather than any given person. I have previously summarized the theme as a conflict between the notion that there is one best way of life that all should practice against the idea that there are many ways, one each for each people that only that people can determine for themselves.

Take into account that the definition of the term is of Space Opera as a literary genre, which is different from Space Opera as a setting. Settings don't usually have protagonists (can't have, actually) except as specific stories inside said setting. For example, Star Wars as a setting can't really have a protagonists, even if the movies/TV series/comics/whatever have them.

I'd say that Antares is the same in that regards, and that for the purpose of defining a setting, what counts is the scope and reach of it, rather than wether it has a protagonist. In that regard I think that Antares is pretty much a Space Opera setting in the same vein as the setting from the Vorkosigan saga, which deals heavily with societal clashes and issues, and how new technologies affects a setting.

Albertorius, is it of a huge importance to you to press Gates of Antares into any specifications? Also do you see a point in what you are trying here or even in your discussion? There is a huge difference between using something to give a description in short, like hard scifi or whatever, and on the other hand a not even in the slightest academic attempt you are pushing here like mad. Could we just end that? It is out of control - and there is no point in pressing a new, in development scifi scenario into something that is not more than just some made up words to describe things. You can describe it like whatever you want and there is NOTHING to win here at all. Fluff cannot be reduced to one or two tiny specifications.

 Albertorius wrote:
I don't really see a problem with that.

I don't know what you mean by problem. It's fine if you only want technology in your fiction, including if it is reskinned as "magic." No one is going to force you to like something else. But in the world beyond your personal tastes, there is a narrative concept of magic that is distinct from the narrative concept of technology for the reasons I described. Sci Fi appeals to the latter and, generally, not the former. There is no magic in Antares.

 Albertorius wrote:
which is not what you would call "natural" by any usual definition

Sure it is. Electrons also challenge our everyday concept of position. That doesn't mean they are unnatural. The same is true of the natural phenomenon of the star in this fictional setting.

Settings exist so that stories can take place in them. When we're talking about story, we're in the first place talking about theme. Then comes setting and character and plot. In the case of Star Wars, the theme is about a mystical journey of self-development. Everything else flows from that: the setting is an Empire that reaches across the stars, from a desert world where a farmboy dreams of greater things to the shining galactic core where the Jedi once kept the peace. From that theme, too, arises the protagonist. This theme demands focus on a small group of individuals, especially one in particular, because the theme is about personal development rather than, say, the nature of war. In Antares, the theme is not personal. Therefore, the story that arises from it is one of civilizations rising and falling over long periods of time and how they interact. The star itself is kind of a mechanical answer to the problem of how you can arrange and then rearrange these civilizations.

The point of all this is, people considering getting into Antares and care about the fluff should not be given the wrong impression that we're talking about a mystical, supernatural journey of the hero type story here. No, Antares is a story about humanity far beyond any struggle against technology, when technology and humanity are one and the same and the result is that societies are much more coherent within themselves but have even greater problems understanding one another.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Albertorius, is it of a huge importance to you to press Gates of Antares into any specifications? Also do you see a point in what you are trying here or even in your discussion? There is a huge difference between using something to give a description in short, like hard scifi or whatever, and on the other hand a not even in the slightest academic attempt you are pushing here like mad. Could we just end that? It is out of control - and there is no point in pressing a new, in development scifi scenario into something that is not more than just some made up words to describe things. You can describe it like whatever you want and there is NOTHING to win here at all. Fluff cannot be reduced to one or two tiny specifications.

You don't seem to understand. There is people wrong in the internet

 Albertorius wrote:
There is people wrong in the internet

Yes this is SRS BSNS!

EDIT: On second thought, this has nothing to do with the game, so I'll delete this off-topic myself

 Albertorius wrote:

You don't seem to understand. There is people wrong in the internet

No need to delete stuff

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I forgot to post it a few days ago, Mr. Priestley has given more info about the first campaign book on the Warlord forum

Re: Speculation on Isorian Releases
by rick priestley » Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:44 pm

Yes - strong narrative, characters, scenarios in a campaign format - but playable separately - new army lists, new equipment, new context based rules - e.g. allies, army special abilities, scenario rules - and more fiction slices, background and - hopefully - artwork.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the 'hobby section' - the reason being that, whilst I enjoy painting and modelling and making terrain, that's not something I'm really able to do to an appropriately inspiring quality myself. So - yup I'm all in favour of it - and I'm sure the Warlord team will step up! Step up I say!

Rick

Interesting, looking forward to it

A question, in case anyone knows: how do you take Concord light support drones with subverter matrix? I thought it would be in the light support drone squad, but I can't seem to find it there...

Also, the ebook can't get released soon enough. Hardcovers are nice and all, but they are also a pain to read when commuting.

EDIT: Hm, I surely thought that would get caught by the profanity filter ^^.

So back to talking about my favorite hard sci-fi game...*ducks*

Albertorius, it's a separate support option. It's the /GP version.

 judgedoug wrote:
So back to talking about my favorite hard sci-fi game...*ducks*

Albertorius, it's a separate support option. It's the /GP version.

Heh. Figures. Thank you!

Hey guys, I need inspiration for my Algoryn. I'm trying to decide whether I want to do a solid uncamo color, like the official Algoryn scheme, or Tau, etc, or if I should do camouflage.

Considering the background of the Algoryn, I think I'm leaning towards a camouflage pattern... but then that opens a whole host of fun flora/fauna/terrain combinations.

I think I'm leaning towards a three-tone angular/square white-bluegrey-brownblack, almost like the Berlin Brigade.

I would be nervous to do a camo scheme because the purpose of camo is of course to disrupt and the shape of sci fi armor is already unfamiliar to the eye. But if you uses a might enough camo scheme, you can keep the definition of the sculpt with washes.

GoA is solidly set in The New Space Opera with the likes of Iain Banks, Vernor Vinge, Peter F. Hamilton and Charles Stross. If there is a better term for that, I haven't heard it.

Ironically enough, the Gates themselves are most similar to wormholes and wormhole junctions from such old-style space opera as Dread Empire's Fall, The Myriad (Tour of the Merrimack), and even 2001.

 Manchu wrote:
I would be nervous to do a camo scheme because the purpose of camo is of course to disrupt and the shape of sci fi armor is already unfamiliar to the eye. But if you uses a might enough camo scheme, you can keep the definition of the sculpt with washes.

keeping it LightGrey/White, LightBlueGrey, and BrownishBlack I think would take TAP Soft or Strong tone well to create the shadow. A few drops of medium will help the tone travel to panel lines and deep crevices only. Ponder, ponder!!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
GoA is solidly set in The New Space Opera with the likes of Iain Banks, Vernor Vinge, Peter F. Hamilton and Charles Stross. If there is a better term for that, I haven't heard it.

Well said. Four excellent authors there that perfectly capture modern space opera.

 Ctaylor wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
GoA is solidly set in The New Space Opera with the likes of Iain Banks, Vernor Vinge, Peter F. Hamilton and Charles Stross. If there is a better term for that, I haven't heard it.

Well said. Four excellent authors there that perfectly capture modern space opera.

You left out Neal Asher - and you should never leave out Neal Asher!

I still need to read Neal Asher! Any recommendations?

Also, I still need to read the GoA rulebook. It sounds like a lot of fun and a great sandbox universe to play in. Are there any murmurs about expansions or tie-in stories?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I still need to read Neal Asher! Any recommendations?

Also, I still need to read the GoA rulebook. It sounds like a lot of fun and a great sandbox universe to play in. Are there any murmurs about expansions or tie-in stories?

Start with GRINDLINKED and then read the entire 'Cormac" series (5 books total)!

I'll be picking up the GoA rulebook soon.

Those damn drop troopers pushed me over the edge!

 Alpharius wrote:
Start with GRINDLINKED and then read the entire 'Cormac" series (5 books total)!

Duly noted

Those damn drop troopers pushed me over the edge!

They are quite nice, aren't they ^_^. Only thing that kind of irks me is that you can't field drop units unless you also pick a drop command squad, which leaves them out of many small armies.

And on that note, this is what I currently have of the Concord, picked as an army (made up of the starter box and a Drop troopers box):

C3 Strike Command Squad (110 base, 135 modified)
1 x Strike Commander (plasma carbine, X-Sling, HL armor)
2 x Strike Trooper (plasma carbine, HL armor)
Leader 3 (10)
SlingNet ammo (5)
Spotter Drone (10)

C3 Drop Command Squad (141 base, 225 modified)
1 x Drop Commander (plasma carbine with sub-mounted X-Sling, HL armor, AG chute)
2 x Drop Trooper (plasma carbine, HL armor, AG chute)
2 additional Drop Troopers (54)
Plasma grenades (10)
Medi-Drone (20)

C3 Strike Squad Alpha (112 base, 221 modified)
1 x Strike Leader (plasma carbine, X-Sling, HL armor)
4 x Strike Trooper (plasma carbine, HL armor)
3 additional Strike Troopers (60)
Plasma Grenades (16)
Leader 2 (10)
Plasma Lance (3)
Medi-Drone (20)

C3 Strike Squad Bravo (112 base, 130 modified)
1 x Strike Leader (plasma carbine, X-Sling, HL armor)
4 x Strike Trooper (plasma carbine, HL armor)
SlingNet Ammo (5)
Plasma Lance (3)
Spotter Drone (10)

C3 Strike Squad Charley (112 base, 130 modified)
1 x Strike Leader (plasma carbine, X-Sling, HL armor)
4 x Strike Trooper (plasma carbine, HL armor)
SlingNet Ammo (5)
Plasma Lance (3)
Spotter Drone (10)

C3D1 Light Support Drone (59 base, 257 modified)
1 x Weapon Drone (plasma light support gun)
2 additional Weapon Drones (118)
3 x Self Repair (30)
Batter Drone (20)
Spotter Drone (10)
2 Shield Drones (20)

C3D1/GP Light General Purpose Drone (20 base, 50 modified)
1 x General Purpose Drone
Self-Repair (10)
Subverter Matrix (20)

As the points total amounts to a whooping 1.148 points with all options I would need to trim stuff to play at the combat force level. Still, it is very nice to see that you can actually play a regular sized game right with the stuff from the box. Also, I have no idea how that army list would work out, but hey, them's the breaks.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Also, I still need to read the GoA rulebook. It sounds like a lot of fun and a great sandbox universe to play in. Are there any murmurs about expansions or tie-in stories?

Dooo itttt!!! Yeah, the first campaign, for Xilos, is slated for Jan/Feb.

 Manchu wrote:
I would be nervous to do a camo scheme because the purpose of camo is of course to disrupt and the shape of sci fi armor is already unfamiliar to the eye. But if you uses a might enough camo scheme, you can keep the definition of the sculpt with washes.

But sci-fi armour would be familiar to the eye of those in the setting who need to shoot at it. Know thy enemy and all that.



So anyway. Padded helmets clearly do have a place in the GoA universe.

 Azazelx wrote:
So anyway. Padded helmets clearly do have a place in the GoA universe.

And in conclusion, Carthage must be destroyed.



Who knows whether camo is effective in Antares. As usual, I was only thinking of the players' feelings and not those of the toy soldiers. I like to see the details of a sci fi model and some camo patterns interfere with my "gamer gaze."

 judgedoug wrote:
Hey guys, I need inspiration for my Algoryn. I'm trying to decide whether I want to do a solid uncamo color, like the official Algoryn scheme, or Tau, etc, or if I should do camouflage.

Considering the background of the Algoryn, I think I'm leaning towards a camouflage pattern... but then that opens a whole host of fun flora/fauna/terrain combinations.

I think I'm leaning towards a three-tone angular/square white-bluegrey-brownblack, almost like the Berlin Brigade.

Spoiler:

Honestly I don't think camo fits the universe, I'm assuming that it's far future enough were oldschool camo no longer works. I imagine Gates "camo" would be heat signature reducing tech and stuff like that, for example the camo drone.

As far as the helmets go, clearly no padding is necessary because the helmets are cushioned by nano space magic.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I would be nervous to do a camo scheme because the purpose of camo is of course to disrupt and the shape of sci fi armor is already unfamiliar to the eye. But if you uses a might enough camo scheme, you can keep the definition of the sculpt with washes.

But sci-fi armour would be familiar to the eye of those in the setting who need to shoot at it. Know thy enemy and all that.

Spoiler:

So anyway. Padded helmets clearly do have a place in the GoA universe.

Eyes? I have my in helmet heads up display which tells me if it is an enemy or not

If you were to go for camo, I like the idea of something high tech looking, like the blue tank in this pic:



That was done using Anarchy Model's "Mini Digi Camo" stencil, I believe, and should be available to order (they did just complete a different Kickstarter but that was from their first campaign a while back). They also have a normal "Digi Camo" and HexoCam" / "Mini Hexo Cam" which look pretty cool, imo!

Of course this all probably assumes an airbrush and a certain amount of skill with it (likely beyond mine at least!) but always loved these so wanted to suggest it and I think the stencils make it worlds easier than painting camo otherwise.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Eyes? I have my in helmet heads up display which tells me if it is an enemy or not

The very-40k style design of this Boromite leader tells me that doesn't work for everyone.



Besides, no-one would ever feth with IFF, amirite?

 DrNo172000 wrote:

Honestly I don't think camo fits the universe, I'm assuming that it's far future enough were oldschool camo no longer works. I imagine Gates "camo" would be heat signature reducing tech and stuff like that, for example the camo drone. Bright red troops and armour, gold elites. Mark the offcers with extra bling and bright blue outfits. A recipe for realistic success!

As far as the helmets go, clearly no padding is necessary because the helmets are cushioned by nano space magic.

There's got to be a middle ground, and if we're completely disregarding the concept of camoflague - then neutral tones (khaki, grey, etc) would be pointless, so we may as well go for something like:

Perfect - gonna cut off all the railguns on my Algoryn and give them laser swords (that deflect lasers) and guns that shoot psychic bolts (so they can hurt demons from the warp).

...but I refuse to give them padded helmets.