Spartan Derek

Firestorm Planetfall Designer Feedback Thread

175 posts in this topic

Hello all!

Spartan Derek here!

 

As promised I have uploaded to the forum the Playtest Documents currently under review from our design team for the Directorate and Works Raptor. As you might expect, the statistics located within are malleable! ...so don't expect them to stay that way, but they should give you a good idea of where we are going with the new look Force Lists and the game itself.

 

In addition, please have a look at the brie synopsis document that highlights some (but not all) of the rules changes that players might expect. As time passes I will add the other Factions to this thread, giving all players a chance to try out their models in the new format.

 

Obviously with only one Force List out there I don't expect too much gaming feedback:P, but this should give folks a chance ot digest and think about the why's and the where's of the current test.

 

I will of course be available to answer any questions that folks might have on this thread!

 

Cheers

Derek

 

 

 

FSPF v2 Rules Synopsis for Forum Feedback 25.04.2017.pdf

ZZc 2.0 AQUAN PRIME + TERQUAI EMPIRE 08.05.2017.pdf

ZZc 2.0 DINDRENZI+RSN 08.05.2017.pdf

ZZc 2.0 DIRECTORATE+WORKS RAPTOR 08.05.2017.pdf

ZZc 2.0 RELTHOZA + BA'KASH 08.05.2017.pdf

ZZc 2.0 SORYLIAN + VEYDRETH 08.05.2017.pdf

ZZc 2.0 TERRAN + HAWKER 08.05.2017.pdf

Edited by Spartan Derek
Updated 08.05.2017
Rezfon, Cannor, Maxtau and 5 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colour me intrigued! I've not had the opportunity to play much planetfall but this has certainly got me more interested in it!

I hope for both Planetfall and Armada there will be some number of Command Points available to start with for free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot to digest in this, and I certainly want to play around with them some before being absolutely opposed to any of the listed changes.  That said, there are a few things in the brief that give me cause for concern on a first read.

The first of these is the retention of +hit bonuses.  While forcing people to pay for this instead of just sitting still is definitely a plus, I'm worried that it will still be a determining factor in many games.  Forces with massive max-range firepower (Sorylians, I'm looking at you) can probably afford to lose a squad or two in exchange for keeping the ability to neuter an opponent on the approach.  I'd particularly like to see playtesting data before forming a final opinion on this one, because perhaps with the TV adjustments for objectives things will work out, but in the current system, the game is largely won within the first couple of turns.  Burning all your command points to win early won't be much of a deterrent if this holds true in the new system, as there's little need to plan for late-game.

Nexus designator and orbital strike changes seem odd, particularly thematically considering the change from artillery barrage to orbital strike.  Why is a line of sight required to tell ships in orbit to shoot?  I understand it's a balancing mechanic, but it just seems out of place.  I'm also somewhat concerned about the sheer amount of orbital strikes that could be possible in a turn for the Directorate list posted (and I play Directorate!).  If you took 3 Command Barges (1 for Core and 2 in their slot) and 2 sets of the Heavy Interceptor you could probably wipe out all light/medium forces as soon as you can get an LOS on them.  It's odd because I think the LOS requirement is too limiting and makes no sense considering it's just a fire order, and at the same time think the mechanic is probably too strong.

I still think the Pinpoint rule is bad and doesn't fit into the game structure well.  That said, it's definitely an improvement.  However, it's always been annoying that all the weapon rules always work on appropriate targets (such as anti-infantry always ignores infantry hard target), yet pinpoint requires shooting at an appropriate target....and getting lucky? While the rules change should help smooth out the results of the MAR to be less streaky, it's still an outlier to all the other weapon MARs.  I'd prefer to see a flat rule like -1DR to second/third level DR numbers on a shot or something like that (and giving Dindrezi/RSN the equivalent of Sectored Armor vs. this effect seems thematically appropriate for massive armor too).  Pinpoint should be a reliable option that always does what it does, instead of something that can be either fantastic or worthless depending on how well you roll 6's.

The rules changes regarding CQB and flyers are a plus all-around.  It never made any sense that the most effective way for infantry to deal with a jet was to close assault it.  We used to joke in my group that the pilots in PF must be the most idiotic people ever born.  They somehow manage to both fly high enough to not get any cover from any main weapons, but obligingly swoop down to let infantry blaze away at them when requested.

Flyer movement, however, seems to be a bit of a concern.  I'm not sure how aircraft with both large movement values and short range weaponry are going to be able to consistently do anything.  For example, the Witch has to move 18", pivot 45, and end up within 12 of an enemy squad.  Any squad that gets within 6" is completely immune to counter-attack?  Anything that gets past your front arc can't be engaged?  This seems awfully restrictive and, while I want to game out some scenarios instead of drawing them out, it seems to me that the new rules offer a large ability for enemies to use careful positioning to invalidate air units.

The changes to Cyberattack (I use lots) are also an issue, that again I'd need to playtest to fully diagnose.  I think making Cyber more predictable is a good step.  It's always been extremely random, which makes selecting a good target for it problematic.  However, moving the Activation result up to 7 is a large downgrade in functionality.  I'm sure people don't like getting their stuff turned off, but it's the only real weapon system that several Directorate units have.  Also, the changes to Disorder (in particular the ability to use a Command to negate it) is another large downgrade in functionality.  Previously, the only way Cyber units had to put damage on a squad was to give it Disorder markers.  Now an enemy commander can negate this damage on demand.  This turns Rally into the equivalent of 1CP=1 less damage against all Cyber attacks, which is hugely powerful versus many Directorate units.

Question: does doing the out-of-order CQB attack give you an activation marker?  If so, that's a high price to pay for not moving or shooting main ordnance.  If not, is having the ability to do this multiple times a turn (for example if you camp infantry in a large building they might end up in range of multiple units) too powerful for some units?

I'm also not sure Storming Action should require an order to initiate.  It seems odd that without an order infantry would assault a building, push the enemy out, and then not take up positions in cover?  

On a more specific note, Informers remain terrible.  On the bright side, I'm happy that I can take a different light choice and no longer have to field them.

LordRedDragon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like the way units are now listed in the helix, however anyone who painted theirs in a  different color schemes/bases may be surprised a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been able to a have brief look through, but I'm really liking what I'm seeing. Will properly look at it later.

From the brief look, the things that jumped out at me that i like is command point mechanics, helix design, game points, line of sight, disorder interactions, flyer changes and weapon changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking through revised rules synopsis, I am very excited to play a couple of games with it once the force lists for my factions are released. I like changing the placed shot from being a "free action" to one requiring the command points. I will have to try out the new CQB rules. I really liked the old set so I am curious to see how the new rules will function in game

On a side note the new works raptor models sound really cool. Looking forward to seeing the in progress Terquai and Ba'Kash units!

Overall, this is awesome and exactly what was needed for this game. Thank you @Spartan Derek!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like planetfall 1.5 rather than a 2.0!  But still great of course!  

I'm more excited about the RSN,  wonder how will they be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think pinpoint is terrible just a **** version of corrosive which is a lesser version of cyber. It may be better to make pinpoint foll of X put "disable" markers which reduce a units move by 1" and cost of orders to unit by 1 for each marker. It would represent damage to equipment rather than the integrity of a unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the new helix option, though there is a slight concern with spam. It would not be hard for example to take 4 squads of the same mediums. If you had an undercosted or overpowered unit you would probably see a lot of them. Hopefully we have some testers trying to spam lists to make sure they don't steam roll "normal" lists.

Did we resolve the whole Leviathan CQB issue yet? If the Leviathan can choose why would the Vaxiss ever choose 4AD over 12AD? Personally I think they should get both with the Leviathan CQB only able to be applied first to the units in B2B and the rest can go in the CQB bubble. Leviathans should be able to smash and shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the posted Directorate ORBAT. There is no Leviathan CQB any longer.  The Accoster Battle Robot has a CQB weapon and a Melee Power Fist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also feel it would be better to use the same linking from Ramada for AD and simply remove success after. The current AD levels mean damaged units are almost useless after one casualty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the stats for the Wraith Primary Pacifer Plasma Cannon the L/R have different stats. Also is it just me or do the Castigator and Avenger look not worth it in the new version. Castigator +15 points + 1 TV prev ranged weapon EF 24/18 LR48/12 now PB 6/6 SR 12/18 MR 24/14 LR 48/12 so halved the range to get 18. Avenger +5 points -1 on TV prev ranged weapon EF 16/8 LR 32/6 now PB 8/5 SR 16/7 MR 24/6 LR 32/5.

Generally all weapons see big reductions at PB why? Target Lock has gone not listed in MAR list or on model stats.

Noticed the Desolator no longer has the Drone Nexus the Punisher Drone has lost its 2 shields still has nexus designator for what?

As Paladin has already stated looks a big nerf on Directorate cyber weapon. On the Arbiter the Cyberattack booster reduced to 8", Deadlock cadre +1 on TV -1 on DR range reduced to 10".

Also these stats only show full strength squads e.g. prev version informer 3-5 in squadron size now must be 5.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  1. Light Infantry Specialisation

    All Infantry now exist in one of four forms:
    Battle Squads: This Unit may have an officer upgrade and no other upgrades. This unit forms the backbone of most forces. A Battle Squad can then be upgraded to be one of the following:

    • Sweeper Squads This Unit may also have an officer upgrade and excels at close range CQB actions. The Unit with lave Sweeper Teams allocated to them and will often have an additional MAR to represent their specialisation.

    • Firepower Squads This Unit may also have an officer upgrade and excels at ranged fire actions. The Unit will always have Gun Teams allocated to them. In the new rules the AD spread on these teams has been increased.

Grand Companies This Unit takes the best of both Sweeper and Firepower Squads and merges them into a larger formation The Unit can be either Battle, Sweeper or Firepower, or even a combination of both in certain cases! 

so the four forms are:

battle squad

sweep squad

firepower squad

combo squad (grand company)?

 

would like to see something about how infantry interact with terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing a lot of interesting things, but one which has me scratching my head.

Why move to 4 range bands? Where is the need to complicate this pleasantly uncomplicated part of the rules?

Forest and Big_0 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CoreHunter said:

i think pinpoint is terrible just a **** version of corrosive which is a lesser version of cyber. It may be better to make pinpoint foll of X put "disable" markers which reduce a units move by 1" and cost of orders to unit by 1 for each marker. It would represent damage to equipment rather than the integrity of a unit.

I'm also not a fan of the new version of pinpoint (and as a Sorylian player, I have a lot of pinpoint units). It does depend on the pinpoint pice pools, but currently it is swingy and a little bit underpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that new Pinpoint MAR are plain bad. How about make it automatically decrease enemy's DR by X value?

For example: squad of Sor'Ka, who have Pinpoint value of 2, fire against Kratos. His usual DR of 8/8/6 reduced to 6/6/4 because of pinpoint.

Big_0 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kimek said:

I also think that new Pinpoint MAR are plain bad. How about make it automatically decrease enemy's DR by X value?

For example: squad of Sor'Ka, who have Pinpoint value of 2, fire against Kratos. His usual DR of 8/8/6 reduced to 6/6/4 because of pinpoint.

This sounds a lot better actually, and a lot more consistent. Might want to adjust the AD levels of the pinpoint units to prevent this from becoming to much of a bonus though.

Current version is still swinging and has very little payback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thanks for the document, really looking forward to getting the full document.

I agree with the comments about Pinpoint (I had some opinions about the old implementation as well, as many will remember...).

First of all: It breaks the flow, with being one more step of dice rolling. Secondly, it is still very random, and of no use unless you can roll a lot of 6s. Instead, why not make it a completly passive ability:

Pinpoint[X]: Every time an attack causes damage to a target, reduce the DR of the next damage level by one, up to X times.

Example: 15AD PP[1] attack, against a 6/6/5 target: 11 dice hit, reducing the effective DR of the target to 6/5/4, thereby causing two levels of damage instead of one. For a less powerful version, it only works for the X first levels (so the above target would only occur a penalty to the second DR level).

That would mean that PP2 weapons are mostly effective against targets with three or more damage levels...

Manu_S, chrisbburn, alextroy and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ahmadan said:

Great thanks for the document, really looking forward to getting the full document.

I agree with the comments about Pinpoint (I had some opinions about the old implementation as well, as many will remember...).

First of all: It breaks the flow, with being one more step of dice rolling. Secondly, it is still very random, and of no use unless you can roll a lot of 6s. Instead, why not make it a completly passive ability:

Pinpoint[X]: Every time an attack causes damage to a target, reduce the DR of the next damage level by one, up to X times.

Example: 15AD PP[1] attack, against a 6/6/5 target: 11 dice hit, reducing the effective DR of the target to 6/5/4, thereby causing two levels of damage instead of one. For a less powerful version, it only works for the X first levels (so the above target would only occur a penalty to the second DR level).

That would mean that PP2 weapons are mostly effective against targets with three or more damage levels...

Good idea! A fantastic system for fix PP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens with Melee CQB when the model can't move back?

I'm a bit confused with normal CQB. What is this about activations?

I'm also not a fan of the old or new pinpoint. The last version didn't do much but at least it didn't slow down the game. This version makes you stop and figure out DR levels. Why just not make it a re-roll? Pinpoint (2) re-roll two missed attack dice. Simple, fast and a similar potential small boost in attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ahmadan said:

Great thanks for the document, really looking forward to getting the full document.

I agree with the comments about Pinpoint (I had some opinions about the old implementation as well, as many will remember...).

First of all: It breaks the flow, with being one more step of dice rolling. Secondly, it is still very random, and of no use unless you can roll a lot of 6s. Instead, why not make it a completly passive ability:

Pinpoint[X]: Every time an attack causes damage to a target, reduce the DR of the next damage level by one, up to X times.

Example: 15AD PP[1] attack, against a 6/6/5 target: 11 dice hit, reducing the effective DR of the target to 6/5/4, thereby causing two levels of damage instead of one. For a less powerful version, it only works for the X first levels (so the above target would only occur a penalty to the second DR level).

That would mean that PP2 weapons are mostly effective against targets with three or more damage levels...

@ahmadan is reading my mind. I too was not liking the new Pinpoint rule. Unlike all the other weapon types, it is both randomly applied and universally useful. None of the others are. The only difference in thought process was that I was thinking the Pinpoint rating would reduce the DR level after the first on a model by the Rating. Examples:

Pinpoint 2 targeted at a model 6/6/5 target would resolve as if the model was 6/4/3. Against a Squadron of 6/5 models, effective DR would be 6/3 then 6/3 then 6/3...

This would make Pinpoint useful against the same sorts of targets as in 1.0, models with more than 1 DR rating, and devestating when combined with Flank or Rear reductions to DR.

Nicius, Big_0, Manu_S and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, alextroy said:

@ahmadan is reading my mind. I too was not liking the new Pinpoint rule. Unlike all the other weapon types, it is both randomly applied and universally useful. None of the others are. The only difference in thought process was that I was thinking the Pinpoint rating would reduce the DR level after the first on a model by the Rating. Examples:

Pinpoint 2 targeted at a model 6/6/5 target would resolve as if the model was 6/4/3. Against a Squadron of 6/5 models, effective DR would be 6/3 then 6/3 then 6/3...

This would make Pinpoint useful against the same sorts of targets as in 1.0, models with more than 1 DR rating, and devestating when combined with Flank or Rear reductions to DR.

I really like this version of pinpoint, makes it an idea weapon to deal with larger targets, which it should be in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that version is easier to remember, I'm afraid that it would actually be a bit too powerful, leading to reduced initial AD pools for PP weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now