Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.
Spartan Derek

Firestorm Planetfall Designer Feedback Thread

176 posts in this topic

I think you can safely call the Locatu a Med tank until they fix the designation and they are definitely "stingray" happy. Might I suggest "Sushi missiles", "Tuna Salad missiles" or "Smoked Salmon missiles" as alternatives?  

Kaptyn Krys and tansalus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2017 at 7:03 AM, Nicius said:

I was wondering why the Sorylian Transports (the Bol'vak and the Bol'vuk'ra) don't have assault vehicle? Both models show the infantry on the outside, surely they are capable of disembarking fast enough compared to the other closed transports to warrant this?

@Spartan Derek. Any comments? this one has been bugging me for quite a while though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its something I am looking at.

The Transports ARE both 'assault-y' in their appearance...so it fits thematically. but players should expect a solid +15/25 pts addition for Heavy Infantry to get an Assault Bath-tub!!!

The Light Transporter on the other hand will probably only receive a +10/15pts push.

 

We will see.

I am getting thumped right now by our resident Sory-Player with his 8 Heavy Tanks sitting proud in the middle of the table after flatting out twice with all four squadrons in the first two turns...all of them have Heavy Infantry mounted on them..... shoulda taken that rule off them darn it.:P...he just read your post and asked if they can have the Assault Vehicle too.... I growled at him in answer.....

 

lol

d

 

 

Nicius and tansalus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I do like the Hukka's with the new rules. They make for really nice heavy assault vehicles, which was always want I expected them to be. If the current rules stay the same for the Hukka, I might invest in a second pair of them as well. I don't think it should be fair that they have assault transport as well, that will make them to good.

I would really like to have the two hover transports with assault though, even if the points are raised. It has be quite hard to use Bol'Vaks because they keep getting focussed down before the infantry can jump out. I've stopped using light infantry transports all together now and only used to use my light infantry to cap the tertiary objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know if the Terran's Huscarl no long can be added to the Dellingr, since there's no option to purchase them in the Aerial Helix. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2017 at 9:02 AM, alextroy said:

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.

Was never happy with directorate leviathan. Had no leviathan CQB so just had to let robots walk up and melee it without defending itself....but being it was flying high enough to be seen by all how do you melee it ?   If they shoot it, why doesn't it get to use its CQB to defend ? Nevr happy with that so it never made the table once the battle robots came out. Waste of $100.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sithsquirrel said:

Was never happy with directorate leviathan. Had no leviathan CQB so just had to let robots walk up and melee it without defending itself....but being it was flying high enough to be seen by all how do you melee it ?   If they shoot it, why doesn't it get to use its CQB to defend ? Nevr happy with that so it never made the table once the battle robots came out. Waste of $100.

 

If you let a battle robot come in base contact with the Wraith, it's just that you're playing it wrong. Battle robots are really easy to avoid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a casual player and was only able to play few games of PF v1.

Every time I play I need to read the rules once again and also to explain them t my friends (whose are casual players too), hence I really hope the rules will be as simple as possible.

So please avoid making too many special rules (and rule exceptions) that do not bring much to the game, for instance do we really need "Forlorn Hope" ?

Keep on the good work!

 

 

Cannor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spartan Derek so efectively we cannot buy any Huscarl unit in the Terran Aerial Helix, and we have a heavy flyer transport that cannot be used? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Zebo said:

@Spartan Derek so efectively we cannot buy any Huscarl unit in the Terran Aerial Helix, and we have a heavy flyer transport that cannot be used? 

On 2017-5-15 at 3:05 PM, Zebo said:

I'd like to know if the Terran's Huscarl no long can be added to the Dellingr, since there's no option to purchase them in the Aerial Helix. 

I'm pretty sure thats a mistake. The Huscarls will have to be an option in the Dellinger to avoid taking them with the Sigyn. 

Although having got my hands on the Sig i noticed the doors on the back and thought of Terran Grav drop squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts and questions.

What quantity of terrain is suggested in version 2.0?  I played a couple of games of 1.1 at the weekend and rolling for terrain as suggested left quite large, open spaces.  My Aquan opponent pretty much didn't have to move and got placed shots with almost his entire army for all turns of both games.  I got shot off the table both times.

Appreciating that placed shots now will only be able to be taken at specific ranges in future I think the scenario I encountered will be minimised and probably result in a more balanced game.  Will placed shots still require the unit to remain stationary?  My current interpretation says they don't.

Also, I would think that shooting at a hover vehicle should only get a -1 to hit modifier if the hover unit has moved, not just activated.  I can see possible cases where a hover vehicle will remain stationary during it's activation, how can this make it harder to hit?

I like the way Cyber Attacks bypass protective MARs, gives it more of an insidious nature as it's not an overt, physical weapon.

Mr.ponders likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't had the chance to try the new rules yet, but the new Drop Marker rules have me worried. As a Dindrenzi player I'm not sure I'll ever be able to zero-in even a single Drop Marker before they all go away at the end of the turn and then reset.

What has your experience been with this? Remember, you're talking to the guy who's dice luck causes 11 out 12 basic Command Checks to fail, An extra die or two on Nexus Designator role don't mean much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Commodore Jones I have played one game with the new rules, I played Sorylians and my son proxied a Works Raptor force. We didn't have any issue with dialing in the orbital support designators. Granted, we have only played one game but the rules worked better than I thought that they would. We had a blast playing the new beta rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child9 - I posted up a Battle Report last night so I'm not sure I'd describe the forums as 'dead'. I know the focus is currently on FSA but I'm guessing it'll shift very soon to Planetfall to meet the August deadline. Spartan are currently living up to their new timeline and it seems people are slowly giving the new army lists and rules (as far as we know them) a try. All in all, it's movement in the right direction :D

 

Commodore Jones - With Command Points being able to help zero-in sky drop markers (I think - or maybe it is just orbital strikes?), as well as using other drop markers to do so (down to a maximum of 3), plus the traditional method of designators, it really is fairly easy to get the sky drop markers (and orbital strikes) zeroed in each time. In fact I'd argue that it is almost too easy now. with no uncertainty to their use if a Commander has the appropriate resources.

chrisbburn likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Balteth said:

Child9 - I posted up a Battle Report last night so I'm not sure I'd describe the forums as 'dead'. I know the focus is currently on FSA but I'm guessing it'll shift very soon to Planetfall to meet the August deadline. Spartan are currently living up to their new timeline and it seems people are slowly giving the new army lists and rules (as far as we know them) a try. All in all, it's movement in the right direction :D

I was of course not talking about content posted by the members of this forum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Balteth said:

Child9 - I posted up a Battle Report last night so I'm not sure I'd describe the forums as 'dead'. I know the focus is currently on FSA but I'm guessing it'll shift very soon to Planetfall to meet the August deadline. Spartan are currently living up to their new timeline and it seems people are slowly giving the new army lists and rules (as far as we know them) a try. All in all, it's movement in the right direction :D

 

Commodore Jones - With Command Points being able to help zero-in sky drop markers (I think - or maybe it is just orbital strikes?), as well as using other drop markers to do so (down to a maximum of 3), plus the traditional method of designators, it really is fairly easy to get the sky drop markers (and orbital strikes) zeroed in each time. In fact I'd argue that it is almost too easy now. with no uncertainty to their use if a Commander has the appropriate resources.

Yep thats the experience we had with Skydrops that the new ways of zeroing in are plenty (possibly too many) so they get zero'd in easily. 

We played Traditional way, extra Skydrops and command points can zero in. My thoughts are that the command points way should be changed to be more like the focus fire so grants +1 to hit on designators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, child9 said:

I was of course not talking about content posted by the members of this forum...

I'm sure the Spartan crew will be back soon :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I am planning on playing another game this week with the new rules. Just one two questions I have though ideally that is an easy answer.

As CQB is now treated as a normal shooting attack can it link as per normal linking rules? For example Terrans who take Nukes for Hemidals. If it does, do all weapons ignore defensive MARs and Shields or is this Bonus not really a MAR?

CQB ignores defensive MARS does that include Sectored Armor? Really hope it does rewards good play :) 

@Spartan Derek

Edited by chrisbburn
2nd Question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine that they wanted general CQB to combo with other weapons.  That would be a *major* rule change that should be documented in the test rules if that's what they actually want.  Guessing by the verbiage in the test rules, the change in CQB to be a "weapon" is mainly to be able to not have to write and entire separate section of rules and have an activation phase  for what amounts to "range 4, ignore defences, don't combine".  I *guess* you might make a good argument for Directorate being able to do this as their CQB weapons are treated as a normal weapon type, but I'm hoping that's just test rules wording and it will explicitly be limited to only being utilized for the Placed Shot bonus (and for the record: I hate placed shots, play Directorate, and hate this rule).  Ideally they'd get a different bonus for their CQB, but whatever.

In the previous rules, CQB didn't take into account flanks/rear, so sectored armor didn't matter at all either.  With CQB being a normal-ish attack now, who knows?  It might again not matter at all, or it could be relevant.  I will say that back when we first started playing Planetfall we didn't realize that CQB was position-neutral.  I landed a group of Directorate light infantry behind an Aquan Leviathan and killed it in one activation...no shields and -2 armor made it tissue.  I hope they consider similar circumstances in the new rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Paladin21 said:

I can't imagine that they wanted general CQB to combo with other weapons.  That would be a *major* rule change that should be documented in the test rules if that's what they actually want.  Guessing by the verbiage in the test rules, the change in CQB to be a "weapon" is mainly to be able to not have to write and entire separate section of rules and have an activation phase  for what amounts to "range 4, ignore defences, don't combine".  I *guess* you might make a good argument for Directorate being able to do this as their CQB weapons are treated as a normal weapon type, but I'm hoping that's just test rules wording and it will explicitly be limited to only being utilized for the Placed Shot bonus (and for the record: I hate placed shots, play Directorate, and hate this rule).  Ideally they'd get a different bonus for their CQB, but whatever.

In the previous rules, CQB didn't take into account flanks/rear, so sectored armor didn't matter at all either.  With CQB being a normal-ish attack now, who knows?  It might again not matter at all, or it could be relevant.  I will say that back when we first started playing Planetfall we didn't realize that CQB was position-neutral.  I landed a group of Directorate light infantry behind an Aquan Leviathan and killed it in one activation...no shields and -2 armor made it tissue.  I hope they consider similar circumstances in the new rules.

 

Pretty much agree with the whole linking its way too powerful and initially I thought pretty much as you did until I saw the change to the Nuke upgrade going from Terror to Corrorsive now I may of read too much into it but had an "aha" moment which lead me to the whole wow if I could link my Hemidals CQB & Cannon that would be pretty devastating, quite possibly too devastating.

I agreed that the Directorate must be a wording issue and that the rule allows them to feel the effects of the order not that they can suddenly hit flyers and don't ignore HT etc

If anything i would only like to see that CQB does ignore Sectored armor and can be used on flanks/rear afterall there have been strives IRL to make MBT protected from infantry hiding in their blind spots and rule of cool says that if you want to go up against a tank with nothing more than a grenade and a sticky sock then at least let the kid have a chance. 

For simplicity they can just say all CQB weapon has the Following MAR or write it in the weaponry decription

"CQW - Weapons with this MAR ignore all defensive MARS and Shield Saves may not be used against them. In addition these weapons may never link and may only target Flyers that have the Hover MAR unless the weapon also has the Interceptor MAR."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance we can get a more complete beta of the rules? Trying to guess on rule issues is not fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Vedar said:

Any chance we can get a more complete beta of the rules? Trying to guess on rule issues is not fun.

Yep...I'm waiting until I can work through all the rules before playing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.