Jump to content

murphzero

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About murphzero

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States
  1. Revised again... i realized the earlier point about Bright Hope. Bright hope should follow Bomber command I think, so... Name: Dodonna Does Bombers VIII Faction: Rebel Commander: General Dodonna Assault: Precision Strike Defense: Fighter Ambush Navigation: Superior Positions MC80 Command Cruiser (106) • General Dodonna (20) • Flight Commander (3) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • Expanded Hangar Bay (5) • Reinforced Blast Doors (5) • XX-9 Turbolasers (5) = 147 Points Nebulon-B Escort Frigate (57) • Flight Commander (3) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • Yavaris (5) = 68 Points GR-75 Medium Transports (18) • Toryn Farr (7) • Bomber Command Center (8) • Bright Hope (2) = 35 Points GR-75 Combat Retrofits (24) • Adar Tallon (10) • Comms Net (2) • Boosted Comms (4) = 40 Points Squadrons: • Norra Wexley (17) • Ten Numb (19) • 3 x B-wing Squadron (42) • Jan Ors (19) • YT-1300 (13) = 110 Points Total Points: 400
  2. Good point on Intel. Not an ability I've had much experience with, but I totally get why it should be in there. Revised: Name: Dodonna Does Bombers VI Faction: Rebel Commander: General Dodonna Assault: Precision Strike Defense: Fighter Ambush Navigation: Superior Positions MC80 Command Cruiser (106) • General Dodonna (20) • Flight Commander (3) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • Expanded Hangar Bay (5) • Reinforced Blast Doors (5) • XX-9 Turbolasers (5) = 147 Points Nebulon-B Escort Frigate (57) • Flight Commander (3) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • Yavaris (5) = 68 Points GR-75 Combat Retrofits (24) • Adar Tallon (10) • Bomber Command Center (8) • Boosted Comms (4) • Bright Hope (2) = 48 Points GR-75 Medium Transports (18) • Toryn Farr (7) • Comms Net (2) = 27 Points Squadrons: • Norra Wexley (17) • Ten Numb (19) • 3 x B-wing Squadron (42) • Jan Ors (19) • X-wing Squadron (13) = 110 Points Total Points: 400 I removed Ahsoka, because I think Yavaris is going to get dead relatively soon, and FC on Yavaris means it can bump Jan into better position to Intel and/or bump the B-wings closer to a target before they attack. I left Bright Hope on the ship with Adar & Bomber command, mostly because that ship is far more key to my overall strategy than Toryn is. EHBs.... I dunno, I could lose them, but at least right now, the thought of being able to activate the entire Wexley-ball from one ship seems pretty appealing - particularly post-FCT bump. Not sure that's the right play, since Wexley has better speed anyway, but I'll give it a go. Thanks for pointing out the Intel gap. I'll remember that.
  3. Revised Dodonna list: Name: Dodonna Does Bombers V Faction: Rebel Commander: General Dodonna Assault: Precision Strike Defense: Fighter Ambush Navigation: Superior Positions MC80 Command Cruiser (106) • General Dodonna (20) • Flight Commander (3) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • Expanded Hangar Bay (5) • Reinforced Blast Doors (5) • XX-9 Turbolasers (5) = 147 Points Nebulon-B Escort Frigate (57) • Ahsoka Tano (2) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • XX-9 Turbolasers (5) • Yavaris (5) = 72 Points GR-75 Medium Transports (18) • Toryn Farr (7) • Comms Net (2) • Quantum Storm (1) = 28 Points GR-75 Combat Retrofits (24) • Adar Tallon (10) • Bomber Command Center (8) • Boosted Comms (4) • Bright Hope (2) = 48 Points Squadrons: • Norra Wexley (17) • Ten Numb (19) • 3 x B-wing Squadron (42) • 2 x X-wing Squadron (26) = 104 Points Total Points: 399
  4. “All fighters follow my lame Pelta!” LOL. Too right. If it didn’t come with Sato, who would buy it?
  5. I think I had the wrong idea on the role of independence. Was the intent to sling a group of 4 bombers forward, then Adar *one* of them so Yavaris could activate them for two attacks? I’m probably missing the combo, but Independence says no attack on that activation- so is there a way to get three attacks out of a unit moved using independence that I’m not seeing? I was trying to get multiple bombers attacking in a round using MC80s big squadron value. Independence wasn’t getting me that. What is the primary use of Independence in your line?
  6. I'm relatively new to Armada, saw your list and gave it a go. Modding lists is irresistible, so I ended up running without Jan Ors and adding XX-9s and EHBs to the MC80. I dropped the Independence title. My reasoning was that spending an activation to move the B wings when they cannot shoot at the end seemed less useful to me. I added a GR-75 with Ahsoka Tano and put Boosted Coms on both flotillas. End result was still a bit frustrating to me. Having Adar on the MC80 took up an officer slot that I immediately wanted to use for Flight Commander as soon as I started. With EHBs on the MC80, a squadron command can move all 4 B wings and Wexley. With Flight Commander, I would be able to move the MC80, resolve the 1 movement for all 4 Bs and Wexley, *then* resolve the Squadron command to activate all of them. Which makes the B wings speed 3 and so targets at distance 4 from the Wexley ball are in range. I played my first game with them vs an opponent who had no squadrons and shredded his ISD almost immediately, but not before it turned Yavaris into dust. However, I had no way to counter being second vs Demolisher swooping in to quadruple tap my MC80. My opponent had an ISD, Demolisher, and two Arquitens. I ended up losing every ship but Bright Hope, but killed all his ships for a very narrow victory. Lessons learned: the one bomber ball can annihilate a single target, but the MC80 is the obvious focus of attention and will get aced if it is expected to fend of the rest of a line while the bombers are off killing something. That was on me and my tactics. However, I really wish I'd have swapped Flight Commander onto the MC80, because the timing was killing me. Being able to move my squadrons after I moved the MC80 was not very useful, because if I used a squadron command to activate them, their extra movement would come after they'd attacked. I wanted to be able to compensate for the B wings lack of speed and Fighter Coordination Team was giving me something I desperately wanted - just too late to do much good. I ended up re-tooling the line into one commanded by Leia, which guts the whole critical hit focus, but here's what I ended up with: Name: Leia Does Bombers I Faction: Rebel Commander: Leia Organa Assault: Precision Strike Defense: Fighter Ambush Navigation: Superior Positions MC80 Command Cruiser (106) • Leia Organa (38) • Flight Commander (3) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • Expanded Hangar Bay (5) • Reinforced Blast Doors (5) • XI7 Turbolasers (6) = 166 Points Nebulon-B Escort Frigate (57) • Adar Tallon (10) • Fighter Coordination Team (3) • Yavaris (5) = 75 Points GR-75 Medium Transports (18) • Toryn Farr (7) • Boosted Comms (4) • Quantum Storm (1) = 30 Points GR-75 Combat Retrofits (24) • Ahsoka Tano (2) • Bomber Command Center (8) • Bright Hope (2) = 36 Points Squadrons: • Norra Wexley (17) • Ten Numb (19) • 3 x B-wing Squadron (42) • X-wing Squadron (13) = 91 Points Total Points: 398 This line dials down the squadrons to a probably foolish level, but it makes for a pretty effective bomber fleet. Originally, I'd had Ahsoka in there to covert the tokens the other GR=75 was passing with Coms Net, not sure if she would be as useful in a fleet where Leia's virtual tokens are doing most of the heavy lifting. Anywho, that's my .02.
  7. Whoop, just saw the answer to #2. In the Rules Reference book, pg 6, Component Limitations "Units are limited to those included in the game. A player cannot build a unit type if there are none available." **** Still wondering on #1, though.
  8. Two questions 1) When setting up the Probe Deck, it says to take the imperial systems out of the deck before the Rebel player chooses a card for the location of the Rebel Base. Then it says to shuffle the deck - but it doesn't expressly say to put the imperial systems back or to leave them out. Do you leave the imperial systems out of the probe deck when you start the game or not? 2) I had a game where the Rebel player controlled Mon Calamari and Utapau on two build turns. Which meant they had the resource icons for 4 Mon Calamari cruisers, but there are only 3 miniatures in the game. Is the number of miniatures an absolute limit on the available units? or should the Rebel player get a proxy counter for the additional cruiser? If there are answers to this in the rulebook, please list a citation in your answer. Thx
  9. Dvang nailed it. This is Warhammer - and you are gonna get hit. I would love to see a scenario where a lightly armored fighter used maneuver to tire out his opponent, and then took advantage. But the system skews towards battles of attrition. You can theme action cards like Shrug it Off, to be nimble dodges or what have you, but the core mechanic is take the hit and reduce the damage if possible.
  10. And I don't mean to slag on people who are searching for more accuracy - or genuinely like the additional detail. Some folks really love that. That's great. I cheer for those folks, too. There are some games where I do exactly that. My point is just to illustrate that sometimes you can step back and ask yourself if the detail is adding to the fun. Sometimes it totally does. But I've noticed - coming from high detail games - that habitually reaching for more detail can create some questionable rules. There is value in looking at what you're getting in exchange for all the effort. Do your new rules...create something you can re-use over an over again? support a large number of outcomes fairly? engage your players? keep your game flowing? get used in session after session? feel central to your overall adventure? Then - GREAT. Awesome! Well, done! and post 'em on the house rules board or on RPG Geek and let the world see what works for your group. But if your rules....​Slow down the game confuse your players require significant player effort but allow limited outcomes were created to skew the scenario to a GM-desired outcome; or get used in a marginal part of the adventure. Then I'd suggest coming up with a shorthanded version of "Roll vs this difficulty" and give rewards for creative player responses. Make the call, or heck - ask what your players think seems fair - and get over the bump in the adventure and get to the stuff that you all enjoy. Detail and abstraction are both perfectly valid ways to game - but if you find yourself reaching for more detail out of habit - I just want to remind folks that the abstraction option is always out there. Have fun.
  11. Coming from D&D (As I have) it can be tempting to look for a table or set of rules to detail exactly what steps and durations are involved in a given activity. Nothing wrong with that, and lots of people enjoy that level of detail. However, running systems like WFRP -it's pretty clear they're deliberately avoiding that level of detail. This can feel like a shortcoming, but here's what I've realized: When something like this happens - take a step back and consider the larger picture of the encounter. Ask yourself this question: "What situation are you trying to create?" Sounds like you want the drama of a group watching their enemies approach while they rush to put on their armor. Right? So, you can do that with a table that lists the time to equip for each armor, in maneuvers. And then you can set the distance of the enemy and track how fast they can cover the distance. And then each player with different armor can refer to the table and figure out how long it will take them and if they can take fatigue or aid each other to go faster. You could do that. Here's what I would do, though: I'd say: "The enemy is on the hill and they surge down towards you from extreme range. Anyone not in armor who wants to gear up before they arrive can do the following: Equipping shields takes a single maneuver as always. Donning a suit of armor will require a Perform a Stunt action using Agility - The difficulty is equal to half the total soak value you are trying to equip, rounding up. You can reduce this by 1 by spending 1 Action and 1 Maneuver on the task and rolling on a later turn. I'm giving everyone a single misfortune die to this roll, because you're watching your enemy surge toward you as you do this. You may spend fortune points and aid each other as normal. Go." Is it historically accurate? No. Is it completely reusable for other situations? Probably not. But it accomplishes the drama I want "Will we get our armor on in time?" and above all- It's FAST. My players keep their heads in the moment and we roll into combat with the excitement of an uncertain outcome. If things go terribly wrong, you can hipshoot your way out of that, too. Say I've got a player with Plate Mail and Agility of 2. They're staring down the barrel of having no armor at all. 2 Blue vs 3 Purple and a black? They plead for mercy - as a GM, I'd offer them the option to put on part of their armor for less difficulty. Any success will give them their defense 1, but maybe they only get soak 2. Whatever seems like a good compromise, but get them rolling or running into combat sans armor, pronto. "No time to think! This isn't a chess match, boy! Grab a sword and start swinging!!" But that's me. I'm a sicko.
  12. 1) The soak is one soak for the entire group. In your example the dwarf does 9 damage, it is reduced by the soak and toughness of the henchen and the remaining damage is applied to the group. Say you have two groups of 3 skeleton henchmen. Each contains skeletons with a toughness of 3 and a soak of 4. Each group of henchmen would have a wound threshold of 9 (Toughness of 3 x number of skeletons 3). Your damage scenario would work out like this: The Dwarves put up potential damage of 9. The skeleton henchmen reduce the damage by 7 (Soak 4 + Toughness 3), leaving 2 damage. Skeleton henchmen Group 1 would take 2 wounds This result would kill no skeletons. 1 skeleton would be near death, but the other two would be uninjured. as for 2) I would combine like groups of henchmen as their numbers dropped. The whole idea is that you have less things to track and keeping track of multiple lone henchmen is just more hassle. If you had two groups of seriously different henchmen, combining them is obviously a problem. But to continue your example, let's say: The Dwarves shift targets and land a massive blow on Skeleton henchmen group 2 - potential damage of 13. The skeleton henchmen reduce the damage by 7 (Soak 4 + Toughness 3), leaving 6 damage. Skeleton henchmen Group 2 would take 6 wounds 6 wounds is greater than the toughness of a single skeleton (3), so one would absorb that damage and die. The remaining 3 wounds would be applied to another skeleton in the group, who would also die. This would leave you with a single skeleton in that henchmen group. As a GM - I would fold him into the original group 1 of skeletons, who would still have the two wounds. So if the Dwarves managed even a single point of damage to the group, one of the skeletons would die.
×
×
  • Create New...