Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nominrath

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/01/1980
  1. This may seem an odd question, but I have an older copy of IA (pre-Legends app) and was wondering if there was a physical copy of the Legends of the Alliance rulebook with newer copies of IA or available anywhere? Just so I don’t have to exit the app to reference the new rules for changes between vanilla IA and app-driven IA.
  2. Hey there fellow Doomslayers and Invaders! After a while of tinkering and playtesting and then finalizing, I finally finished the ‘Hurt Me Plenty Edition’ rules! What are these rules? Well, it’s a set of rules alterations I designed to swing the balance of the game to be a little more even across the board between the marines and the demons as I, like so many others, found it rather difficult to find success as the Invader player... Especially against the dreaded Solo Operative, a.k.a. The Doomslayer, and, to a lesser extent, the Combat Veterans. I already talked a little about my proposed changes in an earlier post, but I’ve finalized a full alternate Rules Reference with all the changes I finally settled on and have been playing with them since February this year and I’m happy to report that me and my group are pleased with the final results. I think I’ve achieved the balance that some of us just can’t seem to find in this game. And just to lay some worried minds to rest, the ‘Hurt Me Plenty’ rules aren’t a bunch of tacked on extra house rules based on what ifs and crazy new mechanics. All the changes within are actually very minor and all the mechanics are based on already existing mechanisms... and there’s actually only two changes. Granted, these changes have a few minor trickle down effects (which are addressed), but I think many of you who are looking for more balanced Doom experience (or even one that tends to favor the Invader a little bit) might be pleasantly surprised! So, if you’re interested, follow the link below to BoardGameGeek.com’s DOOM’s file section and DL the ‘Hurt Me Plenty Edition’ today! I look forward to your feedback and happy DOOMing! https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/167153/doom-hurt-me-plenty-edition
  3. So, I have some thoughts on how to add to the game of DOOM in order to give the Invader a slight edge... After all, shouldn’t the edge be in favor of the Invader? Shouldn’t the marines, even the legendary Doomslayer (a.k.a. the infamous ‘Solo Operative’), feel at least a little threatened and challenged by the forces of **** pouring through these portals? My first idea is a shot directly at the ‘handicap’ squad cards; the ‘Solo Operative’ and ‘Combat Veteran’ cards in particular (I don’t have much experience with the ‘Taking Point’ three-man squad card). My suggestion? Ditch them altogether. Just throw them out. Use 4 initiative cards as if you were playing a regular 4 marine player game and assign the marines an equal share of initiatives and have them activate normally: 1 main action, 3 card hand size, unlimited bonus actions, no health bonus. Second idea. Cover. Ignore the gamble of drawing a second defense card. This seems a little dumb to me. Cover should provide a confirmed benefit, not a “maybe.” Instead have cover grant a static bonus to defense. +1 or even +2. Simple, no gamble, and worthwhile for both sides. Third. No more auto Glory Kills. This one I’m still back and forth on... I like the Glory Kill system and I love how it captured the essence of the 2016 Doom video game, but, as the Invader player, it just really really sucks that demons can just be autokilled by moving into their space, basically allowing a marine to deal 1-2 free damage by moving. I say keep the system as it is but with one add-on: attach a die roll to it. Roll one red die, if you roll any damage results the Glory Kill was successful, if the die is blank, not so much and you get pushed into a legal adjacent space (at no cost to movement, Invader’s choice). Portals and the unending hordes... This one was inspired by a similar idea posted in BoardGameGeek. Portals aren’t discarded after they’re activated... every round they’re active, they summon. The limit of demons summoned is the miniature population (e.g. only two Barons can ever exist at one time because there are only two Baron minis). A marine can deactivate (discard) a portal by moving into its space. In the case of portal ‘stacks’, multiple portals can be active in a stack but have to be activated/deactivated sequentially. The Assualt threat card is the exception to this. I like this one because it keeps pressure on the marine players by making the threat that much more, well, threatening and forces them to try do something about the hordes in addition to the scenario objectives, curbing the sometimes cavalier attitude a marine can seem to have towards the invaders while also putting a pin in the “win by default” condition that exists because a marine can choose to ignore objectives and just slaughter the invader’s finite forces. Coming from an RPG background, having the occasional minion slaughter-house is fun and all... in a campaign-based game where the DM is on the side of the players more often than not, but I was under the impression this was a competitive one-vs.-many combat game where the “DM” is SUPPOSED to be out to get the players. This rule change idea, however, does have the potential of tipping the scale too far in favor of the invader so it needs some serious testing and may be the “Nightmare!” difficulty. Next, frag resets. Maybe when a marine is fragged he doesn’t keep all his cool Glory Kill cards and special weapons he picked up? Seems like dying isn’t that big of a deal for a marine. Sure, the invader gets a frag token, but the marine respawns exactly as he was before? Full health, fully armed, extra GK cards, and all that? “Devil may care” indeed. Lastly, lower the victory requirements by the number of marines missing. With four targets running around, an Invader has a few options for different targets. The frags come a lot easier when the squad is fuller because the flow of the game isn’t broken up when a marine is fragged. For example, if a cadre of 5 imps activates and 3 manage to kill the marine in a 1v1 game, those other 2 imps are wasted actions. And if other demon groups activate before the marine respawns, they’re equally wasted. With a fuller board, those demons could have been utilized focusing on another target, possibly scoring another frag, instead of sitting on their thumbs. By lowering the frag requirement, the Invader has a more reasonable goal to meet with the restrictions available (less targets to chase). Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the matter. Let me know what you think. I used the first one (ditching the Solo Op card) tonight and it worked out pretty good in a 1v1... As the Invader I still lost, but I actually scored 4 frags in the Knee Deep In The Dead mission. Very surprising as the last time I played that mission 1v1 (using vanilla rules) as the Invader I don’t think I even scored 1 frag.
  4. Nevermind... had already asked this. Doh.
  5. Yup. Like I said, just thinking like a war-gamer. Just need to remember that Rebellion isn't intended to be a straight-up war board game like Risk, A&A, or others; it's more along the the lines of a complicated board game version of hide & seek. LoL
  6. Huh. This order seems awkward to me for some reason. I would think it would be more fluid to settle each theater separately instead of going back and forth. Maybe something more like: I. Space Combat. Steps 1-10 (see previous post) 11. Retreat decision. 12. Repeat steps 1-11 until one side is defeated, or one or both sides retreat. If so, move to Ground Combat (if no ground troops are available, end combat and resolve any post combat effects and details). II. Ground Combat. Steps 1-11 (see above) 12. Repeat steps 1-11 until one side is defeated, or one or both sides retreat. If so, end combat and resolve any post combat effects and details. This could, I think, add an extra layer of tactical and startegic elements as players would not be able to outright land troops in occupied systems, they would have to break through the space blockade first and risk losing their transports (and the units they carry) in the process. This could also add some cool tactic card opportunities as you get boarding cards that allow some certain ships carrying units to board other ships carrying untis and resolve a combat (Think ISD Devastator vs. CC Tantive IV in 'A New Hope') or escape pod cards that allow you to save certain transported units from a doomed transport during the 'Block Damage' step. But maybe that's what the back and forth is taking into account; it's just mish-moshing all the scenarios into a jambalaya stew of steps and rules and letting the players' imaginations sort it out. LoL Ah well, guess it is what it is. Maybe I've just played too much Axis & Allies and Shogun (a.k.a. Samurai Swords, Ikusa). LoL Thanks for the clarification!
  7. I'm a little confused as to the order of combat when it comes to to the 'theaters'. From the way I understand it, it goes something like this: I. Space Combat 1. Player A rolls dice. 2. Player A plays cards or takes actions. 3. Player A assigns damage. 4. Player B defends 5. Player B sets 'casualities' aside. 6. Player B rolls dice. 7. Player B plays cards or takes actions. 8. Player B assigns damage. 9. Player A defends. 10. Player A and Player B remove casualities. II. Ground Combat 1. Player A rolls dice. 2. Player A plays cards or takes actions. 3. Player A assigns damage. 4. Player B defends 5. Player B sets 'casualities' aside. 6. Player B rolls dice. 7. Player B plays cards or takes actions. 8. Player B assigns damage. 9. Player A defends. 10. Player A and Player B remove casualities. III. Retreat 1. Player A decides if they want to (or can) retreat. 2. Player B decides if they want to (or can) retreat. IV. Move to next round (back to I) and repeat. Is this correct?
  8. The rules state that if a player does NOT have a leader with tactics values in a system, they can add one leader from their pool to the system for the combat (basically the combat equivalent of opposing a mission). However it makes mention that should multiple leaders be present, you use the highest value for each theater of combat. Now, does this mean that if a leader happens to be on this system from a previous mission or attack, a player can NOT add a new, additional leader during this step of combat (except in the case of a special ability possibly allowing such an action)? Only the already present leader(s) would contribute their tactics value(s), right? This is how I'm reading this rule, but the multiple leader clause makes me wonder. Thanks all! P.S. Love this game so far!
  9. If a Rebel player resolves a 'Daring Rescue' mission before an Imperial player can resolve a 'Interrogation Droid' mission (i.e. 'Daring Resuce' removes the potential target of 'Interrogation Droid'), what happens to the leaders assigned to 'Interrogation Droid'? Also, do ALL leaders in a given system have the potential to add to a mission (if they have the appropriate skill)? Even those that were on a different mission in the same system previously? For example, if Han Solo attempted a mission in Corellia and then Luke Skywalkwe attempted another, different mission in Corellia, could Han Solo participate in Luke Skywalker's mission? Another example, if an Imperial mission attempts to capture Leia Organa (after she attempted a mission) in Mon Calamari and the Rebel player used Chewbacca from his pool to oppose the mission, would both Leia and Chewbacca contribute to the opposition of the mission? Or just Chewbacca? Thanks!
  10. I'm debating on swapping the Victory I for a Gladiator in order to add more speed and a slightly better anti-squadron vessel.
  11. Howdy fellow Armada players! I'm still a little green to the Armada scene and would like to request someone with perhaps a bit more experience give my idea of an Imperial build a look-over and offer some suggestions to make it better. I've built this fleet using a 400 point limit using the ships/squads/upgrades from a single Core set, an Assault Frigate expansion, a Gladiator expansion, an Imperial Star Destroyer expansion, the Home One expansion, an MC-30 expansion, and the Rogues & Villains expansion. Imperial II-class Star Destroyer (120) - Avenger (title; 5) - Admiral Screed (commander; 26) - Weapons Liaison (officer; 3) - Point-Defense Reroute (offensive retrofit; 5) - Redundant Shields (defensive retrofit; 8) - NK-7 Ion Cannons (ion cannons; 10) - Heavy Turbolaser Turrets (turbolasers; 6) Victory I-class Star Destroyer (73) - Engineering Captain (officer; 6) - Ordinance Experts (weapons team; 4) - Assault Proton Torpedoes (ordinance; 5) - Enhanced Armament (turbolasers; 10) "Howlrunner" (TIE Fighter Squadron; 16) TIE Fighter Squadron (x5; 40) Boba Fett / Slave I (Firespray-31; 26) IG-88 / IG-2000 (Aggressor Assault Fighter; 21) YV-666 (15) Fleet Point Total: 399 Thanks!
  12. Page 1, bottom right paragraph, green box with red writing entitled "The Future of Armada". Clearly spelled out there. Would you look at that? Spelled out in plain English right in front of me the whole the time. I had only downloaded the "Tournament FAQ" and completely missed the actual "Tournament Rules". Oops. I wish they would change it in errata or reissues for every other document which refers to either a 180 point limit for single Core fleets or 300 point standards for everything else.
  13. What's the standard fleet point value now? I know the standard fleet value for just the Core set was 180 points and the rules say 300 points for a standard fleet, but I've been seeing posts about 400 point builds and other posts and various internet references saying that since Wave II (the Imperial Star Destroyer and Home One expansions) the new point limit is 400. I know that the rules basically say that players can set any limit they desire, but I'm confused as to what the 'official' limit is.
  14. So, I just got my Armada core set about a week or so ago and have played the Learning Scenario a couple times. Then I tried to sink my teeth into the full game (as well as can be done with a single core set, anyway...). So, anyway, my "question" derives from the fleet point limits regarding balance. I read the 180 suggested point limit but decided to try and use the whole of the core set, creating fleet builds based on the VSD-II, the Corvette A and the Neb-B Frigate, which works out to be about 220 (give or take a few) points per side. We played and I seemed to get destroyed by the Imperial VSD build. What are other players' thoughts on the balance of this? Have other players done this and, if so, how well did your game go? Should I stick to the 180 fleet point suggestion? Thanks for your time!
  • Create New...