21 minutes ago, chr335 said:

Hmm this artillery slot could also be how we get the autocannons from the last jedi in armada

allright im convinced, can also put the weapon of the big CIS ship on there, and different missile types.

even the eclipse laser seems doable then.

5 hours ago, Piratical Moustache said:

I do see your points throughout the conservation, but speaking for myself I have bought ships for upgrades to use for other ships, not for the ship that I just bought which isn't a very good feeling.

Your Loss, as well

I think if you’re going to have a token represent the barrage/missile/salvo, then the best way to go about it is to add rules regarding how the token works to the game (and I’m mostly thinking of how it targets things and does damage, how it interacts with the game once placed), and leave the issue of how and where you place the tokens to any upgrade cards. That way, you could have different upgrades “fire” said tokens differently. For example:

”Salvo Tokens: At the beginning of the [whatever] phase, players alternate targeting ships with any salvo tokens of theirs on the board. A salvo token may target a single ship [or squadron?] with 2 black dice, then it is removed from the board. [Insert here any rules about targeting salvo tokens with flak, if you want.]”

Now, we can have an upgrade that lets you place one salvo token at red range using a con fire command. And a different upgrade that lets you put, say, three tokens out at close range but is then discarded. You could even have a squadron with text telling you to place X number of salvo tokens on its card at the start of the game and it can deploy one instead of attacking. Stuff like that.

On 10/10/2018 at 5:58 AM, Drasnighta said:

Re: some of the rules listed.

You need a way to define new concepts and either new tools, or new ways of existing tool usage to get things right.

How do you enforce “forward” in regards to moving something directly ahead? Even if you do for one turn, if it’s a circular token as suggested, how do you enforce that continually?

I really hate how I actually need to explain "forward" movement to you. Yes, the token is circular, but the token would have a drawing of a few missiles on it, flying forward. You place your range ruler along side where the token is facing, you MUST place the token "POINTING" forward from the front of the vessel where its fired, no weird "rotating" cannons or "arcs" with these missiles. Hench DUMB FIRE MECHANICS. Each turn, the token MOVES FORWARD from its initial placement and firing in the SAME DIRECTION IT MOVED LAST TURN, till max range or impact. Come on man ppl. This isnt a hard concept to understand here.

Edit : I guess I also need to point out, THE SHAPE OF TOKEN IS MEANINGLESS, Circles are just more pleasing to look at and take up generally less room. USE A HEXAGON IF YOU WANT. the idea stays the same

Been a long while since this was an issue. Surprised me.

but anyway ?

It’s not a hard concept to understand, no.

But it’s a hard concept to DEFINE in the form of rules.

Rules are written with as few assumptions as possible, including a measure of common sense.

Take for example, the concept of “toward”.

If I tell you to move toward something, do I mean that you need to move your maximum distance, directly towards, it is it merely good enough to have any portion of you closer than when You started... do you need to be pointing towards - how much if you needs to be pointing, is merely in arc enough?

Youve made assumptions that the token will be marked effectively with an arrow for direction - that’s good! - all I’m stating is that in good design of rules, you write it down and don’t make it an assumption... if you’ve got an arrow, then you can say something along the lines of “place the distance ruler along the direction of the arrow and slide the token in that direction for the required distance” which is good.

If you initially place the flat end of the ruler against the front of the ship base and use that as the initial forward direction, that’s good - but does it matter on the rules position laterally along the front? A large ship can have quite a bit of difference if launching from the far left vs right... and again, it may not matter - but if that’s the case, just say so...

And you don’t have to.

But without it, you must be prepared for someone else to make a different assumption and potentially invalidate any test or advice they give.

Missile tokens could be designed in such a way to use the maneuver tool. I would imagine we would get a rule card similar to flotillas and the contain token. Some possible rules would include overlapping an obstacle causes it to detonate either eliminating the obstacle (or in the case of special stations roll some number of dice depending on the upgrade).

Honestly, to solve (part of) the directionality problem, just look at X-Wing.



You slot the template in the back of the ordnance and voila. The shape of the token actually matters a lot.

You could design it to use the range ruler, but that is clunky if different missiles are launched at different ranges. As @chr335 said, you could easily design it to use the maneuver tool instead, which then expands trajectory possibilities of some missiles. Maybe some travel in a straight line only, maybe some have nav charts. if it has a nav chart, it could also be used elegantly as the launching system.

I also agree it should be an upgrade slot. There could be a ton of different types of missiles and it just fits the current design structure to have them as upgrades. I haven't played much X-Wing, but dropping obstacles in front of your enemy is one VERY fun thing to do.

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:33 AM, Geressen said:

I think making it an ordinance upgrade card allowing to place barrage tokens at long range would be the way to go about it. sadly this will make it impossible for most ships ( those with a single ordinance spot) to use ordinance upgrades in coordination with the attack

so

Ordinance upgrade:

Missile barrage

instead of a normal attack this ship may place barrage tokens equal to the number of black dice in the hull zone armament up to long range, at the start of the next turn roll a black die for any ship within short range of a token

barrage token: these tokens may be attacked using anti-squadron armament, they are destroyed on a hit. at the start of the turn roll a black dice for each ship within distance 1, then remove the barrage token.

Wether or not other ordinance upgrades apply depends on wether we think the MC75 or any new ship will be balanced or not, I think currently it could potentially be usefull enough firing into tight formations of ships.

Not quite sure I follow what you mean by how this is limited, here.

The note on MC75 makes me think you are suggesting it as a double-slot upgrade? IE., two ordnance slots?

There's an even easier way to ensure it can only ever be equipped to one ship (until the game is ready for another) - have it take up two slots whose combination doesn't currently exist.

IE., say, Ordnance Slot + Experimental Retrofit slot. Then give these ships both of those slots, and done. (And hey presto - another ship in the game for both sides that can now equip experimental retrofits...)

1 hour ago, xanderf said:

Not quite sure I follow what you mean by how this is limited, here.

The note on MC75 makes me think you are suggesting it as a double-slot upgrade? IE., two ordnance slots?

There's an even easier way to ensure it can only ever be equipped to one ship (until the game is ready for another) - have it take up two slots whose combination doesn't currently exist.

IE., say, Ordnance Slot + Experimental Retrofit slot. Then give these ships both of those slots, and done. (And hey presto - another ship in the game for both sides that can now equip experimental retrofits...)

To be fair he could put a size restriction on it as well.

13 hours ago, xanderf said:

Not quite sure I follow what you mean by how this is limited, here.

if a missile weapon takes up an ordinance slot.

the missile weapon will only work in conjuction with other ordinance upgrades

on ships that have more than 1 ordinance slot.

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:35 AM, Drasnighta said:

If you initially place the flat end of the ruler against the front of the ship base and use that as the initial forward direction, that’s good - but does it matter on the rules position laterally along the front? A large ship can have quite a bit of difference if launching from the far left vs right... and again, it may not matter - but if that’s the case, just say so...

They are launched from the front firing arc. Not the front hull zone, the front firing arc.

17 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

They are launched from the front firing arc. Not the front hull zone, the front firing arc.

Are they?

I mean, that's an assumption, due to all attacks using the firing arc as its area of defined operation - but is it, as a point of origin? Is that actually stated?



I know, I'm crud-kicking here, apparently, just to show how much of a pedantic **** I can be... But I do it in good faith, and hopefully, good cheer - not at lot of people understand how the nitty gritty of "games design" can be... And, to be fair, there's a reason I don't do it that much anymore - and part of that reason is it was too pedantic for even me.

I love this idea.

Some thoughts - as far as I can tell, missile combat between capital ships is rare/non-existent in films so whatever is introduced should be limited in scope.

One approach would be to make this upgrade expensive, another would be to require a combination of upgrade slots only present on a select set of ships (such as ordinance and experimental refit, which as far as I can tell aren't both available on any existing ships).

Also, I like the idea of barrage being a keyword, operating similar to counter, in principle. Instead of having a variable number of dice like counter (eg counter 2) it would be variable range. You would always roll with black dice available to the ship from front arc.

In this way, you could have multiple different upgrade cards at different costs with different ranges. The fundamental behavior (set tokens, roll dice) would be similar.

What about artillery upgrades requiring speed zero but can shot outside red range. This would make them glass cannons and make @Drasnighta nose punch happy

Although Im all for adding more diversity for the 'dominated by pizza slice shaped ships' Imperials, I hesitate about adding wildly new mechanics. We all wondered how boarding was going to work and in the end they used existing mechanics to make it a card effect-which I think was the right move. Currently ordnance/missles are represented by black dice so I think at best we're going to get a title that allows it to shoot black dice at long range.

Agreed. If they were to make a change, it would need to be subtle. I'd be ok with the "roll blacks at red range" upgrade that is limited in scope and high in cost.

On 11/23/2018 at 3:39 PM, FortyInRed said:

Agreed. If they were to make a change, it would need to be subtle. I'd be ok with the "roll blacks at red range" upgrade that is limited in scope and high in cost.

On 11/23/2018 at 1:46 PM, LordTesla said:

Although Im all for adding more diversity for the 'dominated by pizza slice shaped ships' Imperials, I hesitate about adding wildly new mechanics. We all wondered how boarding was going to work and in the end they used existing mechanics to make it a card effect-which I think was the right move. Currently ordnance/missles are represented by black dice so I think at best we're going to get a title that allows it to shoot black dice at long range.

The problem with this is with the right screen, they are considered OP, and really won't open up strategic options for both the attacker or the defender. At most we would get a strategy that revolves around "Bunkering" and the counter "Bunker Busting", where as token missiles, that actually move across the field will open up smaller ships with higher speed to be useful to zip in and out of lines of fire, as well as slower ships being zoned out, or used to "shield" higher priority targets as that pass through that are not as fast. Or force the enemy to split their forces how it would be beneficial to you. The whole idea is to shake up the gameplay with this style of ship not keep it in "place ships on board, move ships in normal fashion, maybe flank with X"

[Name c] Upgrade Slot to the intended ships.

[Name c] Upgrade Card - points: whatever.

[timing] if there are not [name a] tokens on this card you may place [x] [name b] tokens beyond distance 5 of you and within [firing arc] and [x] [name a] tokens on this card, if you do, you cannot attack during this activation. When there is no more [name a] tokens on this card, for each enemy ship [distance requirement] a [name b] token, you may perform an attack against that ship with a battery armament of [x colour dice]. The attack is treated as being at [range], cannot be obstructed and can target any of the defender's hull zone.

Rules addendum:

[Name a] tokens: they are a special type of token. Some cards may instruct a player to place a number of [name a] tokens on it. At the start of the Status Phase, remove 1 [name a] token from each card.

[Name b] tokens: they have a number and a colour to differentiate from other [name b] tokens. This is to distinguish between artillery from different players (colour) and from different ships/upgrades (number). This would need a deeper explanation where is said you use the same number for the same upgrade but the easiest thing would be to never allow to place more than one token, and never have more than one upgrade per fleet, maybe some kind of "modification" fleet wide to make it unique, but not by name.

NOTES:

Name suggestions:

- name a: countdown tokens.

- name b: big boom tokens (kidding), artillery tokens maybe.

- name: artillery upgrade slot/cards

Wording:

- timing: after revealing a command dial.

- distance requirement: at distance 1 or overlapping.

- range: may be adjusted for balance. Do you want to make use of evades? That could make sense cause otherwise you're not only bypassing range limitations, also token use against what is clearly a more than long range shot.

- dice: you may keep it depending on the battery armament of the ship but I found interesting that those ships may no have a good actual firepower beyond those special ordnance. If you make it different it allows to provide them with poor battery armament to defense themselves (flotilla short of) while keeping the new mechanic interesting (3 black dice, maybe?).

- italic pieces: they are copy-pasted from Planetary Ion Cannon which is a good way to keep LoS and hull selection easy and provides coherence with existing stuff. I don't recommend to remove the obstruction piece cause that only make things more complicated as I keep it as an attack. The hull zone piece may be removed without problems as we already have the rule about non-declared hull zones.

I think this may be fun. With the countdown tokens we keep the sense of the projectile movement without messing things on the table about trajectories, speed, etc. You can play with distance requirements, number of tokens, battery armament and ranges to make a bunch of different upgrades. The more countdown tokens, the harder to use and the lesser you use them. The more big boom tokens the more area you can cover. A lot of things to balance it. Only worried about the card space for the wording. I could miss something (sure I did) so I will thank @Drasnighta for any pedantic advice he could share, if he want and is on mood, of course.

I would love to see the broadside cruiser AND the Tartan. I like both of those ships 🙂