Monday Morning Update!
Added 2021-02-15 14:18:40 +0000 UTCYou know, I might stop posting anything but the podcast on a Friday, because I try to be super-disciplined about relaxing and not doing work at the weekend. And you guys gave me so much awesome feedback on my latest posts that I just couldn't stop processing all of your suggestions and contributions, which made my weekend just a wee bit less relaxing than it should have been.
However, I did have an excellent Valentine's weekend. My wife and I made our own marmalade for the first time (and it's really very nice), we watched Game Night (which is bloody hilarious, if you've not seen it, and a lot more wacky than I was expecting) and everything else is none of your business.
So this morning I've been back at work and:
1. The font issue is fixed, thanks to the proactive support of a patron whose name will be forever praised among the stars.
2. The Zero Dark FAQ and Errata has been updated. I've attached it here for your assessment. Let me know if I've missed anything I should've added. There's additional stuff about sentries and a little clarification about the very, very edge case of what happens if you suddenly can't complete a previously-declared bonus action. There's one more erratum, but it's teeny-tiny.
3. Operation Nemesis is now available in POD! It came out right first time! I might actually be getting the hang of this stuff...
4. I've drafted rules for two new ancillaries and the two I ended up picking were the stealth cloak and the tractor beam. Here are the very draft (completely untested) rules for your dissection and criticism:
Gravity Trap (Cost 1)
All vessels use gravity hooks to enable safe docking. But some bring a heavier, more power-hungry version. Each POW token spent on a docking action by a vessel with a gravity trap adds +2 dice to the roll, rather than +1.
Cloak (Cost 1)
A vessel with a cloak has replaced one of its shields with technology that blends and blurs the passage of electromagnetic radiation, making it impossible for enemies to detect as long as it doesn’t do anything dramatic. A vessel with a cloak has one fewer shields than it has Armour. It may not be the target of enemy shooting as long as it performs only manoeuvre actions. If it performs any kind of open fire! or damage control action, its cloak is removed.
THOUGHTS
I'm considering allowing docking at CL1, albeit at a disadvantage. I'm concerned that, given my desire for manoeuvre-based missions in the core rules, CL1 vessels are at a distinct advantage in any mission that requires docking unless you go heavy on mechs and... well, not everyone wants space mechs. More critically, I'm concerned that not permitting docking at CL1 is going to throw up some design challenges further down the road. I'm also thinking of re-framing boarding at CL1 as permitted, but in digital terms rather than physical ones. The only thing that would still be forbidden at CL1 will claiming stranded vessels as prizes, unless specifically permitted in the mission rules.
As for the rules above, in the context of the above-mentioned thinking, I'm fairly content that the gravity trap (a less retro expression of the tractor beam) is probably fine. There's enough docking and boarding in the missions to make it worthwhile for 1 point, I think, whilst still forcing players to carefully plan their use of POW to get the benefit.
I'm more concerned at the potential use of the stealth ancillary. One thing I definitely don't want to do is to follow an Infinity approach. If you've painted your minis, you should be encouraged to put them on the table (and, yes, I'm aware that the Stealth Suite in Horizon Wars does exactly that - it was a stupid rule, badly executed). I originally considered just given the vessel +2 dice per POW to D rolls in Opposed tests. Then I thought about just doubling the vessel's A until it does something other than a Movement action. But neither of those said "stealth" to me. But I do worry that making a vessel immune to being targeted by the enemy, even at the expense of one shield, is perhaps a step too far...
I'll be playing with these rules this week and tweaking them in response, but give me your thoughts.
5. Mines are a terrain thing, not an upgrade. Missions may permit one or both sides to place a "mines" marker on the tabletop at the start of a mission. Mines will be a bit like sentries in Zero Dark in that they'll have an activation radius and, the closer a vessel is to the marker, the more likely they are to be damaged by them. There will be the option to shoot at mine markers in the hope of reducing the activation radius. In CL1, it might represent a static rocket launcher. In CL3, it is more like a cloud of such launchers around a central control beacon. In CL2... a mix of the two. Mines will go into the Heavenly Bodies section, where Stations will also find themselves.
6. New advert art for Miniature Wargames and Tabletop Gaming (shown above!). So I've doubled my marketing spend and now have to wait and see what effect it has. I've got fingers firmly crossed for a good pay-back on the articles appearing in the April and May editions of Miniature Wargames because I've had my estimate from my interior artist, Tan Ho Sim (a.k.a. alientan), and although it's very reasonable, it's also a bit more than I was expecting.
7. Notebooks will be going out towards the end of this week. I'll be in touch with those who owe me some money for them later with invoices.
Comments
And another issue re. infinite dark: If you look at the photo I posted in the community, then you'll see that a number of the grey ships (red fleet) are seemingly going off to one side. As CL1 only has a fire arch 90* to their front, it means these ships did practically nothing and drifted off to a corner of the board from where they were ineffective. I've considered this a bit, and rather have the direction they turn to based on the colour of the card, it might be better than on black cards (attack cards), then they turn towards the nearest enemy ship, and on red cards (support actions) they turn away from the nearest enemy ship. It might make them seem a little more logical and not fragment so much.
Duncan Thompson
2021-02-17 07:18:48 +0000 UTCRobey as I also wrote i my last email, there's also an issue with red fleet ships costs versus player ship costs. The Red fleet all equal Mas/Pow, the player however can field loads of Pow 3 ships. If the player chooses to field a load of Mas1 Pow3 ships they are getting far more bang for their buck, than the red fleets mas1 pow1 ships. A greater variety of red fleet ships, which get matched via their points costs, rather than just the mas cost, I think could balance this a bit and make the red fleet ore interesting.
Duncan Thompson
2021-02-17 07:16:34 +0000 UTCI've been playing the Solo rules and vessel cost isn't a factor at all in those. But it doesn't surprise me that a swarm of 1 cost vessels is more effective. All vessels start with 8 points in stats, effectively for free. A MAS1 POW1 vessel therefore gets 9 stat points for 1 cost, that seems to cheap. I think the points balance from small to large vessels needs to be closer to that in the original HW.
Jonathan Lupton
2021-02-16 09:52:54 +0000 UTCHey there. I played a couple of scenarios of Infinite Dark. I tried the classical One Large vs small swarm on CL1. The Large one had double turrets to better deal with the pests. The Large one had Size 3, Power 3 (Cost 9); The small ones had Size 1, Pow 1 (4 of those) and Size 2, Pow 2 (two of those)(total Cost 8). It was a massacre. The Large one did not even had a slim chance. I think that at this point, the "Cost" of the ships are not a good measure of quality on a versus game. I think shield tokens should be explained earlier in the rules. I only found about them on page 10. I think they might need mentioning on pages 3-4. It seems strange that each vessel may only "Open fire" once per turn. On CL1, fine. One CL2, maybe twice per turn? CL3 three times? So my understanding is that things I can do only once per turn: Open Fire, Damage Control, Increase Speed OR turn (and after all been done, efectively MOVE the ship). Things I can do (also as extra actions) more than once per turn: gain Advantage, Gain POW tokens. I really liked the POW mechanics. It adds some nice and simple dynamcic to what to do with your systems. The Maneuver for Advante mechanic is nice, but it looks strange that the target number of the test for such thing is your speed + MAS. I understand that target number for regular maneuvers, the faster you go, the harder it is to maneuver. But for Advantage, it seems odd. It is also odd that it is a simple test. I was expecting an Opposed Test. Getting Advantage over some other ship and letting him in disadvantage over you is very good and too easy to do if you move slow. I know you are not going with full simulation on the game. But how about a compromise? My view is: if a ships is fast and the other is slow, the fast ship should be able to get Advantage easier. If a ship has low mass and the other has high mass, the low mass ship should be able to get Advantage easier. I'm assuming Maneuvering for Advantage is just that part, maneuvering. If Advantage also has a targeting/spoofing element to it, then I guess it should be another atribute that should be tested. More playtests to follow! Cheers
Andre Strauss
2021-02-15 16:12:55 +0000 UTC
