anyway.
A Penny for Your Thoughts
2009-03-06
: The Source Campaign: battle 2 setup
Okay, Rob and the Kalik Federation! It's your turn to set the battle up. Here's what we need from you:
1. Where on the map will this battle take place?
Here's the map (updated to reflect the disaster of battle 1):
J lives on C5, I live on C1, you live on O4.
2. What's the special objective?
2a. Which victory condition does it represent?
Control of the August Solar Throne
Control of the flow of smoke
Absolute moral authority
2b. What is it physically?
3. What's the battle environment?
These apply to everybody universally.
3a. How many 1-shot rockets does each army get?
3b. Does the battlefield require special attachments, eg space attachments for space, underwater attachments for underwater? (I'll explain how these rules work if you're considering them.)
3c. Select all that apply:
__ no ranged weapon => green d8 -OR- __ no declared target => +1 move
__ artillery weapons are area-effect
__ additional initiative die => additional go (w/ no move)
4. What army limits for me and J?
Please:
* Leave us the ability to make legal-sized armies (3-6 mechs).
* Leave us the ability to make functional mechs (2-4 attachments).
* If you rule out certain attachments, rule out only one or at most two.
You can give us both the same limit or each of us our own. Your army's not limited.
1. On 2009-03-06, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
1. Where? o3. There's been some snooping around uncomfortably close to my home that totally does not exist! 2. What? The control station for a key jump-gate through which 90% of The Smoke passes and lots of commerce is conducted. 2a. Condition? Control of the flow of Smoke. 2b. Physically? It's a bunker that houses controls for the jump gate. 3. Fight site? A gigantic, potato-shaped asteroid whose surface is extremely craggy and unstable. 3a. Rockets? 2? I'm not sure what the strategery is around this so I'll go with the number I pulled out of my ass. 3b. Attachments? I'm considering special space-attachments. What's the effect? 3c. All that apply? We can keep trying the initiative thing. 4. Limits? The surface doesn't allow for hand-to-hand fighting. No ability to brace yourself over the brittle substrate (unless your contact points have these organ attachments that secrete a biomechanical goo that momentarily cements you to the porous rock: something we have declined to share). |
2. On 2009-03-06, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:
|
You're just doing this so I have to make completely different models, aren't you? |
3. On 2009-03-06, Mantisking wrote:
|
Vincent wrote "3c. Select all that apply: __ no ranged weapon => green d8 -OR- __ no declared target => +1 move __ artillery weapons are area-effect __ additional initiative die => additional go (w/ no move)" So are these the new rules you're playtesting? |
4. On 2009-03-06, Vincent wrote:
|
Space attachments: Without a space attachment, a mech in space rolls only 1 white die. With a space attachment, it rolls both white dice. A space attachment counts as an attachment, same as any other. It counts against your max of 4 for a mech, it gets shot off for damage, it counts for purposes of points per. The battlefield can be part space part not-space, too, at your call. Like, half asteroid and half space. |
5. On 2009-03-06, Vincent wrote:
|
Mantisking: yep! There's one more, too, but we're using it across the board, it's not optional for Rob to choose. It's Eric Provost's defense-spotting rule: * Don't subtract 1 from your defense; * Don't subtract 1 from your spot; * Attack = Defense does 0 damage of its own, but lets you use a spot if your target has one. It's extremely likely that this'll be the official rule in the next edition of the game, while the other 3 will be optional. |
6. On 2009-03-06, Mantisking wrote:
|
Vincent wrote "There's one more, too, but we're using it across the board, it's not optional for Rob to choose. It's Eric Provost's defense-spotting rule: * Don't subtract 1 from your defense; * Don't subtract 1 from your spot; * Attack = Defense does 0 damage of its own, but lets you use a spot if your target has one." How has that been working? Vincent wrote "It's extremely likely that this'll be the official rule in the next edition of the game, while the other 3 will be optional." Cool! I taught a friend to play a couple of weeks ago, and I'm hoping to get a game in sometime this weekend. |
7. On 2009-03-06, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
Color-wise, it'll be in space, but I don't wanna take that rule. Joshua: My purpose is 99% strategic, 1% to fuck with you. |
8. On 2009-03-06, Vincent wrote:
|
Do you want to use regular movement or vector movement? |
9. On 2009-03-06, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
Ooooh. Is that something toggleable between sides? I.e., can that be something that I can deny you but keep myself? |
10. On 2009-03-06, Vincent wrote:
|
I suppose so? It seems odd to me in-fiction but it'd be fine gamewise, so whatever. Before you decide: For vector movement Move 1 or 2 = 1 thrust Move 3 or 4 = 2 thrust Move 5 or 6 = 3 thrust Ramming Your velocity relative to your target can improve your hand to hand attacks. Measure from your vector marker to your target's with the ruler; count each full segment. Treat the count as a spot on your target. There are no collisions otherwise. |
11. On 2009-03-06, Vincent wrote:
|
Oh, hey, which of these is in effect? One should be: 1. No ranged weapon => green d8 (the rule as written) 2. No declared target => +1 move (an interesting alternate rule) |
12. On 2009-03-06, Vincent wrote:
|
Mantisking, re Eric Provost's defense-spotting rule: So far, it works great. I endorse it. |
13. On 2009-03-06, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
I can't decide about vector thrust, so let's leave it out for now. I'm good with no ranged weapon = green d8. |
14. On 2009-03-06, Uriel wrote:
|
"* Don't subtract 1 from your defense; * Don't subtract 1 from your spot" I whoot for this; I've been using this rule for 1?? years. "__ artillery weapons are area-effect" How much? So... When's the next edition coming out? |
15. On 2009-03-06, Vincent wrote:
|
This summer I think. Area effect: 6s on the damage dice hit the target mech, plus they also hit any other mechs within 1. |
16. On 2009-03-06, Mantisking wrote:
|
Vincent wrote "This summer I think." Possible Gencon release? Vincent wrote "Area effect: 6s on the damage dice hit the target mech, plus they also hit any other mechs within 1." Hmmnn, interesting. |
17. On 2009-03-08, Soren wrote:
|
Vincent, you rock my world, man, but your map hurts my eyes. Would you like a new one? |
18. On 2009-03-08, Vincent wrote:
|
Wait'll you see it after 4 more battles! It'll be even more illegible. Can you believe it? |
19. On 2009-03-08, Soren wrote:
|
Easily! |
20. On 2009-03-09, Uriel wrote:
|
"additional initiative die => additional go (w/ no move)" How many additional initiative dice is the limit for getting an additional go? If for 2 extra, i.e. a half strength mecha with only 2 attachments, I think it's neat idea well worth testing. |
21. On 2009-03-09, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:
|
I literally don't have any appropriate models or any good ideas of what to make for tomorrow. To make things worse, I have a strategy in mind, but no forces to enact it. |
22. On 2009-03-09, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
Fuck, Joshua, I hope I didn't ruin the game for you! |
23. On 2009-03-10, Darrin Bowers wrote:
Sisterhood tactical space encounter suit, for the delivery of zero-G mercy.   |
24. On 2009-03-10, Darrin Bowers wrote:
|
It is an all encompasing armored, (hostile)environment,hard suit, in stealth black. They do however wear a black skirt around the waist. |
25. On 2009-03-10, Ben Lehman wrote:
|
Hey, Joshua: Have you considered making mechs with only spotting, movement, and armor? I've been wanting to do that for a multipleyer game. yrs-- --Ben |
26. On 2009-03-10, Mantisking wrote:
|
@ Darrin; Hmmnn, spin the head block around and replace the 1x1 plate with a trans-black cheese slope to represent the face-plate of the space suit? |
27. On 2009-03-10, Darrin Bowers wrote:
|
Yeah that would look good as well. I was just trying to give Joshua a simple solution for the models he already has. |
28. On 2009-03-10, Mantisking wrote:
|
Vincent wrote "additional initiative die => additional go (w/ no move)" I've been thinking about this, wouldn't it make more sense to have an additional move instead of another attack? It makes sense in genre, with lighter mechs flitting about the battlefield while the bigger ones are lumbering through. |
29. On 2009-03-10, Vincent wrote:
|
Oh no. Movement is actually pretty tightly balanced in the game. Doubling any mech's range of motion totally upsets the tactics of the battlefield. |
30. On 2009-03-10, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
The ability to run all the fuck over and steal objective after objective and not have to defend them is terrible. |
31. On 2009-03-10, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
PS: I have my build-plan for tonight. |
32. On 2009-03-10, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:
|
I have a highly risky strategy laid out! This will induce tummaches for sure! Darrin, that is brilliant and wonderful. |
33. On 2009-03-10, Darrin Bowers wrote:
|
The bone blades carried by the encounter suits are prepaired by immersing them in a heavy metal rich suspension which is then electrically polarised. This has the effect of filling all the empty space within the bone with a strong yet flexible alloy. The blade is then given a very thin coating of a by-phase carbide epoxy. When complete the new "Silver Sister" will cut through the hull of a smoke frieghter. This process takes months and is only done to honor the most highly decorated sisters who fell while administering "mercy." |
34. On 2009-03-10, Darrin Bowers wrote:
|
By the way, every time I see, or type "mercy" in quotation marks, I hear Roy Orbison's voice in my head. |
35. On 2009-03-10, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
Pics for the builds for tonight. |
36. On 2009-03-12, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:
|
Darrin, that's good color. I think it explains why the knives are so effective in general. |
37. On 2009-03-12, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
Ok, |
38. On 2009-03-12, Robert Bohl wrote:
|
Oops. My link is apparently fucked. Let's try again |
This comment thread has an RSS feed:
link http://www.lumpley.com/anyway_comments_rss.php?entry=422