|
drgnvale posted:There's an iOS version. I wonder how well it would play on an ipad. I haven't tried the actual game, but "modelling" can be a pain because my fat fingers don't hit the piece that I would like to move/change. Might be better with a stylus.
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
I haven't tried it yet either, but one of my larger my concerns is that zoom functionality will be less than it needs to be to allow you to use the ruler or anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Actually, when you pick up units and move them, the app measures for you.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Are we getting Twilight Kin and Northern Alliance soon? It looks like my Reaper frost giants will somehow get here before I can use them...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
As per Death Threaad, someone suggested Firefight over 40k 8th, 40k 2nd. I've recently tried Gates of Antares and was a bit underwhelmed. Can someone sell me Firefight?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
I'm playing it tomorrow, so hopefully I have more to say, but here's the basics: -Modern game design -To hit determined by attacker, to damage determined by defender modified by weapon of attacker -Objectives based on scenario and secret objectives of each force -Rational compromise between pure true line of sight and abstracted line of sight -Alternating activations (I move a unit, you move a unit, we alternate until all units moved) -Reasonable game size and model count -Interesting command structure allowing, but not guaranteeing, bonus moves and maneuvers -Finite number of upgrades (so every gun and item has a specific purpose and there aren't redundancies) -Informed by but not held back by 30 years of game design
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
OK, I'd be interested to hear how it pans out. There are precious few battle reports online. After the previous post I read the starter rules and watched a Batrep and things seem to die really, really easily. The BatRep I watched was a total massacre - every hit causing a pin, and every wound causing another (plus the bonus for suppressing fire) If your average squad size is 6, it only takes a few shots to whittle down your unit - at which point you've got suppression markers out the rear end, can't fight back and will soon be out of the fight. KoW units are squishy but they can soak up alot of damage (and reroll 'dying'). I'm somewhat torn that the game essentially seems to be based around pinning (which appears to be a darling mechanic these days, used by both TooFatLardies for most of their historical games and Warlord for BA/GoA) - chainswords and terminator armour is an unabashed power-fantasy so immediately getting bogged down feels kind of sad. What kind of points value would one expect to play a hour-long game at? The Asterian Starter Army is like 850pts, and the Veer Myn starter army is less than 400! EDIT: Just looked at my 2nd/3rd Edition 40k stuff and seen I have about 1k worth of Enforcers:  (the tanks and dread are long gone) - 5 Heavy enforcers with some extra poo poo I don't understand ((Space Hulk Terminators not pictured above)) - 3x 5 enforcers with missile launchers - 1x 5 assault enforcers - 1x captain Using the Antares Concord as Asterians, I also have around 1k of those two: - 4x 5 rifles cyphers with a force rifle - 1x weapon drone - 1x shield drone I guess that's enough to play, right? Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 15:02 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
1250 is the recommended game size and what we'll be playing tomorrow. That's 29 Forge Father models and 29 Enforcer models assuming I'm remembering right.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Alright, so I decided to put my poo poo together and play a small game, around 550pts: 2 squads Asterian Cyphers, Shield Drone and Weapon Drone, vs 2 Squads Enforcers, 1 Squad Assault Enforcers and a captain. The game went very smoothly - the Asterian shields (and the shield drone) made the first half a killing field for their rapid fire weapons with impunity, while the Enforcers moved up. As soon as they got into the shield bubbles however, they were able to lay down suppressing fire and follow up with some decisive combat. Overall, the game was AMAZINGLY fun - alot more fun than either Gates of Antares or Infinity. The latter is extremely deep but has so many layers to the rules that it's hard to keep straight, and the former seems to stumble along rather than flow. I have a few rules questions, because I ended up with some weird situations: - If you have a unit that has multiple weapons, they can fire separately and in any order. Does this mean that any squad with a heavy/special weapon can elect to shoot it as a separate 'fire group' at the same target, and therefore inflict an additional suppression marker if they hit? - The Shield Drone projects Shield(4) to any unit within 12". Shields aren't effective if the enemy leader is inside the shield radius. I take it, this means any unit that's benefitting from the projected shield has a 12" radius, rather than a 12" radius around the drone itself? - If one can use two short actions per turn, does that mean I can shoot and then move? - If the above is true, then it appears that 'charging' as I would normally understand it simply means moving into B2B, and a unit that moves into base to base immediately gets to fight an assault. Does this mean that a unit at say, 5" away from the enemy can shoot (typically at +1 to hit for close range), then move into base-to-base and initiate a round of close combat? - Suppressed units move at half speed, does this mean that the push-back by a winner in close combat is half speed (since the winner performs a 'move' action on the loser) The conclusion of the game was my Assault Enforcer squad running away without doing bugger all, then rallying only to get shot to pieces, my Captain single-handedly taking out a whole Cypher group and another Enforcer squad taking the second Cypher group out.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
I really need to try and play a game, I think I may just have enough stuff paintedSouthern Heel posted:- If you have a unit that has multiple weapons, they can fire separately and in any order. Does this mean that any squad with a heavy/special weapon can elect to shoot it as a separate 'fire group' at the same target, and therefore inflict an additional suppression marker if they hit? 1. By my reading of the rule, yes, and the way the Shield rule works further supports this, as it talks about getting the correct order when using split fire so that your weaker shots take out the shield, and you heavy weapons then lay into the now unshielded units. You 'may' select a second target for split fire, but you don't have to. 2. To me this means that if the attacking unit's leader is within 12" of the model with the shield projection rule ie the shield drone, then none of the units within 12" of the shield drone model receive the shield when being fired on by that unit. Think of it like the Gungan shields in Phantom Menace, once the battle droids stepped inside the shield they could shoot everything inside the bubble. 3. Yes, you can shoot, and then move 4. Yes, you can shoot, and then move into B2B and be in assault, it's risky but rewarding 5. I... don't actually know. Seems logical?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:1. By my reading of the rule, yes, and the way the Shield rule works further supports this, as it talks about getting the correct order when using split fire so that your weaker shots take out the shield, and you heavy weapons then lay into the now unshielded units. You 'may' select a second target for split fire, but you don't have to. Interesting, because it specifically doesn't mention suppression for multiple fire groups - rather that each target from 'a shoot action' should take a suppression token for a hit, and an additional one for a wound: Small rulebook p16 posted:The following things will add suppression tokens to a unit - place the tokens next to the unit as a reminder. Small rulebook p22 posted:.... Every target unit that takes more than one point of damage from the Shoot action each gain an additional suppression token. Having said all that I guess I'm thinking of GoA and CoC where pin markers are death - but the Enforcer Assault squad in my game ended up with eight suppression markers and two guys but when activated and 'recovered' (with Nerve 3), it managed to pass all but two rolls (and even then only fell back a few inches), then immediately lost 5 markers as a result. IOf course they got turned into porridge shortly afterwards, but they did recover enough to eat half a dozen noh rifle shots. NTRabbit posted:3. Yes, you can shoot, and then move Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Yeah that's the risky part, kind of like pulling off a flank charge in KoW by exposing your own flank, leaving you in a precarious position if the charge fails to rout, and you don't get your free pivot
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Looking at how the rule is written I can go either way, but I'll be playing it as one shoot action one suppression token even if there are multiple weapons from the same unit firing just because suppression seems so deadly. But for shields yeah that totally makes sense to destroy the shield with the weaker weapon before hitting it with the "second group".
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Probably a question worth putting to the RC on the mantic forums, for a definitive response or inclusion in a FAQ
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Looking at how the rule is written I can go either way, but I'll be playing it as one shoot action one suppression token even if there are multiple weapons from the same unit firing just because suppression seems so deadly. But for shields yeah that totally makes sense to destroy the shield with the weaker weapon before hitting it with the "second group". Hmmm... I thought it would be REALLY deadly. Historicals typically use markers like this as wounds - Lasalle has a limit of 4 per regiment, when it gets hit, that regiment is toast. CoC reduces shooting, movement, etc. and when doubled is wiped out, Gates of Antares the same as well as Black Powder and Pike and Shotte. In this game however if you have pin markers equal to your nerve, you're only getting a -1 to shoot/wound rolls, or -1 dice in assault. It's only when you get double that, that things start getting hairy (i.e. can't fight back in combat, will automatically be destroyed. However to recover this status takes only one long action. Even the worst Nerve in the game (2?) with say, 6 suppression markers could activate and would on average pass 2/6 recovery rolls and could choose to move back 4D4", then remove on average 4 pin markers. I think the "danger" of suppression is alot more strategic than unit-tactics - encircling enemy units so they can't fall back (and therefore get destroyed), sweeping into close combat and neck-stabbing them while they're gone to ground, etc. - it reminds me alot like the strategy in KoW and that makes me happy. Pls excuse the slight renames in the below, for the benefit of (hopefully) my opponent next time we game - it makes me really happy that this is realistically all the info one needs.  MOAR QUESTIONS! - Indirect Fire has an entry on ff.easyarmy.com but no equivalent rule note, nor is it in the mini rulebook. I will assume able to shoot over intervening terrain as long as friendly unit has LoS? It's attached to a Plasma Bombard which is pretty sick already with blast D6+2 and Suppressive Fire (2) , which is why I'm asking  - What does 'Robotic' infer? Again, no rules anywhere but it seems that the Asterian Cyphers get it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
It's poorly laid out, but the Robotic rule makes things immune to the Plague's infection rule (p. 135) 'Indirect fire' on the army lists, 'Indirect' in the special rule list - can shoot at things you can't see but take a -1 to hit (p. 62)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Excellent bro, thank you. I think I will tape a little battle report against myself later today, if my opponent doesn't show up.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Just played a 1250 point game, Enforcers versus Forge Fathers. I played the Enforcers. I was wiped out by turn 3, ha. This game is insanely deadly. Suppression definitely was more of a worry than a problem, kind of like Heat in Battletech. You don't want it to get out of control, but it's not that big of a deal. I still feel like if two different weapon profiles shoot at the same target then you haven't really divided the unit into groups and that's how we played it. My opponent had really only ever played 40k, so he struggled a bit with the alternating activations and was thrilled and confused by the lack of an armor save. By the end of it he was totally sold on the game though, so that's promising. I bought a deck of Objective cards. First I shuffled in the Forge Father objectives and had him draw three. Then I took out the Forge Fathers and put in the Enforcers and drew three of my own. I'm not sure that's exactly how it's supposed to work, but it was good enough. Ultimately it didn't matter because I got tabled, but we both loved the idea of secret objectives. The other thing is that we didn't do much with Command, I think mostly because we're just not super familiar with the rules in general and didn't know when it was appropriate to use it.      The only thing I can't get my head around is shadows. Given how deadly shooting is, I kind of get why a liberal interpretation of shadows is necessary, but the writing for them is pretty unclear. The examples they give are good, but in the examples everything is in perfectly straight lines.  Look at this example here. My Strider is behind the building. Now obviously anything exactly opposite that building wouldn't be able to see it at all. But what about those various Forge Father units. If there's just a blocked out shadow there, then I'm basically invisible to the Steel Warriors and the Stormrage Veterans, right? What about to the Iron Ancestor? And that building is 15" tall. That's a ridiculous amount of shadow. What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
I want to read that in more detail and will edit this response shortly, but I have another small rules question in the interim, specifically around Command. Is this interpretation correct? - Special rule "Command (x)" adds X dice to command pool - Units with the Command rule can give any number of orders (up to the total amount of available dice in the command pool) at the appropriate time, but only one order per unit per turn - Units with the Command rule can issue orders to a) the unit itself, b) any unit within 12", or c) any unit that shares the 'communication' special rule
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Just played a 1250 point game... I think it was the correct call to have one suppression marker for a hit from multiple fire groups, because suppression markers for hits are 'per shooting action' and fire-groups though rolling separately are 'the same shooting action'. I was very surprised at how quickly my mans died yesterday too, but then thinking about it - though the Asterians were essentially tabled, it was turn 4-5 i.e. the end of the game. I guess I'm used to Malifaux and Warmachine where basically nothing happens for ages and then suddenly someone loses. Malifaux has also given me a real distaste for objectives: trying to remember all that poo poo at the same time has having schemes, plots and a billion other things was infuriating. How did you find bearing them in mind while playing? I think I'm going to simply use the scenarios from the Operation Heracles book to get started: - Hold objective (most models in 8" cube in centre of board by the end of the game) - Dominate (five equidistant markers, person controlling (i.e. B2B with no enemies within 6") most wins - Ambush (pincer deployment, 'victim's commander must escape off opposite edge quote:The only thing I can't get my head around is shadows. Given how deadly shooting is, I kind of get why a liberal interpretation of shadows is necessary, but the writing for them is pretty unclear. The examples they give are good, but in the examples everything is in perfectly straight lines. If the target can be seen by the unit leader, it is eligible, then : - Everything can be seen through obstacles - Vehicles can see and be seen over small terrain - Building roofs and high ground allow you to see over everything, and be seen over everything - You can see into and out of defensible terrain, but not through Targets are in cover if: - They are behind an obstacle - They are inside defensible terrain In my opinion before the game, you and your opponent should have run through the scenery to define what is impassible, small, defensible and obstacle terrain. I would probably have defined the building there as impassable on the walls, and defensible in the segment between, like so:  Unit A has clear LoS and would recieve a cover bonus when being shot at by the Strider Unit B has its LoS completely blocked by Unit C Unit C has the leftmost dude with an open shot (i.e. separate fire group) and the other four (although my line is wonky) can draw an LoS to part of the Strider's base, so it would recieve a cover bonus. If you wanted to define the whole square (as I'm assuming you are?) as defensible terrain, then IMO it should be on a base to represent that, like so: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ted00pcsheU/T0fmcdOhCUI/AAAAAAAAAHg/gMTvnixfAbU/s1600/IMG_9370.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Hey guys, which sci-fi Mantic game is the skirmish one and which is the "massed battle" one? Is it respectively firefight and war path? Also what base sizes do they use for infantry/large infantry (mecha)?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Hey guys, which sci-fi Mantic game is the skirmish one and which is the "massed battle" one? Is it respectively firefight and war path? Also what base sizes do they use for infantry/large infantry (mecha)? Skirmish is Deadzone, Firefight is in the middle, Warpath is the massed battle one.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Hey guys, which sci-fi Mantic game is the skirmish one and which is the "massed battle" one? Is it respectively firefight and war path? Also what base sizes do they use for infantry/large infantry (mecha)? As above, plus the base sizes are 25mm for infantry, 40mm for large infantry, and 60mm for massive infantry/walkers
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:As above, plus the base sizes are 25mm for infantry, 40mm for large infantry, and 60mm for massive infantry/walkers With some caveats, but they're noted. Like the D.O.G. Drone is on a 40mm base even though it's regular infantry. And all of the bikes, Skyrazors, Valkyrs, etc are on 40mm based even though they're sometimes supplied with smaller ones because who reads rules and matches them to the product? "Shadow" is a specific term used in the Firefight rulebook. The basic idea is that all units and terrain cast a shadow equal to their height and a lighter shadow equal to double their height. The shadow is the width of the unit or terrain. If a unit is in the primary shadow, it is counted as being in blocking cover. If the unit is in the secondary shadow, it's counted as being in -1 cover. This is totally separate from classifications of blocking, defensible, or fortified. The problem is that we're not quite sure how far someone has to be to the side of a unit or piece of terrain to have a clear view or "be around" the shadow, so to speak. Or if we're reading the rule correctly at all.  I've added to the example with some boxes representing the primary shadow from two different directions. Clearly if someone is to the left flank of the Strider, the shadow would fall in the direction they're looking and they'd see it perfectly (the shadow and direction represented by orange). The Stormrage Veterans and Steel Warriors can both draw line of sight to the Strider, but it's in the shadow of the building from the front, so it should be invisible to them. Likewise, the Iron Ancestor should be invisible to the Strider and potentially vice versa despite clear line of sight. Our question is, is the correct interpretation of the rule? How far to the outside would a unit have to be to escape the shadow? As I said, applied liberally this might reduce the effectiveness of shooting and would make moving around terrain and angling incredibly important. Interpreted conservatively, such as only counting the shadow when you're immediately in front of the building and shooting over or through it, it means that sticking your head out just a little bit is incredibly risky as everything gets massacred in seconds. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that most games will end in tabling and not in VPs. As for your other question, we didn't really have a hard time juggling our objectives. His required him to have a commander survive and to keep me out of his deployment zone. I actually had to get into his deployment zone and grab some extra defensible terrain. So they complimented both the primary objectives and each other well enough. Having the objective cards was helpful because I could refer back to them. But objectives are really the kind of thing you only worry about near the end of the game when you need to be in position to score and aren't such a big deal on turn 2 or if you get tabled. Edit: I screwed up the width of the orange box. Atlas Hugged fucked around with this message at 15:35 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Holy poo poo  How did anyone think this was a good system for a tabletop wargame? It's like someone played too many video games and thought getting players to crunch a raycasting alg in their head was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Bad models, bad rules, bad distribution system, how does anybody play this game again?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:Holy poo poo Right, it's the one thing in the rules that makes me scratch my head and makes me feel like the writer had a clear idea but just didn't know how to convey it properly. In the examples given, it's all very reasonable.   Here are the two example pictures provided in the book. In the first, the concept is straightforward. Even though the Enforcers are above the Cyphers, because they're right up against the crate they're still hidden from view. The Marionettes are more or less out in the open, but they're getting a bit of cover from the intervening terrain. But as I said, it's a straight on example. In the second, it's basically saying that a unit can't shoot through a unit at different unit that's the same height as the one in front, but it can at the one in the back. The text says that the Strider can be shot at because of its height, but still receives cover for being in the shadow. The actual math side of it is pretty simple. It's either "can't shoot it" or -1, but determining which, if either or neither, applies is pretty ridiculous. And then you have the issue of how big the shadow is. Height and 2xheight are insane if the structure is a multistory building like the one we were using. It's a non-issue when it's only a small building since to be in the shadow you basically have to be right up against it and therefore blocked from line of sight. Part of me thinks he was just trying to be "technical" about writing it and attempting to leave out ambiguity by defining everything as clearly as possible, but in this case it's been over-written and seems absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
You have to draw LOS over the terrain for the shadow to come into effect, so the Iron Ancestory shooting at the Strider has no issues, as there's no obstructed LOS.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:You have to draw LOS over the terrain for the shadow to come into effect, so the Iron Ancestory shooting at the Strider has no issues, as there's no obstructed LOS. See this makes more sense and I figured it was me reading it wrong. So the shadows exist to either block line of sight to units behind other units or to block line of sight or provide cover when there are multiple height levels involved, right? If that's the case then I don't think either of the two squads are affected either since they can draw line of sight without touching the terrain. Oh and I forgot to mention that one squad moved in front of the other squad after that squad had already activated and shot. They weren't trying to shoot through each other.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Played another game, I recorded it and did a bit of chopping for youtube but it's going to take over an hour to render.panascope posted:Bad models, bad rules, bad distribution system, how does anybody play this game again? I actually really enjoy the game, it reminds me alot of how I wished 40k would have played when I was a kid. I've superimposed alot of RT/2nd-Edition stuff ontop of the framework and it really does work nicely - the weapon styles and troop profiles feel to me like an alternate-universe Rogue Trader. TBH I do the same with Kings of War, using liberal multi-basing and 3rd party miniatures to make it work for me, and maybe that's why I like it - 40k was never as fun as soon as it started taking itself overly seriously IMO and I couldn't give half a poo poo about tournament play. Atlas Hugged posted:See this makes more sense and I figured it was me reading it wrong. So the shadows exist to either block line of sight to units behind other units or to block line of sight or provide cover when there are multiple height levels involved, right? From my quick skim of the full rules it appears the shadow only applies when shooting between various elevations. i.e. a unit on a hill can't see can't see units directly behind a shipping container opposite. and doesn't apply to shooting that occurs at the same level.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:From my quick skim of the full rules it appears the shadow only applies when shooting between various elevations. i.e. a unit on a hill can't see can't see units directly behind a shipping container opposite. and doesn't apply to shooting that occurs at the same level. I'd agree with this except for the second example they give. All of that stuff is on the same level.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
A unit on a hill is the same thing as a unit that's just that high, so a height 1 unit on a height 2 hill works the same as a hight 3 unit.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Terrain kickstarter just ended, clocked in ~$629,000. While the pieces won't be the same hard plastic as the Dungeon Saga doors, they will be the same material as the Walking Dead cars and scenery. Want those little tents and some tavern furniture.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Glad I didn't back it then, the barricades were good, but the cars were seriously low quality. Like $1 dollar store toy car grab bag quality.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:A unit on a hill is the same thing as a unit that's just that high, so a height 1 unit on a height 2 hill works the same as a hight 3 unit. Yes, and? In the second example it's all units of the same height on the same level except for the Strider. Your explanation makes sense, but I still say its over written. It's not like Mantic has never written cover and height rules before. It feels out of place when everything else in the book is so smooth.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Glad I didn't back it then, the barricades were good, but the cars were seriously low quality. Like $1 dollar store toy car grab bag quality. At least, looking at the math as a Canadian, once shipping and customs gets added on top they're so close to the same price it doesn't justify putting down money a year in advance.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
I guess what I'm getting at is that I like MasterSlowPoke's explanation, but the issue is one of economy of words and perceived importance in the text. There are a lot of words and picture examples with explanatory text dedicated to Shadows. If they really just boil down to, "Units can't shoot through other units unless the target unit is taller than the unit in front," and, "If you are above a unit behind blocking terrain, you still can't see them if they are within the height of the blocking terrain and in cover if within twice the height." So if that's really all Shadow is doing, then I have to wonder why so much real estate is dedicated to explaining the concept.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Wow, so I was about to post here about the lovely Firefight Digital edition (the PDF has no bookmarks, the App doesn't work anymore and the ePub is garbled) - but I've recieved a full refund after requesting one with no questions asked, and I can 'keep' the digital editions. Not bad at all! Anywayl, I winged the Firefight Command rules in my little demo game and got it a bit wrong. Honestly I'm not sure I like the way it's written, there is too much going on simultaneously - - Units with command (x) contributes (x) dice to the pool for the army - Units with command (x) can only give orders of difficulty up to (x) - To order successfully give an order, one must roll on order dice equal to, or above the difficulty requirement. - You can elect to use as many dice from the pool as required to meet the difficulty requirement. - If the result of the dice is equal to, or above the difficulty then the order is carried out. - Any dice that have the '+' note on the face are returned to your hand.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Wow, so I was about to post here about the lovely Firefight Digital edition (the PDF has no bookmarks, the App doesn't work anymore and the ePub is garbled) - but I've recieved a full refund after requesting one with no questions asked, and I can 'keep' the digital editions. Not bad at all! The Command stuff doesn't bother me at all yet. But mostly we just sort of forgot that it was there. It's definitely tertiary to the core experience of the game but I think it will be fine once I've got the basics down and I don't have to keep referencing every little thing and I can actually just think about winning. Also nice to hear that Mantic just issued a full refund when you weren't happy with the product.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Interesting. You're right that honestly it was the only thing that wasn't very inuitive (shadow question not withstanding). In my battle report, I printed off a QRS I made, but the game flowed so well (bearing in mind it was only my second time playing), I didn't refer to it at all. The only confusion was really around the command thing, and whether when Unit A assaults unactivated Unit B and fights assault, whether Unit B counts as being activated for that turn (it does). Here's the QRS I bodged up, very happy for us to work on it together: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13r0bgHqA3NaMW9hCmuzQRblqw7mO4Hjvj6FZKpTcj1U/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 15:53
|
|