|
|
|
Fantasy
Flight Games Forum Message started by PsiComa on 03/15/07 at 14:43:21 |
|
|
|
Title:
The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Reserved for updates etc. I've again added some things for the final version of this. Always some small things that keep popping up after tens of more games. Well, at least it's playtested and sweet. -Im about to rewrite the out-dated rant on this thread. When I get time. Read the sheets instead. v.2.7 is uploaded, mostly editing improvements, but also some clarifications. Thanks to GMO once again. |
|
|
|
Title:
1 The Shattered Ascension files v2.7 They are very large to view on screen, but for best print quality. 1 Main Page (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3626/1ascensionsettingcopydu6.jpg). 2 Rule mods (1/2) (http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1319/2ascensionrulemods1copyrv9.jpg). 3 Rule mods (2/2) (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2121/3ascensionrulemods2copyld9.jpg). 4 Final Conventions (http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5471/4finalconventionscopyjt6.jpg). 5 The Simultaneous Action system (http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9939/5simuactionsystem22copyxm8.jpg). 6 Updated Technology Tree (http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8591/6updatedtechtreeqs6.jpg). 7 2-Player Battles (http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/8405/72playergamescopyaz4.jpg). Updated Technology Tree (colors. Looks neat on photo paper) (http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7697/6updatedtechtreecopyey7.jpg ). These are LINKS!!. People seem to have been missing that. NOTE: the addon-sheet with real-size print dimensions, including the Prospect strategy card, was too large to fit into any free hosting sites. PM me if you want it by mail. I'll find a way to host it ASAP, or part it into smaller pieces http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=racecardsolascensiontm2.jpg A race sheets with correct numbers, even included mines and 2 cost PDS (this one's not realsize). PS; Short note on conventional use in these rules. When I write for example "Saar Floating Factories: text" that is, with a colon, the entire original text is changed. If I write ALSO, it's in addition. INSTEAD means the following part of the card only is changed. |
|
|
|
Title:
2 Ascendancy: SE, v1.00. With FAQ 2.0 A few opening words... Some 14 months ago (feels like forever), when I still was green and wet behind the ears, I posted my rule-set and gamesetting named Ti3: "Ascendancy". The purpose of this version was to fix many of the vanilla game's errors we discovered after suprisingly few games. This was seemingly a result of lack of playtesting, and sometimes hasty design. Ti3 was so beautiful and brilliant, yet so hopelessly flawed on some very critical points, that actually was close to ruining it). Without alot of dedication and varianting, it would probably collect dust on the shelf in some time. But I loved the basics, the idea, the looks, the flavor, and the mechanics simply too much to let that happen. Dedication it got, like no other board game before it. Me (and my group) designed the Ascendancy-setting, featuring a Bureaucracy-like Imperial variant, a Diplomacy II-like house-rule, created objectives similar to those found in Shattered Empire, among other things. Our simple ruleset all in all improved the gaming experience by many levels. We made a major overhaul on the broken unit balance, while changing as few of the numbers on the race-sheets as possible (we want to use the nice race-sheets, and be able to play with new players without confusing them with too much changes from the printed text). Some people on the forums argued that the original units were not unbalanced, because whatever stats applied to everyone. While it is true that it doesn't favor a certain player, they have missed the point; What I mean when Im saying unbalanced, is that you have and get something you MUST do to win, regardless of situation. If a strategy or unit or whatever is so powerful that you simply hogg them becuase it's the only way to victory, the game starts to lose strategical choices. The depth of the tactical game, how intruiging/interesting it is, is heavy influenced by the choices and different tacticts you may choose to go for. You as a player, must analyse the situation and make the right decisions, not have them given to you in the no-brainer way. This is what games is all about, and it's important to keep this aspect. Naturally, I was happy to see that SE adressed so many of the issues that followed from the vanilla game, and on many ways seemed to agree with the changes in 'Ascendancy'. The new strategy cards are very refreshing, and the new tech tree with the ADT/DSC branching is no less than a brilliant solution. Such a simple and elegant fix changed the game alot. SE simply fueled life into a game; In addition to being an expansion with alot of interesting and flavorful features it was a really necessary patch. Yet, as they say, it's always room for improvement, as many smart minds on the FFG board has proved. Hours of discussion upon this board and playing the game again, and again and again, has revealed to me what can be done to further enchance this game, which is still, quite a few things. Remember, a game-designer, no matter how ingenious, have to meet a deadline while us players whom are continously playing it will sooner or later see where the bumps are. I hope that the few papers I'm about to post addresses many of these. To me a good ruleset is important. In addition to a clever base-mechanic, there are some magic words we have to pay attention to. Simple, Intuitive, Effective, Consise, and Without Unesessary Restrictions. The more general a system can be without specialty rules the better. Then the thematics is equally important. In a highly thematic simulating game such as this, it's important that the rules describes what's happening; the rules should never oppose logic in any way. The designer has clearly been inspired by the so called euro-games, but in a game like ti3, too much meta-game tactics may ruin the thematics/logics and thereby the overall feeling the game needs and actually aims for. You want to feel that you're controlling a strategical galactic war, not riding a bunch of numbers through unlogical rules. This is all things we have payed attention to; when creating a rule-modification, I make sure it 1) Have a positive effect on the mechanical game 2) Are conceptually correct and gives flavor 3) Do not close down options, but create new possibilities. |
|
|
|
Title:
3 About this variant rule-set: The rule-set is basically an SE update of the Ascendancy-setting. SE naturally made the first version completely obsolete, and we had to rewrite the entire thing. There are many more hours of thinking, calculating and playtesting for this updated version than existed for the first one, and altogether a much better rule-set in every way. So it's not only an SE-compitable version of the first rule-set, but a new and better with more experience behind it. So instead of calling it Ascendancy: SE, I've renamed it, but to something that may hint it being along the same lines: Shattered Ascension. A similar word with a different meaning, which immediately indicates that you need the expansion to use it. I must stress again that this is not a list of house rules, but a variant rule-set. Most of the rule-mods on the list are counter-balanced and complimentary to another. Of course it will be possible to pull out just some of these rules, but make sure to remove every rule that changes that part of the balance scenery. All in all, I was meaning to make the rules more or less 'as it should be', in the sense that I've taken great care in keeping the original 'feel' of the game, and stayed faithful to the original box in that way. This is important to me as well, to not introduce too much "new things" to the game, that in many cases feels strange. The set of rules written are mere adjustments, hardly major modifications. I've said that nothing is perfect, and naturally this could neither be. All of this are still subject to change, and I'm looking foreward to hear the feedback from the forums, and discuss these changes. Some of them might seem radical at first glance, but rest assured that we have worked the maths here and playtested it equally much. I will now write a few lines on each rule modification on my list and explain the thoughts and reason behind each of them, but will be happy to discuss them further, or take suggestions! :-) Speaking of which, let me thank everyone on the board for great insight, suggestions, comments and criticisms. Many of the things I've included has been taken from the board, and my credit to you! |
|
|
|
Title:
4 About the specific rule-modifications: Ascension ruleset follows strictly the FAQ 2.0 rules, except what is listed below. *out-dated* (this will have to be re-written, as this belongs to a many versions old rule-set. However, the basic idea is of course there) GENERAL *Just before refreshing planets in the Status Phase, all players may produce Trade goods from Resources at a 2:1 ratio (round down). This is one of the first rules we introduced, which has survived every rewriting to this day. This one in particular are more for logics than anything else, but opens new options; For example, a race with a strong economy and plenty of resources should be more than able to offer something to other races wihtout being in so called trade agreements.You still produce useful things, right? Resources and Trade goods undeniably have a connection, and this makes up for it. Further, resources are seperated by a time limit called Round, so it's practically impossible for a 4-resource empire to build, say, a Dreadnought. Since resources is a value per time, more time should yield resources enough to build something worth more resources. Thus, if you want the Dreadnought, you can spare two resources to keep an additional TG the following round. Thereby you afford your DN after all, with waste of time and some resources. Finally, this especially helps out Letnev and their painful TG-requiring ability, since they can substitute a bad trade-situation with some of their production power. All in all, our group has after many games taken a liking to this mechanic, since it seems to completes the "picture". *Any type of cargo may be picked up from any non-activated (or active) system. This is a sentence with more information in it than it seems like at first glance. It's a totally general cargo-pickup system that is ONLY restricted by activation counters (locked systems). First of all, it doesn't make a difference if the cargo is fighters or GF. The few times you have GF in ships and not on planets are not worth setting down a restriction that leads to extra rules along with lame micro-management. Cargo should simply be considered Cargo, and work the same way if they are on ships or planets. Corey said that this was because of the ruling that a "carrier can only unload during the 'planetary landings' sequence", but I suspect that this strictly applies to the active carrier. Corey also implied that this rule will be taken into a second consideration when I inquired about it. Moreso, it makes it possible to pickup units from enemy systems as well, as long as they are unactivated. Think about how this actually affects the game before you say wtf?! Remember that your fleet may never pass through an enemy fleet anyway, without either some kind of stealth technology, or with a diplomat with permission by the enemy. What if your enemy is bombing your planets, and you make a deal to pull the GF and maybe a stranded Leader out of there. Wouldn't it be reasonable that you could go into the system with your diplomat, pick up the troops and leave, granted you had permission? Or if you have the needed stealth technology to pass enemy ships, why not swap up some GF pods on the way? Purely mechanical, light/wave deflector needs a more everyday-use than it has now. Another scenario is when a single enemy ship is guarding a double system with one friendly planet and one hostile. How is the single ship going to stop your carriers from picking up GF from your planet when it's blown to bits by your 10 fighters and 6 cruisers? It shouldn't be able to. In the case it was an equally strong fleet in the sector, you as a player must make the decision if it's worth the risk; If you pick up your GF you will risk to lose them together with your fleet, if the battle goes wrong. Thus the blockading power is proportional with the defending fleet, and YOU must calculate the odds and make decision, rather to have to only possible choice thrown in your lap. This is a perfect example of how lifting a few unecessary restrictions may open for new interesting moves, and make a simpler and more consise ruleset. Remember the magic words ;) *Political Cards may not be traded for TG. Instead, 2 Political Cards may any time be exhanged for a new. This is the real blunder in the otherwise fantastic SE rule-set. You see clearly that the thought behind this is to stop the inflation of political cards; you recieve more than you normally use, and the game needs a "drain". Too bad that it hurts the political game, brings more unwanted resources to the board, and feels wrong on the same time. The political game is so undure that it shouldn't cost you an effective TG to play the card. Moreso, if you sit with a bad PC on your hand, it's alot worse than having none. You will hurt yourself if the agenda is ill for you, in addition to effectively lose a TG. The point of starting out with the 2 PC's is obviously to have some interesting agendas to choose from at the very beginning, but first round TG's are so important that in 98% of the cases, these will simply be spent as resources to buy ships. This is a clearly unecessary rule that does't provide the game anything at all. I rather think a player should be able to use their useless agendas to seek the agenda they want, by exhanging 2 for 1 new at any time. This keeps the lifeforce of the political game to seep out u |
|
|
|
Title:
5 *All pre-combat shots are considered to go off simultaneously, but Barrage hits must be assigned first. Why doesn't all pre-combat shots go off simultaneously as a single (pre)combat round? Why do we need to spend extra time on choosing from the list of combat abilities, in a game that suffer from long playtime? Why do the defender gets to choose in a game that suffers from turtling? Why does the defender gets to choose when there are no other similar mechanics in the game? Why does this feel so vere artificial? I won't say much more on this, other than that I can't imagine a single reason why all pre-shots should't be treated as simultaneous events, JUST LIKE other combat rounds. *A Home System is only considered as such if the race of origin controls it. This is back to a principle. There's a reason why home-systems in many cases are prohibited targets. To give an invading player the same home-system "rule-shield" as the orginal player, is to me, quite bollox. For example, shouldn't Local unrest be ESPECIALLY imminent at invaded homesystems? *Control of a system for other than self-presenting objectives is simply a system in which ONLY you control planets OR units.. Since WarfareII secondary and Naalu Mindweapon are changed in this game, this rule has impact on only Xxcha Diplomats and Diplomacy Secondary. Historically speaking, the original game had no definition of 'control' for other than the Objectives which explained the terms themselves on the card. It was the designer of Shattered Empire that took this control term in use as a peculiar game mechanical condition. Suddenly abilities were working or not working dependant on how your units by chance were aligned. For example, the Naalu Mind-weapon I would believe is a collective force emanating from planets or whatever, but it seems a single ship fleet could use it. This was of course, if it didn't exist a neutral planet somewhere out there in space.. Further, a planet could not use this ability if you happened to not have a destroyer in the sector. This felt too synthetical and unlogical to me and my group, so we reworded the entire definition of 'control' and altered Naalu Mind-Weapon. |
|
|
|
Title:
6 RACES This is one of the categories I've allowed myself to do very little change upon. If a race is overall a little more powerful than another is no big deal, and yet diffiicult to prove. And more important, I want to keep the races as playable as possible with new gamers that will read the race-sheets. For my part as well, I would consider it really hard before I changed any numbers on them! The only race I would really rework, due to lack of both balance and theme, is the Yssaril. But that will have to be included in the next version. I'm trying to give hem as much personality and balance as possible with as few changes possible. *Mentak Salvage Operations may target a Warsun, but it will default to a movement of 1 without the proper technology. Salvage operations yields only 1 TG from lost Space Battles. Salvage operations and warsuns is very self-limiting thing (first you actually have to destroy the beast, then pay for it!) and things that is already impossible to abuse generally doesn't need any unnecessary restrictions (I seem to like this word and will use it alot). It only takes away what could be the greatest and coolest feat ever; to hijack a warsun, even without the technology. The issue with this would arise if Mentak captured a Muaat Warsun with 1 movement. Then simply say that without the tech, the hijacked warsun will always have 1 movement. In this case you DO get punished already for not hsaving the tech, but it's still possible to cruise around with a limit to it. Having the Mentak recieve only one TG from lost space battles is a logical rule (not as easy to collect scrap when the enemy is shooting at you, is it?), that slightly counter-balances their new perks of stealing and the freshed up cruiser unit. *Norr Berzerker Genome automatically inflicts 1 casualty after any combat-round, if Norr has inflicted hit this combat-round. N'orr is a slow starting race which needed all help they could get from the racial tech. But it was surprisingly weak, and on top of that, time-cosuming and tiresome with multiple dice-rolls. So when we first had to re-word this ability, we could just as well go for another approach; N'orr sincerely needs a no-random ability, since their only orignal ability, +1, is based on chance. A quick, clean fix is what you see above. The enemies of N'orr now knows that if they're going to fight them, they need to go in and finish the job quickly before the rageous bugs swarms them. Easy to handle with a good theme. UNITS *Facilities can only be buildt on unexhausted planets, which is immediately exhausted, in addition to the cost. Facilities, facilities.... The negative thing with this feature out-of-the-box, was the following. Refineries were such a good buy that players had no choice but to hogg them. If you didn't buy them, your neighbors would soon have your "part" of refineries. Thus everyone bought them. This did not expand the game's strategical choices, it was just an addition to things that 'must be done'. The result of this were an additional influx of resources to the board, but with no particular advantage to anyone, other than who was lucky to get them before the pile went dry. Let me emphasize once more how MORE resources hurts this game. They are already overabundant, sometimes leaving you to "waste resources in the best possible way", instead of the agony of decision of what to proritize. A game needs this element! Remove the gameoption alltogether? Nah, the cards are too flavorful to scrap.. But it will have to be an investment you must analyze and decide if will help you out in the long run. And in most cases, using this rule, it still does. It's short term resources VS more long term, including increased production capacity. (Just a thought: Since this rule is so harsh on good planets, it's tempting to say ANY planet and let them be buildt in home-systems as well. Else it would collide with the fact that 'a home system is a home system only to the race of origin'. It would be strange if your neighbor could build facilities on your planet and not yourself. So, allow building in home systems? Would this be another must-build, even though you must exhaust the planets? I will keep this from being possible in the current version, but will look into it in the future). |
|
|
|
Title:
7 UNITS Let me list the three next rule-modifications in one go *Dreadnoughts roll 2 dice in Space Combat, has 'free bombardment', and counts as 2 for Production Capacity. *Warsuns may use x2 Sustain damage (apply hit-markers), and counts as 3 for Production Capacity. *Any unit using the Sustain damage ability immediately loses one Combat die, to a minimum of 1. These three rules are a natural followup from the ancient analysis that the dread simply is too weak, despite it's abilities. It's described as an unmatched, awesome weapons platform with massive weaponry, so where is the two-dice ship among all the one-dice ship and the three-dice warsun? For the cost on top of the slow movement, the DN unit needed more strength to compete on a general basis. However, increasing the strength of the Dreadnought by doubling its damage-projection, quickly made it very effective to "spam" it in quick defence (where it didn't suffer from speed) at your production centers, if you had enough resources. To limit this, we introduced a new concept, the Large Scale Production, which applies to Dreadnoughts and Warsuns only. Dreads count as 2 units for production purposes, and warsuns count as 3. Being well in theme for these units, this also fixed the "issue", and added a nice twist to unit-building. But after SE, when fighters lost their dominion, it was clear that a pure 2-dice dreadnought was a slight step TOO powerful. They were still slow, but TypeIV drive became a hogger. We decided to reduce one die from the combat-roll if units were damaged, which is both logical and reasonable, and placed the Dread on a perfect powerlevel on the ladder: Being scary, but not unbeatable. In addition, you now have to decide and valuate before you take hits on the DNs. Sure, they can repair the damage, but you will lose temporary firepower. What will benefit you the most in the long run depends on the situation. It requires some foresight and tactical mastery. Free bombardment means that an invasion needs not take place to bombard a planet. This is an unecessary restriction for this slow unit. It has only 1 bombardment die, and is completely blocked by a single PDS. Why add additional rules to enforce something that is both unlogical, no fun, all when the DN bombardment already is as weak as it is? BAD decision, designers! As for the change these rules do the the warsun; This is in fact not to balance the Warsun, which seems fine from the box. With the stronger dreads, War Suns naturally becomes a little less dominant, and can take a marginal beef. It was simply to make the rule-set cleaner and more general, in addition to some very cool gains. First of, it's easy to remember: Dreadnought: 2 combat dice, 2 hull, 2 production usage Warsun: 3 combat dice, 3 hull. 3 production usage You're constantly reminded of their huge size, and it gives personality to the units. A warsun that takes 3 hits when a dread takes 2 seems only reasonable. This actually works, because according to calculations, a 3 hit warsun that loses dice on hits seems almost just as powerful as the original in combat, but have more tactical gains (counter balanced by strong dreads). IOW this don't ruin any unit-balance. It may be weaker in some battles if you need to suffer a hit while holding on to the full firepower, but the fact that it can repair TWO points of damage every round can really make a venturing fleet survive, if used properly So again, as with the DN, the magic lies in your timing of when to take hits on the hull. The simplicity and flavor this part of the rule-set brings is enough to make a modification for my part, but if you want to use an original warsun, that's no problem either. Read the new effect of Nano-tech before deciding, though! Clarification: A direct hit used on a warsun will immediately destroy it, not only inflict a damage. Accordingly, it is completely repaired when it is repaired. |
|
|
|
Title:
8 Now, let me introduce the mod that connects the dots of the entire unit balance: *Assualt Cannons are applied to Cruisers as well (but these do not recieve bonus from Hylar V making this roll, see below Alright, where to begin. This isn't just about cruisers, but does something to the entire unit balance in the game. Fighters are without argument the strongest unit, if not countered by the Destroyer, which is the other 'titan' in the game. The Destroyer is an extremely effective ship per cost (without ADT even). In fact, a single plain Destroyer is more powerful than a single cruiser, if there are atleast 1 enemy fighter in the battle (which is often). On top of this, ADT was introduced to the game, which shifted the scene completely. When Destroyers can eat Fighters in the way possible with ADT, and destroyers still being cost effective against any other ship, the balance was on the edge: Once more it seemed like we had a must-build fleet Destroyers and a few dreads, that could beat trash fighters, and fight on par with anything. We needed a ship that was truly cost effective against the Destroyer to complete the circle. Assualt cannoned Cruisers were the answer. The cruisers becomes great for precision strikes, and it's plain cool. Cruiser assualt cannons ain't as heavy as the Dread-version, though. 5 cruisers will have 2 expected kills pre-combat. Against fighters this is nothing, but against destroyers, it rules completely. Fleet building will be alot more intruiging when there's a true scissor-paper-rock relation hidden in the picture! But the best part is that Cruisers are again inside the combat-map, and it almost feels like having a new unit in the game. That is, besides the old one that could drop GF's and nuts mines and that's about it it could do. Now it's time to send these ships into precision strikes against small fleets and take out opposition without being hit, thereby safely land carried Ground Forces using Stasis, for instance. It's very fun to play mentak when you can rely on cruisers some more than before. Assualt cannons is of course in addition to the mentak pre-shot ability, so two of their cruiser gets 0.9 expected hits before battle.. This is Mentak at it's pimped up version! However, since Assualt cannons is so far from TypeIV drive on the tech tree, you will have to choose speed or guns. After playtesting this, I STILL feel that the blue-tech cruiser might be a little better. But all in all, it makes the red tech-tree more tempting, and it's nothing wrong with this as the game is now. In fact, it's sorely needed. You gotta try it to feel it. Such a fix balanced out the Graviton PDS grid and the overpowered ADT destroyers as well, so we stand with a general rule here (per version 2.6). *Weapon technologies may not be combined to enhance die rolls. Only one such technology can be used at any one time. Weapon Technologies includes the following -Hylar V Laser -Automated Defense Turrets -Deep Space Cannon -Graviton Laser -Assual Cannons So, what does this mean? First of all, it means that Cruisers firing Assualt Cannons does not receive +1 from Hylar laser. Originally, this was because their hit at 7 were about perfect where 6 could become too strong. Besides, it was logical. Assualt cannons is simply another weaponry than that laser! Then after severe amounts of playtesting, we found that killer PDS grids with Deep Space Cannon and Graviton Laser was just too much. The tactic was such a killer, with no counterpoints, in addition to making the game more turtling/static. So we decided to nerf it... The best solution seemed to be that Graviton Laser could not re-roll DEEP SPACE PDS rolls. Graviton could be thought of as a powerful short range weaponry. Then, it was one feeling left. With all the laws, the new sdtrategy cards and ADT, fighters was almost hit a little TOO hard. Simply because destroyers are a very good buy either if the opponent has fighters or not, destroyers were always present and fighters was just a silly tactic in the end. So, we wanted to wee bit nerf on Automated Defense Turrets, wich is now also a good pre-req for our pimped Assualt Cannons. So what was easier than to say that you don't get Hylar V bonus in addition when you fire the Automated Defense Turrets? Again, it's the same. ADT is an independent weaponry and you use that tech INSTEAD of Hylar V when rolling barrages. Thus a destroyer with Hylar would barrage 2 dice @ 8+ while an ADT destroyer shoots 3 dice @ 7+ . This felt very right to us. Add these three together, and we were so lucky to get a completely general rule. Weapon techs cannot be combined. |
|
|
|
Title:
9 *Microtechnology also allows a player to produce Trade Goods using Influence instead of Resources. Just a small curiosity that has survived from the old days. Since you can spend TG as influence, why not give an otherwise usless tech the ability to reverse that relation? A tech that costs resources should yield much more points back than it costs. Besides, if your empire boasts alot of influence but little income of resources, you know which tech to go for. It seems to work, feels okay and we just simply use it. No big deal, though, whether you use it or not. *Fleet Logistics instead yields the following ability, once per round: As an action, pay one CC from your Strategy Allocation to remove one of your Activation-counters on the board. Discard the counter Fleet logistics as written was neither a very exciting or useful tech; It's good for those few times you need it, but on every use you will simply lose stalling power, which is very important in this game. We thought about letting one CC come from your reinforcements, but decided against it. First off, the game doesn't need more CC-saving things, it's lots of CC around at this point in late-game; it needs ways of actually SPENDING CC's to do extraordinary things in the grand finale. And IMO, a high-end tech such as Fleet Logistics should be exciting and hard-hitting, not a utility. The final result was a mini-version of Warfare I. For the cost of a Strategy (already seen with Transit Diodes), you can scrap an activation counter on the board and ready your fleet to another flight (SD's in unlocked systems must be turned on the side for the rest of the round, to make sure this tech doesn't double production). I actually think this ability fits a tech better than a strategy in the first place, minding the thematics.. Anyway, unlocking is back in the game, so be ready! *Integrated Economy allows any controlled planet to produce units during the Produce Units sequence of a tactical action, with production capacity equal to its Resource value. This is instead of the original ability. Also, you may relocate CC's at the end of each turn. This is not the most important of fixes, I just found this to feel 'cleaner' and more intruiging to use than the original. Thematically, your empire has an effective flow of industry, resources and administration, and every planet works together with small production capacities. It's cool, and opens for loads of new tactics and sleek uses. Filling up your carriers on the move, building units at your new-conquered terrain etc. Thee CC side of this tech is a strategical wonder to use STRATEGIES *Bureaucracy: The active player may look at 3 Public Objective cards and choose which one going to the board. The other cards goes to the bottom of the deck. If stage 2 is initiated, only 2 cards are drawn. Bureaucracy is simply sweet. Somewhat situational, but game-winning powerful if used right. However, it's not so powerful it can't take a marginal improvement. I think even more focus should be set on this side of the ability in particular: the ability to pull the game in a wanted direction, without giving you direct benefits. That's the coolest aspect of it, so let's enhance it further! Instead of placing the unpicked card on the top of the pile, you place them on the bottom. Thereby you choose WHICH objectives coming up as well, not only the order of which they appear. This is possible because with this setting, you don't pre-make objectives decks. Keep the different stages in different piles and simply add them to the board when choosed. Why waste time on making objective decks when you have a war to fight? Another important thing with this (along with the 3 PO's face up at the beginning), is simply that Beuraucracy could actually be a good pick the first rounds. This makes it all work. *Assembly: A Voice of the Council election takes 1 CC from your Strategic Allocation to call . The elected gains +5 votes at all times in addition to the objective. A player chosen to play an Agenda always have the choice of drawing one random from the pile instead of his hand First off, Voice of the council have to yield something more than a VP, else it will be totally obsolete at the first 80% of the game, where at the end, it will automaticly go to the lagging player. It seems incomplete to me, but sounds like something that could get a cool twist. Purely thematical, it seems to lack a bonus of votes. And a few bonus votes is actually mostly what it needs to make a difference to the game. Being the Voice the game through will then give you a small ongoing advantage, and actually make it a little more difficult to kick you down from the throne, since you may naturally use the bonus votes to vote for youself as VotC. VotC may be a powerful strategy, but well costed and easily spoiled. Plan well ahead before attempting something! Another wierd thing with the original VotC, is that it costs nothing to call an election. This results in that none bothers calling for it, cause it's clear that it will simply bounce back and forth anyway, taking only time from the game. At the cost of a CC together with the sweet +5 bonus, the VotC gets an interesting factor About the agenda. As discussed earlier, it should never ever be worse to have 1 bad political card at your hand than none at all. If anyone should be allowed to pick a random card, everyone shou |
|
|
|
Title:
10 *Warfare II secondary, Reinforce: Pay one CC from your Strategy Allocation to move up to two units from an unactivated system to any adjacent system that does not contain enemy ships. This is simply a rewording necessary because of rewording of the 'control' term. Simply demand that there are no enemy ships in the adjacent system, and make the movement. This opens for the possibility of reinforcing an activated system as well. But in general, it's more useful to move to an unactivated space than an activated, so let's set down an unecessary restriction here. Its called Reinforcements, after all. ACTION CARDS/AGENDAS *Friendly fire: During this combat round, opposing Fighters will inflict a hit on their own forces at natural rolls of 1 through 3. Play: Just before a combat-round begins. Fighters were clearly overpowered in the Vanilla game, but it seems that SE takes the nerfing bat a little too far. It's neat with a production gimping strategy set and ADT turrests, but a single action card that wipes half of you fighter-swarm before even the battle begins is very uncool and worse than Direct hit ever was, IMO. This happens before combat, before you have any choice at all. This is stupid, both in balance, game-mechanic and in flavor. Why did half of your fighters die before they even begun to shoot enemies? This isn't about friendly friendly fire is it, but about enemy sympathizing saboteurs? Stupid. Nerf the card to what is suggested above. To lose half your fleet on a single card is wanky and game-breaking. *Local Unrest have double effect against an invaded Home System. For fun & flavor. Viva la resistans! PROBING: *Deep Space Probing Vessels: Once every Strategy Phase, all players may automaticly probe a planet in a system adjacent to one containing a Space Dock. This can be done once for each space dock on the board. Distant suns is a double-edges axe. It gives alot of flavor and excitement, but on the same time so random. The first turns are especially sore on this fact. This rule is one of the greatest successes on handling this problem, though. When you have SOME information of you whereabouts, you can trust the statistics some more. For example, you deep-space probe a Radiation planet. The odds of finding another radiation planet beside it is then small enough to let 1 GF land on the probed planet, and 3 to another. The next round your Space Dock will gather you more information, and you may get some infromation from fighter probes: *Fighters may perform either a Low-orbit probing, or a High-orbit probing. The first works exactly as the printed rules for fighters. High-orbit probing works as follows. Ditstribute all availible fighters to the planets being probed. Roll one die for each fighter; on a roll of 8+, the planet is successully probed,immediately and before the Planetary Landings sequence. Not regarded as a combat roll. Another way of aquiring intelligence concerning distant suns. The more the merrier. Information is what the experienced player thrive on, and what seperates luck from skills. This is just another chance to get just that, and we think this rule works, so we use it. If you're only going with only one of these probing rules, clearly go for the one above, though. |
|
|
|
Title:
11 DISTANT SUNS: *The Lazax survivors are subject to no special rules when probed. First off. I don't like specialty rules with a reason. The probing part of Lazax survivors is very, very strange. It's not even an ettempt to explain why! Suddenly you get alot of stash, and the survivors dissappear. Why not making this rule: If green player attacks red before he has played his strategy, yellow must remove a destroyer from the board. It makes about as much sense. And the second reason why I hate this rule; Victory points are sacred, right? You don't move around and "oops, I found a VP". VP's is what you win your game with. Finale. Sure, luck can help you with the needs to get VP, but when luck grant you pure VP, something is wrong. Besides, it wouldn't work with the neat 'Deep space probing vessels' rule above. *Hostile Locals are treated just as other Ground Forces, and are susceptible to bombardment. EDIT: In fact, ALL distand suns units are treated just like they were plastic units on the board. Thus you MAY barrage Fighter Ambush etc. Hostile locals are sometimes crappy enough to face as it is. Atleast they shouldn't be tougher than regular GF. In fact, why not let them work exactly as GF? Good idea. Bombardment is fun either way. Don't restrict fun things from the game.. *Instead of Hostage situation, roll a D10, divide by two and round down. This is how many resources and hostile locals there are in this domain. Place the number of TG on the planet to keep track. Alright. Hostage situation is a real blunder. First of all, how the hell do you probe a hostage situation? Second, your landing troops are described as the exploratory force. Well, to bad that each GF unit must represent at the very least 250.000 troopers. We're talking planetary scale here. How do they take an invasion force of a million men hostage? Then they get some TG and join your side after all.. I like the idea with bad locals, but in this perpective, its's just too ridiculous. Let's rather see the solution. The symbol on the counter is the Hostile Locals and Natural Wealth beside eachother. Why not a counter with both? Why doesn't it exist a rich planet with hostile locals on it? Now that would be both cool and logical. Well, it does now. Roll how many it is. If you manage to invade the planet, the resources is yours. *Natural Wealth only yields 1 TG upon encountering the domain. If more TG is present, place them on the planet. The controlling player may take one such TG from the planet during the Produce Units sequence of an activation, and one during each Refresh Planets sequence in the Status Phase. This rule gives three things. Firs of all, you assure that one lucky player doesn't sit with 8 additional TG on his race sheet during the first dore round of play. Secondly, it promotes action and hostilies, as enemies may covet the rich, newfound planet. Thirdly, the logic is more with this version. It's strange that a race can jump down on the planet with an initial invasion force and suck the planet dry of fossil fuels before the neighbor can react, isn't it? We dont' know how much time each round represents, but I think a couple of them is reasonable to drain a planet. *Artifacts works as a Tech Specialty of the indicated color, in a addition to awarding Victory Points. These however, do not count toward objectives based on aquiring Tech Specialty planets. If availible, always pre-place an Artifact at Mallice (worhole nexus system) before the game starts. Artifacts are already good, but we can't help but connecting the concept of the different artifacts to techs of the respectable colors. Makes it more interesting to hold the artifacts early as well, not just at the moment the game concludes. Mallice is, btw, the perfect place to set the last artifact if there are one availible. Most for flavor, but if you use the Game Option "Dimension Rifts" described below, the nexus can |
|
|
|
Title:
12 A few comments on the extra GAME-OPTIONS: IMPERIUM RISING: This option was made to increase dynamic and reward direct VP to players that expand their borders out beyond their 'normal' size. In a way, it's a compromise between the objective system, where you can lunge out, qualify for an objective, then get booted back to your safe turtle-shell the round after, and the ti2 progression system where you constantly had to battle and expand to keep your points coming in. Ti2 offered more action and dynamic, but it could sometimes go on forever. In that way, the objective system is better, although i miss some real reward of conquering. Here it is, though. Special objectives mean as always that they are temporary, and will only yield points as long as the player qualify for each of them. STAR BY STAR: With a four ring galaxy, this game option could be really cool. And cool/fun is the key-word here. But make no mistake, the game is still as strategical, although not as pre-balanced. With wild home-world placement, you really have to trust your wits and carve your best situation. It feels more 'real' with scattered home-world, although it can be a pain in the ass with strong neighbors. If you play a weak starting race, you will want to live at the rim, while the stronger races might to good nearer the center. This gives a lot more tension to galaxy building. This version may sound very chatoic, but it seems to work. In normal games, you never attack a weaker race at the very beginning (even if you have range) because of the fact that you weaken yourself compared to the rest of the board. Two races starting very close, using this setting, will have to negotiate well with eachother to stand a chance, and both will be interested in that. This all seems to be self-balancing in one way or the other. It's very refreshing to try, when you want to do sometihng new for a change, besides carving your "cone" forth to Mecatol while constantly bicker with your two neighbors and most often only those. To define the term 'neighbors' using this option, simply choose the two races with the least number of hexes from their HS to yours. If the unlikely fact that three others share the exact same distance to your HS, you may choose which two will be considered 'neighbors'. To remember which one is neighbots during such circumstances, just take a control marker from each and place it beside your symbol on the race-sheet. DIMENSION RIFTS: This is another thing that can add some spice to the game. The new two-sided wormhole counters that came with Shattered Empire was just too tempting. What about a wormhole that changes it's "pole" or whatever you call it, each time a fleet passes through. You will really have some evil planning out there when using this game option. This is not been playtested yet, but I'm very sure it works the times all players are ready for some extra mayhem. THE STARLIGHT LEGACY: This is an ongoing project. -------------------- [Finally, some last conventions. --------- I'll make room for a small FAQ here. Or atleast, an AQ... Q: "Does Assualt Cannons give Dreadnoughts 2 dice pre-shot?" A: No. Assualt Cannons always yields one combat-die only. Even with an Admiral onboard. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Very well thought. Clap, clap, clap - thats my hands. :D --- Some of these ideas we were using also with good results for a year or more: *Just before refreshing planets in the Status Phase, all players may produce Trade goods from Resources at a 2:1 ratio (round down). *All pre-combat shots are considered to go off simultaneously, but Barrage hits must be assigned first. *A Home System is only considered as such if the race of origin controls it. They are just obvious. --- Those is new house-rules, playtested, we like it: *Political Cards may not be traded for TG. Instead, 2 Political Cards may any time be exhanged for a new. *Artifacts works as a Tech Specialty of the indicated color, in a addition to awarding Victory Points. These however, do not count toward objectives based on aquiring Tech Specialty planets. If availible, always pre-place an Artifact at Mallice (worhole nexus system) before the game starts. --- *Only Shock Troops whom participated from the beginning of the Invasion Combat may capture buildings. Well we were playing with them since we thouught it is obvious. --- *Microtechnology also allows a player to produce Trade Goods using Influence instead of Resources. I am afraid it needs relation minimum 2 Influence for 1 TG. Maybe 3. --- *Instead of Hostage situation, roll a D10, divide by two and round down. This is how many resources and hostile locals there are in this domain. Place the number of TG on the planet to keep track. I like it very much. Elegant. --- *Natural Wealth only yields 1 TG upon encountering the domain. If more TG is present, place them on the planet. The controlling player may take one such TG from the planet during the Produce Units sequence of an activation, and one during each Refresh Planets sequence in the Status Phase. I will playtest it. Also very good idea. --- *Hostile Locals are treated just as other Ground Forces, and are susceptible to bombardment. I do not like it. Hostile locals can always hide in caves, tunnels, etc. You have to go down and kick them out of their slums, jungles and caves. Also if You bombard some hostile locals You got only more hostile locals. ;D --- Re: All changes of ships. You may be right. But it need a lot of playtesting. We will see. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Umpapa2 wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Nicely done, PsiComa. I can see that a lot of time and effort has gone into this ruleset. I do like a lot of what your modifications to the game. Hopefully I'll be able to get into F2F games again and try to use some of these house rules (in small doses of course; wouldn't do to overload my game group with a whole whack of changes). |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Nice Compilation of houserules. I especially like the small streamlining changes like the ones about cargo, homesystems, PCs, gensysthesis, warfare secondary etc. Those points were often mentioned before and it would be cool if those could become some kind of semi standard. So when starting a new Pbem, I would just need to say "uses ascension rule tweaks" without need of further explanations. Some of the other changes are interesting, but I don't think they have the same potential to become consesus among the community. I for my part have my very own plans for the DS counters and I don't think all of the changes on the techs are to the better. But once again: great work :) edit: wow, I just realized you filled the first page of your thread nearly all by yourself ;) |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Vorocano wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Xenomath wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set PsiComa wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set oo.. nice. i like the 2 for 1 political card swap - is it played as an action? i also like the dreadnaught and warsun variant. i agree it's easy conceptually. how do you indicate the 2 point damage for the warsun? just grab any counter? when you spend the 2:1 for trade goods do you have to exhaust the planet? (sorry if this is obvious - i just didn't quite read it clearly) assault cannon for cruiser is a major pimp. that would make space fleets have a really interesting tactical option. a 'full' fleet would then behave a lot like the way fleets do in reality - a mix of the warsun with destroyers, cruisers, fighters, dreads..etc. tactical 'special forces' fleets might comprise of just cruisers or destroyers..depending on the purpose. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set wand42er wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Well, I do have quite an opinion about this work of art. There are some things I like, some things I don't like and some things I agree partly on. I ll start with the things I agree with: Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Bart wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Guess I already did include it, that is. Look at the first file, and see for yourself which one ;) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set A nice little writeup you have here Psi, how could I not comment:) Your int. economy rule is very interesting. I think its actually extrememly powerful but makes sense and seems very cool. I do not think micro econ needs any changing, I've never found it to be underpowered. I like your idea about gen synthesis. However, considering the long discussion we had regarding GF combat and war sun bombardment, would of instead gen synth added a minus to bombardment rolls? I had a very similiar idea to your fleet logistics. There so many versions I want to try out, just got to get my group to commit. I think this one is solid. I like your precombat idea. Its simplier, and prevents defender bias when he already has the advantage. Not a fan of your dread/warsun ideas as I've said before. It complicates thing to me. Lastly, I don't understand the 2:1 trade good rule. Are these resources that haven't been expended yet? I like the list in general though, keep up the good work. Perhaps you should throw your bombardment houserule in there!:) |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Stalker0 wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Just wanted to point out that the sheets are reworded! |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Wow! Just scanned though this. Lots of good stuff in there [smiley=thumbsup.gif]! |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Thanks, Rushmore. Hope you found some of it useful! :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set (updated) Issues to be considered for the next version: *Floating Factories: Instead of giving the Saar SD's a movement of two, I would give them the ability to build in the same turn as they move. I personally think it would be more fun to play Saar this way, without overpower anything. I think it's wierd with 2 move SD's after all.. Thoughts on this are appreciated! *Secondly, I really want to do something about Yssaril. It's the only race in the game I feel missed both the balance and concept.. Suggestions to this will follow later. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: 10 Nice compilation psi, we´re gonna try some of this stuff during the weekend so I´ll comment on it later. one question though PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set (updated) Be damned. You're absolutely right. *added to the fix-list* Thanks, Samus. Hope you'll enjoy the game! :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Played a game using some Ascension modifications. Nothing too drastic though, we didn´t go for the whole combat and tech mods but rather some smaller stuff we felt would fix common bugs. The result? Most of the mods feel a natural addition to the game and the objective/bureaucracy mods are just brilliant so this is probably there to stay in future games. We don´t choose race or starting position but I like the idea to choose and show or take random and keep hidden. We tried a new 5 player setup moving positiones 1 and 4 one hex up using no TG compensation (we all started with one though). Our setup usually leads to a very balanced galaxy and we liked this better than the slice or out-of-the-box. The objective and bureacracy modifications are excellent. Starting with 3 objectives in play kick-starts VP grabbing and drawing 3 POs with bureaucracy primary makes you feel powerful. Only thing I would consider is maybe adding 1-3 points to the final scoretrack as VPs are aquired more quickly than before. We´ll use this mod again. Everyone got their racial tech at reduced cost. I´m not too fond of the rule of getting it for free once you hit your racial tech cost in VPs but I really like this. Pay more to get it sooner or wait until it´s cheap. The resources 2:1 for TGs seems a natural counterweight since we´re not spending PCs as TGs. I like the option but I didn´t use it. In fact noone used it all the game. It´s not economic but can be useful if you´re the Baron or maybe chasing a next round spending PO. Maybe we just have to get used to it so it´s a keeper in future games. Not trading PCs for TGs really helped our political game a lot and spending them for votes seemed natural. Excellent modification. Artifact boostes worked well enough for us. The dreadnought boosts are not available through basic tech so I didn´t find them too powerful but with Mindnet this could obviously get a bit messy. We played with leaders and most SE variants, no DS, and these modifications: Race selection Roll dice for speaker and players order. Each player gets two random races and chooses one to play. A third pick is allowed but the player must now play this race and reveal it immediately to others. Galaxy setup All systems in one random pile with chosen races homesystems on the bottom of the pile. Players take turns drawing top system from the pile and placing it ending with placements of home systems. Forced placement of a system does not count as a players placement action. Objective deck All Public Objectives are placed in two decks, one for each stage. Start the game with 3 random Stage I POs in play. When 8 Stage I POs are revealed and in play, Stage II is initiated. Strategy Cards Bureaucracy: The active player draws 3 POs and chooses one that is turned face-up in the common area, one that goes to the top of the deck and one to the bottom of the deck. When Stage II is initiated, the active player draws 2 cards and places one face-up in the common area and one either on top or bottom of the deck. Warfare II secondary: Reinforce; Pay 1 CC from your strategy Allocation to move up to two ships from an unactivated system to any adjacent system that does not contain enemy ships. General *The additional cost of racial techs is lowered with the races number of Victory Points. *Just before refreshing planets in the Status Phase, all players may produce Trade Goods from unused Resources at a 2:1 ratio (round down). *Political Cards may not be traded for TGs. Instead, 2 PCs may at any time be exchanged for a new one. When voting players may spend PCs for additional votes (ratio 1:1). *A player chosen to play an Agenda always has a choice of drawing a random card from the pile. *All pre-combat shots are considered to go off simultaneously, but Barrage hits are assigned first. *A Home System is only considered as such if the race of origin controls it. *All players start the game with one Trade good. Artifacts Artifacts work as a Tech Specialty of the indicated color, in addition to awarding VPs. These do not count towards Objectives based on aquiring Tech Specialty planets. Artifacts also boost their owner dreadnoughts: Lazax Armory: Your DN receive +1 to combat rolls. Ancient Shipwreck: Your DN may carry two fighters. Imperial Datacache: Your DN cost 1 fewer resources to build. Fossil Precursor: Your DN may carry 1 additional GF. Dud artifacts - Roll a dice; 1-5: two Trade Goods. 6-10: one Action card. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set OK, I finally gathered enough energy to read Psi Comma's ruleset (it's a looooong read ;) ), and I must say I'm really pleased. I really like RAW SE, and as I expected major changes, I didn't expect to like Psi Comma's rules. But I like most of these ideas a lot. Minor and subtle changes that improve both fun and strategic factors. Great work, Psi Comma!! :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Samus; Sweet review. Informative and reasonable :) Cool to see you liked the objective-"variant" that much, if it even could be called a variant. Just a minor detail, but it helps alot! To the last added sheet, "Final Conventions" I will add that ALL objectives should be used, not only the SE ones. We use both decks including the 4 home-made ones. It really gives a diversity to the games, and every race could find something that suits them. I'm hoping you will give my unit-and-tech balance a chance too on a later occasion. This is my most beloved brain-child over the last year of thinking and pondering over this game. I guess it seems more "drastic" on the paper than it feels in game, but IMO it's really just natural mods like the rest of the things around. It would rock to get a equally good review on that! Cheers |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set redscare wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Im planning to start two of them, both using Ascension rule-set. The first, "Pandemonium", is for dare-devils; we use the 'Star by Star' game-option 8-) Game is being contructed here: http://www.ti3wiki.org/index.php?title=Pandemonium_PBeM The second, "TheStarlightOpera" will be a more conventional one, and last for an epic game scale (12-14 VP) I think. Both will probably run on 4 ring map. Exactly when I get time to launch this I'm uncertain of, but feel free to PM me for reserved spots to which one you like. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Nice compilation. Somehow I missed it originally and hence have not been able to benefit from it yet. I hope to manipulate my mates to try out a few of them next time we play :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set I think it helps if you print out the attached sheets, and maybe scratch unwanted mods with a pen. What is worse than a bad rule-set is an unclear ruleset. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: 6 PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set I'm currently play-testing the fifth game of the current Yssaril. Little change, and makes them sneaky as hell. But weak at the start. I like their original abilities, which describes them as sneaky. I dislike their expansionist power, which makes them unbalanced and out of theme. So here's my version. -All special abilities are retained (this is the best thing) ;) -Units: Remove both carriers from the Yssaril, just like the second edition. They always have the chance to get one or two carriers during the first round anyways, because of secondary production and their stalling. This is actually no problem, but it drains their early game power. They're supposed to be a small jungle race with spies anywhere, not a huge kickass fleet. -Tech: They're described as a low-tech race, so they only start with 1 tech. They're the race of the chameleon, and if they don't got Light/Wave, who should? The best thing about using this as an initial tech is the natural continuation on the tech tree. Transit Diodes, really helps define the race as well. Little green men popping up where you least expect it. The End-game tech on this tree is Bactierial weapon, which the Yssaril will never use. Their action cards set a pure natural barrier here. -Shuttle Logistics: Pay one CC from Strategy to grant up to 4 GF a movement of 1 for this turn only. That way, the Yssaril may attack with small shuttles, or "planet-hopp" into attack. LIke Transit Diodes, this costs alot of CC to combine. So the YSsaril is powerful with much CC, so they must be oppertunists and take bonus-counters whenever possible. Combine these three things, and you have a very unique play-style for the chemeleon race. Since the change (except racial tech) is intial only and you retain abilities, it's not difficult for other players to grasp the concept of this modded race. The abilities are normal. Yes, it's only one another race who begins with a Tech without prereqs, but it's because of necessary theme. For Yssaril stealth is just as necessary. Finally I can play a seemingly weak but extremely sneaky race, and bombard my enemies with AC and still keep a good concience ;) They're not overpowered anymore, just in concept and simply cool. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Psi... interesting ideas. A couple of questions. How is Shuttle Logistics initiated? Do you pay the CC as an action to move GF's? Do you pay when you activate a system to allow up to 4 ground forces to move to the system you've activated? Do you pay at the start of your turn and keep track of how many GF's you've moved? I think I prefer the second option... pay when the GF's move to an activated system. Also, if the Yssaril start with Light/Wave, which is fine, are they able to buy Transit Diodes immediately, or do they have to buy all the prereqs first? I prefer the first option. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Mike_Evans wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Your modification of Yssaril seems interesting. PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set I've thought about letting Destroyers do barrage against Shuttles, but havent playtested it. Of course this will gimp the Shuttles fairly good, but it will still be a good tech when used properly. The thing is that if I allow Barrage, I should allow any pre-combat rolls. Treat the Shuttling as a normal combat that ends after the first combat round.. It seems more consistent to say "just shoot" maybe. But yes, I was meaning to use all dice. In my group, an undamaged Dread would shoot 2 dice for example. Hmm. Logical you might say that a Warsun unit really consists of a support fleet as well. That may explain the effectiveness against Shuttles. But maybe only one die per ship would be better? You know to reflect that it could be relatively easier to sneak past a few large ships than many smaller ships. Mechanically, I don't know, I've not tried shouting "geronimo" and send Shuttles through large enemy fleets in my playtests yet ;D |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set PsiComa wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set The only changes I made is: -Remove the two starting Carriers (the rest is the same) -They start only with Light/Wave (following Transit Diodes will make up for the tough logistics you describe) -Shuttle Logistics gives GF actual movement. When you combine Transit Diodes and Shuttle Logistics during the round of play, you will enjoy a different kind of logistics ;) The abilities are retained, so I wouldn't call it a major overhaul. In gameplay yes, rule-wise, no. Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Wait, so unless the Yssaril get a tech on turn 1, they can't take ANY planets? (they could take diplomacy II I guess). That's...too weak in my opinion. I understand the need to nerf them, and I understand the desire to change their flavor, but that is WAY too strict a setback. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Very impressive and comprehensive alternate rule set PsiComa and fantastic presentation as well. I like the way you have more "tweaked" than flat out changed things, it all looks like it could work very well and compliment rather than detract from the original rules. I'm still with quite a new group at the moment and normally have a newbie to train, but will certainly be looking to incorporate some of these rules gradually into our gameplay (although it will be up for vote, still I've printed the rules out just in case :) ) Still I needed to familiarise myself with them as it looks like some part of them get used in quite a few of the PbeM and I am hoping to join one soon (if any start in the near future and will accept a NooB player onboard!) |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Stalker0 wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Well you have the 1 TG you all begin with.. But 1 carrier should do anyways.. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Does Yssaril still get all their racial abilities? (full skip, AC) etc |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set I this version, yes. They're still under extensive playtesting, though. Actually, it's being designed as we speak, so keep the input coming. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Well if they keep their skip I can see your point. Yssaril can skip to ensure he gets to use the benefit of the production card and then go from there. I just personally do not like having to rely on a strategy card for ALL of my expansion possibilities. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Let's also not forget that people who would embrace rules changes like this are people who like/feel its useful to change the rules. Perhaps a group doesn't like the production card, and would rather use something else. Well...now Yssaril is screwed. What's wrong with giving Yssaril 1 carrier? Just ensure their starting ships aren't anything to write home about, but give them SOME mobility. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set I've not considered people changing the new Strategy Cards (other than assembly and bureaucracy). People do that? :-/ But okay, they might start with 1 carrier. Hope they're still not too strong then. As I said, I've done goood with no carriers. Maybe reduce other starting units? |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set well... I like a lot of the proposed changes, and I don't likesome of them ;) - TG convertion 2:1 nice idea, but how big is the impact on the TG objectives? Don't they become even easier than they already are? - picking up cargo at all time it certainly makes this game mechanic less complicated. - Political cards 2:1 simple and clean. - simultaneous pre-combat good idea. Ever thought about setting a fix grid for all the pre-combat abilities? Meaning: 1. Naalu retreat, 2. AC play, 3. pre-combat shots (for example). - Home Systems makes sense, but I would adjust the wording a bit, since you altered the definition of "control" ;) For example: Xxcha still holds Archon Ren, but another player controls Archon Tau. Xxcha is still in "control" of his HS so theoretically you could not play a local unrest against Archon Tau :P Maybe: "A Home System is only considered to be a Home System for the race of origin." or something else... - Control of a system yeah, definately better. me too I also always thought that Naalu's Mind Weapon would be something emminating from a planet. Also, you forgot to mention Jol Nars Racial tech, they too need to "control" systems to use it. - Salvage Operation makes more sence this way. One thing I also find quite odd is,that you can only rebuild a unit from the opponent, but none of your own destroyed units. ("of a unit type that you destoyed". You don't destoy your own units, so you cannot rebuild them...) proposed tech rewording: "You receive one Trade Good at the end of a Space Battle in which you participate. If you win the battle, you receive one additional Trade Good and you may build one ship in the system of a unit type that has been destroyed during the battle. You must pay the ships resource cost. Rebuild War Suns have a base movement of 1 and receive +1 movement when you acquire the War Sun technology advance." (probably doesn't fit on the card anymore ;D ) - Berzerker genome well, I don't know... this is a difficult topic I guess :D - unit modification I like those, but I somewhat have a feelingthat we won't see many Shock Troops capturing Space Docks or PDS units anymore, since they have to be taken as casualties before normal GFs. So the ST that participated from the beginning probably never make it 'til the end of the battle. Or is it sufficient if you began your invasion with one ST, lost it, but gained a new one during the battle? Would you still be able to capture the Space Dock in that case? - SC modifications: Warfare II secondary: we may see it getting used a bit more often than with the old version ;) Assembly: makes sense (the "draw card from the deck" part) Bureaucracy: do you use only the core objectives deck, respectively the shattered objectives deck, or a mix of both? VoC: well, I don't like that card, and I don't know if +5 might not be a bit too much. - Technologies: Gen Synthesis: I use that modification myself, but you should get rid of that capture ability, makes things just more complicated. Nano technology: I think I'll definately try this in my next game, because Nano in the original version is a bit too powerfull in my opinion. This change reduces parts of its effectiveness to a certain degree. Assault Cannon: Why the restriction that Hylar V is not applicable? Makes it once again more complicated. Micro Technology: I don't know if this card needs another boost after the new wording, but I guess you should fix the ratio to 3:1 (Influence:Trade Good) instead of 2:1. Integrated Economy: hmm... I like the idea, but it might be a bit overpowered, I don't know. I would at least limit it to planets that you already controled at the beginning of the action phase, or else you would be able to invade a planet and immediately build units on it. Or maybe limit it to planets that are adjacent to a system containing at least one of your Space Docks? By the way: do you use the "Memoryless Space Docks" house rule? Fleet Logistics: I like it. - Action cards: I was wondering that you only changed so two ACs after all the other modifications you've done ;). What about Privateers? Good Year? Scientist Assatination? don't you think they are a bit too powerfull and could need a rewording too? I like the change for friendly fire, but the local unrest thing is not really necessary. Star by Star seems to be a fun variant. I'll probably try that one. Distant Suns: i'm not a fan of this option, so I don't comment it. The only variant that intrigued me somewhat were Eternal's Permanent Domains, but those would still need some modifications in my eyes ;) Overall conclusion: Great job! :) Magmus |
|
| ||||||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Magmus wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set *bump* Thread seems to be still here |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Thanks for the salvage operation, dude ;) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Nice work, PsiComa! Will try your ideas, as soon as possible (could take a while as i just moved 500 km from my usual playgroup :) Cheers! |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Wow, you dug deep in the dirt to find this thread! :) However, it is really outdated. Over a zillion more games, things have gotten even better. In fact, I'll upload the new files today and add it to this thread. I'll also have to rewrite some of the rant. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set iv seen alot of the house rules out there, and i play psi FtF alot... its the best ruleset if you ask me, a verry smooth combination of rules and perfect balance of the game. and its easy to play as well, no complicated bull nuts |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Yup :) it's really a result of a two year old "living rulebook", where we all along prioritized to keep the 'feel' of the game while making it better. New files uploaded. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Naalu mind weapon's activation is a point I don't like. Naalu activates a system, conquers one of two planets, and your counterattack costs you a fleet supply counter. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Any type of cargo may be picked up from any non active (or active) system (regardless of enemy ships). What qualifies as cargo? GFs, Leaders? Fighters? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set I have a PDF of SA that I downloaded on August 11. Is that the most recent version? I can't seem to find the link to where I got the PDF, though... |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set GMO wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Zobo wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Great rules set! I really like the Twilight Council and the Bureaucracy changes, and almost everything else makes sense. I'm just missing a few small bits of information to get the complete picture. (1) According to v2.3 of the rules, there are 6 new public objective cards. I found an image file with 4 of the new objectives in an earlier post. Can you post the text of the other two? (2) From an earlier post: > NOTE: the addon-sheet with real-size print dimensions, including the > Prospect strategy card, was too large to fit into any free hosting > sites. PM me if you want it by mail. I'll find a way to host it ASAP, > or part it into smaller pieces Can you just post the text of the Prospect strategy card? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Ok, here's the additinal objective cards we use. With some skills/equipment the physical cards will look real good. http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9166/print1copyif6.jpg http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1491/7realsizeaddonszz4.jpg I actually don't know where I have placed the Prospect strategy card file :-? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set It's in the Pandemonium rules, for one. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Ah, yes. An old version of spelling mistakes and ugly color :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Great, thanks! I appreciate the super-quick responses. For thread completeness, I found the Pandemonium rules here: http://www.ti3wiki.org/index.php?title=Pandemonium_PBeM_Rules I have to say, by my standards, the images all look very slick! |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set 20 resources is massive for a fleet in a Stage 1 PO. Compare to the SE PO I won a space battle containing at least 3 opposing ships in one system this turn., which can be claimed against 3 fighters defending a planet with an SO. Since the objective it just to score 6 casualties, do you really need a minimum requirement on the cost of the opposing fleet? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Crud! I just noticed that Image Shack readjusted the size of this Image http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9166/print1copyif6.jpg |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Nanite wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set FF Lurker wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set In my game The great war we have added a twist to the twilight council. All races have a minimum of 1 vote per agenda. They have the normal amount of votes they can spend on one agenda or divide as they wish but if they allocate none of it into a certain agenda they still have one vote. I'll let you know how it turns out |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Zobo wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Yeah, actually. Either with this The Twilight Council option, or without it. When you can exhange 2 political cards for one and always have some to go on, the entire political game becomes a notch more important and interesting. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set Hi PsiComa- Long time lurker, blah blah. I've been geeking out about your rule set and last night finally had a chance to play it with some friends FTF. We had a great time but one question came up that I'm wondering if you would mind commenting on. With the War Sun/Dread mod, War Suns have 3 dice to kill and Dreads 2 dice to kill (undamaged), does the Admiral's extra die roll apply to give Wars 4 dice and dreads 3 dice? I know there's not any ambiguity in the wording but I'm just wondering if you've played with Admiral bonus die and how it affected game play? We didn't use the bonus die this first time given we were already rolling a lot of dice and thinking, heh, heh, this rocks! Thanks for your thoughts and thanks for an amazinf mod! thesundancekid |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set thesundancekid wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.4 v 2.6... I've also updated the other links. 1 Main Page (http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3411/1ascensionsettingcopyps2.jpg). 2 Rule mods (1/2) (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1346/2ascensionrulemods2copyjw5.jpg). 3 Rule mods (2/2) (http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5748/3ascensionrulemods2copygj1.jpg). 4 Final Conventions (http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4038/5finalconventionscopyok7.jpg). 5 The Simultaneous Action system (http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5920/4simuactionsystem22copygf1.jpg). 6 Updated Technology Tree (http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8591/6updatedtechtreeqs6.jpg). |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 PsiComa wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 Oh, no. It's strictly balance reasons. I kind of explain it here Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 Do we have an updated pdf too? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 PDFs updated. Files uploaded to http://www.esnips.com/web/ShatteredAscensionPDFRules. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 As said if balance wise it's ok (I don't have enough experience to fully comment that)though it hurts Jol pretty bad. But sounds so bad that different weapon systems can't be combined when one can be targetting system (ADT) and one a real weapon (hylar), therefore they should be joinable. Better 'wording' for ruling would be good I know it would make game slower by increasing calculations / making diversity alot but would it be better to tie those reductions to opponents technologies. Like if you also have automated defense turrets opponent would get just normal roll without hylars? For those who need any real reason it 'We know how this works so we can defend better against it' or so. It could be tied to some other tech too but it would be lot harder to remember (something like evading mines to some movement techs to evade barrage?). That way if you invest in red techs you'd really have edge over others without reds due multiple abilities and better power. Personally I also like that when you invest into weaponry it really turns out killer to both sides. Is ADT destroyers so badass as they take up one fleet supply compared to carrier+6fighters that also take up 1 fleet supply? In our games fleet supply has beed really limiting factor. Of course carrier cost 6 res vs 1. After barrage destroyer is anyway quite useless compared to fs limit. Same goes with DSC, that defense tech gives -1/-2 isn't that enough? Assault cannons are nasty though. I'd like to have some numbers crushed to support those just after the new rules to show it is really needed. -Dracandross |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 I partly agree with you on the Graviton/Deep Space issue though. While PDS are not game breaking (but very strong), we realized that it became even stronger when we actually increased the plastic limit by 50%. The only unit really effected balancewise by this were the PDS, which get exponentially better, and in that case overpowered. This fix took care of that, without underpowering PDS with normal plastic limit either. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 PsiComa wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 I boost some things to open for new tactics and make the units more different! Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 Now you have given more alot more reasons why you did and what and also how it affects different things and that you have thought of it. I'd like to see these thoughts on first pages where you go through these modifications (some of them were but not all). You are right about jets that usually defensive is not the way to go as it is not fun. But as you see problem with that how come they are not modified yet somehow. Barrage evasion :? Also as Grid doesnt affect DSC why DSC is preq for them, it could be without too so you could go just close range defence or with some other easy to get preq as alternative route? -Dracandross |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 Dracandross wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 Rules were bit unclear about Mentak Steal. As racial ability states you need 3+ TG to steal from target but ascension rules do not state that anymore. Is there limit anymore or was this just change when you can use it. Also can I use it multiple times if I have enough CCs? -Dracandross |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 The 3 TG limit is the same. And they can use it as many times as they want. I worded it something like "..instead uses THEIR (refereing to the same ability) steal ability as an action, costing a CC..." but if it's unclear I'll freshen it up for the next version. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Psi, I realize your desires for ADT but I don't like the language you use. Your saying that ADT and hylar V don't stack. Wouldn't it simply be easier to say ADT grants you 3 rolls at a +1, instead of the current +2? You can type that out on a tech sheet and give it to newbies, and its a bit easier to remember that two techs don't stack when two other techs do, etc. I have not had the destroyer issue in my games that others have, but looking at the math I can see the concerns here. I think simply taking out one of the +1's for ADT is the simplest and most effective fix to the problem. I have never had the GLS/PDS grid problem you described, but as you say, it could simply be a consequence of the increased plastic limit you use. However, that's one of the issues I have with your ruleset. I like some of the rules, and might try them out from time to time. But some of the rules are designed to cover the problems created with other rules, and if those 1st rules aren't used the 2nd set becomes imbalanced. Perhaps you could include a clause in your set, saying that this rule should only be used if the plastic limit increase is used, etc. That way people can variant there game with some of your rules, but also recognize that some rules come in pairs. As to the GLS issue, to my mind, if someone is willing to commit to GLS, which is a dead end on the tech tree, and a yellow tech (so expensive compared to other techs), then its just as reasonable to assume someone will pick up maneuvering jets to counter. However, if you still feel the issue is such that it needs further readdressing, I once again recommend a simple statement to the reader alerting them that the GLS problem is one caused by a larger plastic limit, and not a problem inherent in the basic game system. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so PsiComa wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so If you go PDS, you sure as hell got Magen too. Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Ok lets move to next phase and try to figure out how to improve MJs then. How often it is taken in your games (we haven't used mines alot so its much less useful) As MJs are dead-end (not that XRD is poor tech by any means but antimass is bit of a waste unless you want XRD of course) either add power to MJ or add different path to it, for example few possibilities as now problem is still that MJ is 'bad' tech 1) MJ available after ADT or Grid (you can shoot those mines and incoming offensive particles whatever they are) to make them easier to get. 2) MJ gives that and negates bonus to hit from Grid and/ord extra die from Graviton 3) Increase defensive bonus from MJ by 1 or even 1/2 for range 4) Allow MJ to lead somewhere else like light/wave without Grid (advanced fighters would be also logical but too strong?) Sidenote: I haven't thought these so much how increased units affect game before (even though you have mentioned it in many different places). They make more sense with it. -Dracandross |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so I'll contemplate on this. Thanks for the suggestions! as a quick note; I'm not fan of altering the branches of the tech tree, since that so far has been held 'clean' from fixes. But still. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Yes it starts to grow over the board soon with all the changes... Still improving tech is just no use if it is still viable for only few races. (not sure but I think getting XRD for those who start wo antimass can be bit expensive as then they negate their other strenghts or at least can get them sooo late.) Letting it lead elsewhere just gives more power to those who can reach MJ without trouble (Letnev, Sol at least) so I'd maybe throw my vote on increasing its availability and effect a bit as it is a dead end it doesn't mess tech tree badly that way. Also one effect MJ could give is -hit when invading with ground forces. Come on, if your ships can maneuver easily around it would be harder to shoot them down when landing. -D |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Dracandross wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Ok you say that MJ are okay but lets think it this way. If game is played without mines it nerfs badly this tech (not that its tech to blame though). Also if one player invests to MJ to get defensive bonus player who invested to pds techs still gain more impact as there are other players but MJ player doesn't get so much outta it. Therefore to balance it defensive tech should be better than offensive tech. Now MJ is still worse than pds in my opinion. Statistically how often you see techs after dsc taken and how often MJ? -D |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Quote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: 5 PsiComa wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so The problem isn't in a definition of Home Systems, it's in the wording on the cards. Instead of: "choose X in a non-home system" Reword the effects as: "choose a player. do something to an X in one of their non-home systems" This maintains what is defined as a home system relative to the player, much like how activated systems are defined. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Hehe, Bart. While the intention is entirely clear, you might have figured a loophole there. I should add, "for the purpose of Action Cards", +same as before. I think that'll do the trick. I got a lot of improvements on this last one. Thanks for your insights. nanite; I thinks its easier to change one sentence of definition rather than rewording a heap of cards one by one. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Can I ask about your reasoning for Dreads receiving still only 1 die on bombardment? It seems that if Warsuns get 3 dice on bombardment, and you're giving bonuses to Dreads in space combat... it feels proper that Dreads would get bumped up on that as well. Warsun: 3 dice in battles, 3 hull, 3 bombardment Dread: 2 dice in battles, 2 hull, 1 bombardment?? Yes, it is offset by giving them free bombardment; but the numbers would feel so much better if it was 3/3/3 2/2/2 :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so but it is; DREADS: 2 dice combat, 2 hull, 2 production cap WAR SUNS: 3 dice combat, 3 hull, 3 production cap. ;) The bombardment would be too mean if all dreads were dishing out so many dice. We've played this a LOT, and we feel that one die per dread is about right. It would feel better if ALL numbers were 2, but it's not a detail worth sacrificing balance for. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so so would a damaged Dread be unable to bombard? as it would have one less shot? Also have you thought about giving the Warsun 2 bombard instead of 3? that way it would be 2/2/2/1 3/3/3/2 and thus have symmetry. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Ah, but the rule says "to a minimum of 1 die". Thus DN's can still bombard, and cruisers sustaining damage with that action card may still shoot. Would'nt have been worthless if they couldn't, though. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Updated and added a sheet for 2-player battles. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 where can we download it? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Copied from post #2 of this thread: 1 Main Page (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3626/1ascensionsettingcopydu6.jpg). 2 Rule mods (1/2) (http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1319/2ascensionrulemods1copyrv9.jpg). 3 Rule mods (2/2) (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2121/3ascensionrulemods2copyld9.jpg). 4 Final Conventions (http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5471/4finalconventionscopyjt6.jpg). 5 The Simultaneous Action system (http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5920/4simuactionsystem22copygf1.jpg). (not updated yet) 6 Updated Technology Tree (http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8591/6updatedtechtreeqs6.jpg). 7 2-Player Battles (http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/8405/72playergamescopyaz4.jpg). Updated Technology Tree (colors. Looks neat on photo paper) (http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7607/6updatedtechtreecopyju9.jpg ). ps; the tech-papers need some improvements still. Uploading soon. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 thx |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 For 1on1 Is there any rules what tiles are placed in addition to asteroid/HS's? Like X red bordered / Y empty / Z planets? Or is it totally up for map creator? Or at least any suggestions what to make map good as you have experience on that. -Dracandross |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Do you have a list of updates/changes made from 2.6 to 2.7? You mentioned 2-player games, but is there anything else? |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Mostly wording etc, but also some minor changes, like the extra Political Card in Status isn't any longer a property of Twilight Council game option, but the basic rules. There are some other things as well, but nothing really big. Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I heard that the 2-player sheet explained the altered abilities rather badly. Hope this half-update on the sheet helps. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 bump |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.6 (v2.7 so Nehkrimah wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I have a different suggestion for Trade II for 2-player games. Each time a player activates the Trade II strategy, they can 'enable' one of their trade agreements. This is considered an even trade with some other ghost race. This means that a race like Hacan need to choose Trade SC twice before both of their agreements become active. The difference this causes is for trade income to ramp-up a little more slowly at the start of the game and anytime after agreements have been broken. My gaming group played this in a 3-player game and it worked well. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Basically the, Trade Strategy worked very well in duels. The problem with it discussed was the option b), the 'break'-ability. It seems to me that your proposal makes the b) ability even more powerful, which already had to be toned down for 2-player games. Hypothetically, if one single Trade break happens, you have like 5(!) rounds throughout the game without full trade. 5 rounds could easily be (is most often) a complete game. Hacan would be really set back by this. I appreciate the thought, but am afraid it may unbalance races a bit. :-/ |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 What if when you use the trade SC to break trade agreements you could only break one agreement in play. Hacans could not be broken in this way. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Axen; in the Call of Valor thread we discussed 3 possible solutions for 2-player Trade fix- The b) ability would really crappity smack up the trade advantage of races, so a fix were needed. One of these fixes was 'breaking one trade card', but this would be an advantage to races with 2-2 trade above those of 3-1 trade. I couldn't see why this should be so, so we left the idea. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 OK - I agree about making the break ability even stronger. I knew there was a big discussion on trade at the start of Call of Valor... I was just doing some thinking and thought I'd share. Psi Neversleeping wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I did some simulations to find the most resource efficient fleets using this rule set. The program chooses random combinations, so I might not have run through them all, but I think this is very close to the optimal. If you have suggestions for other combinations that can beat any of these resource amounts, feel free to post them. There is a rock/paper/scissors element here, but I think it only happens with the bigger fleets. With no tech: 1 Destroyer 2 Destroyers 3 Destroyers 4 Destroyers 1 Cruiser 3 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Destroyer 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 2 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Cruiser 1 Destroyer 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Cruiser 2 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Cruiser 3 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Cruiser 4 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Destroyer 2 Carriers 12 Fighters 2 Destroyers 2 Carriers 12 Fighters 3 Destroyers 2 Carriers 12 Fighters 1 Cruiser 2 Destroyers 2 Carriers 12 Fighters 1 Cruiser 3 Destroyers 2 Carriers 12 Fighters 3 Carriers 18 Fighters With all combat tech: 1 Destroyer 2 Destroyers 3 Destroyers 4 Destroyers 5 Destroyers 6 Destroyers 1 Destroyer 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Cruiser 6 Fighters 1 Carrier 1 Cruiser 1 Destroyer 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Cruiser 2 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 5 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 2 Carriers 12 Fighters 1 Dreadnought 2 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Dreadnought 2 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Dreadnought 1 Cruiser 2 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 1 Cruiser 2 Destroyers 2 Carriers 12 Fighters 1 Dreadnought 2 Cruisers 2 Destroyers 1 Carrier 6 Fighters 3 Carriers 18 Fighters |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 So this is effectivity with 1 resource and increasing... first thing that strikes me is the power of destroyers even with powerful dreads and assault cruisers... the original game was merely regulated by plastic limits.. also see how far down the list you must before even 2D dreads is a viable choice. And this doesn't take in account its terrible speed. I'll definitely look closer on your program. Most of the numbers you've given me so far was right on my hunch, though the maths were impossible to calculate without actual simulations. Adding to what 3 years experience tells me, I think this unit balance is dead on the money. Thanks for shearing :) I'll post some interesting fleet match ups later I'd like to discuss closer. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 It does count anti-fighter barrage. The last fleet can be beaten by 18 destroyers, but those are again beaten by a mixed fleet. These fleets are only limited by resource amount. If fleet supply is the only limiting factor, war suns or carriers with fighters will by far be the best, and if building capacity is the limiting factor, dreadnoughts will be the most efficient. It can be interesting to look at combinations of different limiting factors however, as it is usually the case when playing the game. But in general low supply/capacity should make your fleets lean towards fighters and dreadnoughts respectively. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 True, but cost is the final "true" factor. Both Capacity and Fleet Supply may be 'conquered'. Still, it IS a counting factor, at least in the early game, and in building paralyzed games. The Destroyers for example, seem to be fighting Cruisers (/w Assault Cannon) effectively per cost, but if you take per cost AND per fleet, that is, does 4 Cruisers lose more than 2 Cruisers fighting 4 Destroyers? I would say no. Check it both with and without techs. (Of course, then we're back to to basics, that the most expensive fleet lose less ships. Also, Cruisers do not have Barrage which is another weakness. But it's a nice pointer anyway). Same for Dreadnoughts (maybe). So these beat Destroyers per Fleet AND Cost, Destroyers beat Fighters, and Fighters beat anything else than Destroyers. This roshambull relation have brought fighters nice back into the game. ps; Thinking more about it, I figure that interpreting these numbers requires quite some processing too :) |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Danger Man wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 question to a different topic I don't see any "AND"s in the SA tech tree. Does it mean all techs only have 1 precursor? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Think it goes something along these lines: Whenever to lines connect before connecting with the tech in question, there is an "invisible and" at that junction. Eg: WarSun |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Yes. A a junction point of two lines merging to one means "AND". It's no changes in the actual buildup of the tech tree. On the first version I had these "+" over the junction points, but it looked much more elegant without. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 thanks a lot |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Danger Man, we need some "Cost effectivity per Fleet Supply" calculations still :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 You know Psi, as I said before, I like and appreciate whole Your work. However I have some unsolved problems with Your Ascension set of houserules. My main worry is the fact, that Cruisers are still not good enough. See, tou have assault Cruisers you need 5 Techs, the same as to achieve WarSuns. And if you want to have superb Destroyers you need just 2 techs. :( I dislike it. I think that I personally would need something stronger to say build Cruisers instead of Destroyer for most games. I was wondering about rising cost of Destroyers to 2 (as it is rather flotilla of Destroyers not just one ship). It would be simplest way of improving a bit Fighters and nerfing Destroyers. But still Cruisers and Dreadnought would be not good option. Or alternatively lower cost of Cruisers to 1. Then Crsuiers would be great chice, comparable to Destroyers - however it would make Deadnought even more pathetic. What do You think? As Danger Man proved and I had afraid - your houserules are not enough, unfortunately. We need more radical approach, I am afraid. 1 res Cruisers and 2 shots-2 bombard-Dreadnoughts may be enough... |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Danger Man didn't take into account Fleet Supply. I think that Assault Cruisers actually DOES the entire trick, after some 40-50 games testing it (although they still seem too weak). I will work out some numbers for you including Supply, which will hopefully show what I've experienced. I'd be happy to discuss this more in depth later, but I'm working on my exam now, so don't get me startin yet ;) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 There's one thing these programs can never simulate: Psychology. If there's a chance your ships won't get to fire, you're likely to look for a less hostile target. (Assault Cruisers and Dreadnoughts). Not every player evaluates expected number of hits before engaging.. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Stalker0 wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Yes, capacity is really impotant. I think Cruisers is great with all the tech capability. Hylar (of course), Stasis, and TypeIV OR Assault Cannons. Run this simulation, Danger man: 4 Cruisers against 4 Destroyers. Both take equally much Capacity and Fleet Supply. Which of these fleets loses the most resources worth of ships? Clearly the Cruiser, but try again with Assault Cannons mounted. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Cruisers win 78% of the time and takes an average of 2.1 hits. With assault cannon: Cruisers win 95% of the time and takes an average of 1.0 hits |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 This is how we need to go about these numbers I think :) Cruisers fighting Destroyers costs 4.2 to 4.0 resources at the same Capacity and Fleet Supply. Even without benefiting from Barrage, Destroyers are in the long run more cost effective at even means. Did this include Hylar V? I expect Destroyers to be even more effective with. Lvl 1 techs must simply be counted in. So mounting the Assault Cannons changes the picture to 2.0 to 4.0 resources. Now Cruisers fight Destroyers at +100% battle effect, which is what is needed to give the Destroyer a counter to complete the circle. The Dreadnought also has a similar role in this. They are innately cost effective against the destroyer I guess, but then again has the lack of speed as a great con. Slow but powerful is the unit purpose, and it should fight cost effectively against a Dest. Try with Hylar Laser. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 After correcting some bugs in the program and running many more simulations I have found that no matter the techs these are the best fleets with a single limitation: Per cost: All destroyers Per fleet supply: All fighters Per capacity: All war suns or dreadnoughts (or a dread/cruiser combo if you have assault cannons) A fleet with limits of 16 resources and 8 fleet supply and no tech: 4 Destroyers 2 Carriers 12 Fighters If you have either automated defense turrets or assault cannons this is the optimal fleet: 2 Dreadnoughts 6 Destroyers The second fleet also uses less capacity, so it's far easier to produce. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 It must be still be something wrong. While Dreads and Destroyers is the near-perfect combo, Cruisers should win on the same fleet resources and tech I think :-? But they will lose to fighters, which loses to your fleet again. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 and don't forget the strategical point with stasis capsules, the make cruisers very good the game is not decided by perfect spending of ressources due to space battle probabilities. It is decided by your strategy and where you have a battle. (Of course you should take some mathematics into account) ;) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 1/3 Dreads, 2/3 Destroyers is the perfect fleet mathematically, but it is slow and can only carry 2 GF. Even the "destroyer counter" that is cruisers with assault cannons fight only on par with this fleet and is super susceptible to fighter swarms. But again is faster and may carry 8 GF. So you're right Shakkar, it depends much on the board opsition. Me and Danger Man just wanted to figure out the best hypothetical fleet, which were a really cool one :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Psi, could you do PDF instead of jpg? I would like to cut and paste a few of your rules on my PBF game page. I will use a part of your rules! Or you may send them to me be email? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I must figure out how to make PDF files (with vector-graphic letters) with photoshop. Maybe I need a plugin or something. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Psi, You have not replied: Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Sorry, I forgot to reply. After lots of playtesting I think in fact Cruisers HAVE the desired purpose in this game now, from Stasis to speed or guns (for everything but fighters). I see you compare Assault Cannons to War Sun technology which is reasonable, but in SA in general War Suns aren't unchecked by other units. With the SA Dreadnoughts it is possible to construct a hard hitting fleet without those War Suns, and techs like Assault Cannons and TypeIV drive becomes better and other directions in general are worthwhile. What is important to notice is that when you change one unit in the game ALL balance changes thereafter. So have you playtested SA as it is, or are you thinking about this tech in particular in normal games? I would choose not to lower cruiser value to one for three reasons. It FEELS wrong that a cruiser costs less than a destroyer, I could no longer add Assault Cannons to Cruisers which has balanced my tech tree extremely well, and I would then have to start from scratch with playtesting etc. I also want to use as many of the printed numbers as possible, and one more thing, I won't start over with playtesting now after hundreds of games.. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Grummore wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Me ME ME!!! :D |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 i would like a coppy of that :-) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I would love a copy of the PDF of that. Maybe there's a free hosting site where you could put it, as not to freak out our collective mail servers? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 That would surely be the best. I'll have a look around. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Wow, that's a hefty file. Sign up to Yahoo! mail and you get unlimited storage space. Might be worth doing... |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I would very much like a copy of that PDF but my mail box can not cope wth such a large file. I am willing to sign up where directed to or get it in smaller pieces Please :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I've found a free hosting site now which I think will be able to help us out. The only problem is that I'm away for a few days and sit on another computer now. I'll try to upload it asap. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I simply dont get these hosting sites to work (im totally newbish on that, but it should be THAT problematic!), and gmail seems unnable to send files of 50mb. Man this is so retarded. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 You can use my site, Psi. Check the pm I sent you for details. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Thanks a lot, man! Now I just need to get home to the other computer again.. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Does Dreadnoughts shoot with 1 or 2 dice with precombat assault cannons? BTW I love what you did to Saar. In our last game players A (neighbor) and B (opposite player) were ganging up on me, so I gathered everything I had to a wormhole at my area and when A attacked me I retreated to Malice (which I had activated earlier) and took everything I had with me including space docks and basically abandoned my starting area altogether. Then B invaded to Malice through wormhole that was adjacent to his homeplanet thinking I couldn't get away since I didn't have available activated systems in any wormholes. So he threw everything at me and I pulled of skilled retreat action card and escaped through the very portal he used to invade malice. Next turn I took his homesystem and immediately built more back up forces with the 3 space docks I had taken with me through all the escapes. You should have seen B's face then. Later I was ass kicked anyways, but it was very memorable moment. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Assault cannon-ed Dreads and Cruisers always fire only 1 pre-combat shot, even with Admirals. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Hipsu-kun wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Nehkrimah wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 The rule says; Dreadnoughts roll 2 dice in Space Battle, so this exludes bombardment. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 And why is that? War Suns get 3 dice for bombardment. Why shouldn't Dreadnoughts get 2? It would make it easier to remember if it's always 2 dice. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Unlike some people on the boards, I think there should be more bombardment in general. In TI2, you could have dozens of Dreads and they could bombard with impunity, except for PDS of course. But GF's were a LOT more expensive in relation to Dreads, as were PDS, so it was harder to defend against. So I, for one, would be happy seeing Dreads able to bombard twice on the ground. It's ok if they can only do once too I suppose. Might also consider making Graviton Negator better by giving them a second bombardment roll. Here's a question, though... since Dreads can now bombard without invading (THANK you), can they bombard a planet under someone's control w/out a GF there and revert the planet to neutrality, like they could in TI2? |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 GMO wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 One reason to change Dreads to a general of 2 dice bombardment is that a single PDS unit may completely block the bombardment, which makes it relatively easy to counter. That and of course the slow speed of the Dread. Hard to get it where you need it. Im still worried though, that TypeIV rushing 3 Dreads into a system will simply kill too many residing GF. From another viewpoint, it could be a good reason to reduce War Sun bombardment in the game. The fact that War Suns bombard right through PDS (even without penalty) is a sonofabitch killer to all ground based defense tactics. For this reason, the only race setup I can't really win in my head is Sol against Muaat). (Then again, in Shattered Ascension War Suns aren't THAT dominating in the air so you CAN stop them before they get to bombard. It's a fine line here). One once proposed that I should reduce War Sun bombardment to 2 dice instead, both for balance reasons and for uniform values: DREAD 2 dice, 2 hits, 2 production usage, 1 bombardment WAR SUN 3 dice, 3 hits, 3 production usage, 2 bombardment. It's not a bad idea actually. Mike; We actually use the bombard-to-neutrality rule (but have forgot to write it on the sheets, since I for a time imagined the rule to be official). Quote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Here's what I think.... I say make Dreads fight 2 dice in space and invasion, War Suns 3 dice space and invasion. BOTH are restricted by PDS. That's right folks, no more War Suns ignoring everything. I always thought that was cheesy anyway. At move 2, 3 dice@3, they're still totally awesome. Make Graviton Negator allow both Dreads AND War Suns to ignore PDS. That gives you more of a reason to get the tech. And since Graviton Negator has two paths to it (one thru Daxcive, one thru ACannon) you have some choice about how you wanna get there. I don't think it'll make Dreads too powerful. They're still -2 and 1 die roll short of a War Sun, they still cost a heckuva lot, and they're still slower than molasses in January. I just played as L1z1x in a ftf duel game and it was STILL a pain in the arse moving those dreads around, even with easy access to WarfareII. You could actually ignore ACannon and go Type IV Drive, and since that requires neural you're only two from Graviton Negator. That's actually a pretty cool alternative. Rather than getting scary-fighting Dreads and cruisers that can ignore PDS, you forgo the extra shots for faster Dreads and then work your way to ignoring PDS. |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Quote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Mike_Evans wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I love the standardization, but it will be many deviances from the normal rules. It would surely be for the better, but the Shattered Ascension list is getting long. Added rules will be: *War Suns may NOT bombard through PDS. *Graviton Negator also enables War Suns to Bombard through PDS. *A planet containing a Scientist and a PDS unit may NEVER be bombarded. So the three required changes is the backside. It's fairly easy to play with newbies as it is now (especially since I've marked any changed card with an SA symbol). But three new changes. Well. if it's for the better... |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I definitely think it's for the better. Simpler, more intuitive, should be balanced too. PDS take a pretty heavy hit not being able to combine Graviton Laser with Deep Space if you're not playing with extra plastic (and I probably never will, as I painted all my extra plastics from a second box set to give every race their own color). This will make them better. I really, really like a lot of Psi's changes. I need to play a few more games and really go over the rules with a fine tooth comb, but all and all I am impressed. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I think WarSun should be able to bomb through PDS that way its still getting planets from heavy GF/strong GF is possible and for Jolnar not getting bombard is real pain. Jol is already getting beaten SA weapon techs somewhat and this would increase it again. Id go for penalties if theres PDS present. -1 Die per PDS minimum of 0. That way dread against 2PDS woudn't get any die and WS would get still 1. One is not killer but it makes something at least. I think one point of getting WarSun is to get those GF away. Without any bombard claiming another HS would be real pain and those SOs very much harder. I find -1 per PDS alot more balanced and still easy to remember. Also that would mean you cant spread 1PDS per planet to get maximum protection but have to concentrate on one planet. In double system that leaves another planet vulnerable. Want to protect both a bit or one alot? For just 1PDS to protect 2 die is inconsistent with other things (like damage lose 1 die). My proposition: *Warsun bombard 3, Dread 2 *PDS reduces 1 die to minimum of 0 *Graviton negator removes PDS protection unless scientist on planet (or removes 1pds protection?) *scientist with PDS counts as 1 PDS so you need 2PDS to defend against warsun too. (Hey come on, thats no MOON!). *If you inflict 1 bombard damage to planet without any GF it reverts neutral (so its not enough to kill last GF but kill the population in the planet) Also on a sidenote you rush things quite fast to change rules. Of course its your set but still more conversation about effects would be good to really make them best on first try. -Dracandross |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Thanks for the input, guys. And Dracandross, I'm NOT rushing into changes. These rules have slowly developed over the course of the last years, one by one. It takes a lot of thought, lot of playtesting. A lot of decisions. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Yes, I know its behind playtesting but I mean when you put them here and still take comments for them and then within day theres text saying its approved (now you are running Compo it directly affects others too). As you have alot more experience you can draw them from it of course but still without discussion about different possibilities and their good/bad sides and reasons why one was picked (that was one point Ive brought up before too). As it is better to have one good set than SA Dracs variation and SA Mike variation... For example this modification leads to decreasing value of WS and what Ive understood you can do well without and when its still nerfed its even less tempting to put 5 techs to get (well of course you most likely have 1-2 of those from start and rest are veery good in their own also but still it takes time to get those). I also liked idea of bombarding to neutrality but is it too powerful? -Dracandross |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I like Dracandross proposal. It is quite elegant, I think. And BTW, we finally have moved from original Saar RT to PsiComa one. :) |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Dracandross wrote:
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I'd say keep 1 die for Dread bombing. 2 dice felt a little too much in our last game when there were more than 1 Dread in a fleet. Besides you get 2 dreads for the price of 1 WS without need for any techs. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 It's difficult to say for sure. btw Hipsu; Did you just try the Saar racial tech, or did you try more of this set of rules? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 We played with most of them whenever we remembered what was changed and what was not. I did have the rules printed out of course and was looking at them at times. We are mostly newbs and even if you didn't change THAT much, it's still quite a list of changes. For example if someone draws Friendly Fire AC, he won't remember to check if it was changed or not and when he plays it, it's kind of too late to say "btw, it's changed". But I think it just needs a few more game to get used to. The new PO setup and bureaucracy is made of win however, and also all the stuff that's "on" during the whole game, like incompatible weapon techs. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Yeah, I can imagine that the first game is especially difficult that way. I have a bunch of gamers that forget those subtle changes even though i have marked the cards!! For that reason alone, you could scratch changes in Action Card's since they're not that important. It's just an Action Card after all, not the spine of the game. The two cards I've changed just bugged be enough to write the change down. It will be a lot better after a few games, though. Cool the hear that people try them out. And don't hesitate to ask if you got questions. Btw, the PDF file is being linked soon. Vector graphics ensures 100% perfect print, in contrast to the jpg files I've used until now. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Since I have all my cards (except techs) sleeved, it's no problem for me to insert a piece of paper in the sleeve, right over the original card. I do have quite a few questions, which I'll ask here since you prefer them public. But it won't be until later today, or maybe the 26th, depending on how busy I get. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Another factor to consider when your doing cruiser vs destroyer tests is that Ti is often not about the long term, its about the right now. For example, you were comparing crusiers vs destroyers and seeing which fleets were more cost effective. The cruisers (with the assault houserule) were winning, but you were still losing more resources with them overall. However, keep in mind that at the moment the battle is over, you still have cruisers ready to fight. The destroyers are gone, and have to be rebuilt. Further, if you need to take a key planet (such as an artifact), you may not care if you lose more resources than your opponent, you just care about winning. As far as the bombardment issue, I do not think that giving dreads 2 bombardment straight up is a good idea. You don't want to beef up a unit just to have it weaken another unit that doesn't need weakening. However, if you allow pds to block bombardment for warsuns and dreadnoughts then that can work. Psi, if you recall you and I had a discussion a while back about pds' no longer blocking attacks completely, but either providing a -1 to bombardment rolls or blocking 1 successful bombardment, or simply blocking one bombardment roll. It might be a good idea to bring that one back out. PDS now block one bombardment roll for example. So warsuns would get 2 rolls and dreads 1 against a pds planet. |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Also notice how it changes whole strategy if ONE PDS can block both WS and DN. Now when those WS come its bad at least for units (VPs are different anyway). It really devaluates worth of WS while again pumping DN which has had it share. If you take consideration that SA is thought to work on increased plastics you'd have 9 planets that cant be bombed. Who rules the skies can do whatever they wish dont let that WS float around your systems. With -1 die/PDS you still can have decent protection but not immunity. I even didnt consider it could give just penalty to bombing but reducing die is easier. Also if you damage your WS you have to float around a bit longer to make bombing work... I like idea of techs adding things to this and that but still going for WS and grav negator for bombarding ability is way too demanding. GNeg needs another 6 techs to get. Thats total of 11 techs to get WS bombing. Show me game where you are not JolNar and you can pull that many techs out for just getting biggest unit out and usable decently (and dont point Technorats with 2 tech SCs and free tech every status phase you dont play such games alot). Ive heard many say in this board WS is not needed for winning so why you need to devaluate it to be real tech eater. In addition if you go for grav neg your DN already gets bombing ability and stasis capsules. with those 3 techs you save from getting WS you could already go for faster DN for better mobility for DN, CV and CA not to mention that faster CV is very good early (ok you wouldnt have Deep spaces Cans for defense but tradeoff still is bad in my eyes) -D |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Here are the questions I had after reading through the Shattered Ascension rule set. Note that I have ignored several sections, having no desire to play with them (Distant Suns). I apologiz in advance if any of these questions have been previously answered... there's a lot of material about this for me to sift through, and since I was on "sabbatical" until recently, catching up on everything is not realistic! ----------- Jol Nar can get 2 free technologies for 1 CC if they activate the primary of Tech. But why does Xxcha have to spend 3 influence to do the primary twice? Diplomacy is arguably a less powerful Strategy Card than tech. Is it because the nature of duels is lots of combat, and it is too powerful to "Signal Jam" two hexes in one go, or too good to annex 2 planets in the first turn? Mentak theft in 2 player games: Every other time you can steal from a phantom player. So does that mean half the time it costs 1 CC to steal a single TG? That seems pretty crappy. Saar Floating Factories: Does this tech still give them the +1 to production, or is that gone? Since they can not retreat/withdraw, can you play Flank Speeds and such on them as well? Jol Nar spatial conduit: So you could essentially "Spatial Jump" to an empty space across the galaxy (say, next to somebody's home system) and that would ok? But as per the card, you could only move ships from a single hex to that system... Bureaucracy: This works more like my old ISC variant, then, right? When revealing the last Stage I objective, I do not draw one StageI objective and one Stage II, right? In other words, instead of using a pre-constructed deck of just a few of each objective type in order, I use all of the cards in Stage I in a stack, and when Stage II is initiated, I get rid of the remaining Stage I's and start the Stage II deck (with all cards in it). Right? Assembly Voice of Council in Duels: Do you roll "phantom" vote dice for both the VoC vote and the regular vote, or roll once and apply the results to both votes? Simultaneous Actions REPLACE Transfers... you cannot do a Transfer instead in some situations? The reason is, it is cheaper to do a Transfer action in the following situation: I want to move ships between two hexes I control and build in one of them. That only costs 1 CC per normal rules. But by the SAction rules as I understand them, that would cost me two CC's (1 CC, 1 free from reinforcement, but 1 more for a "prime" activation to build in one of those systems). Friendly Fire: Is the purpose of this change to buff this already-powerful card? Because if each enemy fighter has a 50% chance of scoring it a hit on their own fleet, if you're unlucky and roll poorly you can do a lot more damage than just 50% of your fighters. In addition, you can play this card even if the enemy fleet has fewer fighters than capital ships? Seems like an improvement, and Friendly Fire is already very very strong. And what is this "May target any fleet?" Does that mean you don't have to participate in the battle to play this on someone? That's crazy. Just to confirm... Agents now function like diplomats, but against AC's instead of invasion? Do they still have their PDS suppression and capture rules? AC's can work on a Home System if the original race doesn't control it. Does that mean I can play a Signal Jam on Sardakk N'orr's home system if I have a ground force on Tren'lak? |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 I can give you few answers Mentak steal is VERY SUPER UUBER POWERFUL. Im playin with mentak in compo now and in both games stealing TG from anywhere has bought time in critical situations. Its all about timing (but yes taking from ghost once or twice and from another plr about 5-7 times). Not the TG but the delay! (you couldnt get TGs at all as it was before) Id word Jolnar they get 1 tech at strategy phase. Dot No more no less regardless of who picks SC and no other tech ability. They could get 2 if buying or 3 if taking SC as themselves. Id also allow transfer and simu action for reason you mentioned. Controlling HS means you can play AC (non hs) to Hacan player controlling Sol HS but not if its controlled by sol. Friendly fire is anyway who cares card as everyone plays with destroyers not fighters but its 50% hit chance so max of 50% die could be less. Agents just cancel cards from system they are in (and are not wasted but exhausted) all other rules apply as before. -Dracandross |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Psi's PDF is available now on my Sides page (linked in my sig). Here's the direct link: http://www.checkwolf.com/ti3/images/Shattered%20Ascension%202.7%20pdf.zip. It's a chunky 51MB. :) |
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Not sure I agree about the "who cares" nature of Friendly fire (esp if you're a race that doesn't end up getting ADT) but we'll see what Psi has to say. Here's another question I just thought of: What do you do about "Supremacy" (control 2 home systems outside your own) or the 4-capital ships-in-2-HS-to-win objectives that automatically win you the game? Do you play that you just win by meeting the requirements of your opponent's HS and that's it? |
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Mike_Evans wrote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Mike_Evans wrote:
|
|
| ||||
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Just letting all those who are using Shattered Ascention on the Wiki: I've made an updated tech tree for use on the wiki: just use - For the Technology page, you can add this up top: Quote:
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
Title:
Re: The Shattered Ascension rule set v2.7 Nice. :) However, you have misspelled "Ascension". |
|
|
|
Fantasy
Flight Games Forum » Powered by YaBB
2.1! |