24/10/2017 at 18:42 #74690
I thought this might help to make one thread where people could put suggestions forward for the revision of Laserstorm. Anything constructive welcome. I think the points system although open to abuse is not bad at putting forces on table where two equal points values armies have a similar chance of winning. I simply don’t think it is possible to design an unbreakable system but I would suggest the following:
24/10/2017 at 19:27 #74698
- Rename the aim weapon trait to something like “advanced targeting” to avoid confusion with aim unit stat. It is of course way too cheap and needs to be related to the range and power of the weapon it is applied to.
- I know Ivan wants to avoid anything fiendishly complicated but I wonder if aim could cost something based on weapon cost multiplied by the aim chosen. My maths is rubbish and I am not sure how this effects other costs but off the top of my head. For infantry aim stat is 5, mulitiplier is 0.5, aim stat 4 multiplier .0.75, aim stat 3 multiplier 1. So a weapon with 20 inch range cost 2 and 3 save modifier cost 6 total cost 8. With aim stat 5 aim for that weapon costs4, aim 4 cost 6, aim 3 cost 8. Different modifiers for each class of unit.
- Armour seems too cheap. Almost always pays to choose highest possible armour value. I am not sure the cost of armour should be a linear progression. Maybe have steps, eg armour 3 better than base add 2 points, 5 better than base add six points. We are recommended not to choose armour higher than seven for vehicles so I would be tempted to bring the start point down to 7. Or could a discount be offered for vehicles with armour above 7?
“Aim” has become a major headache really.
The point of it is to have units where one weapon is superior to the rest (f.x. a tank destroyer might have a very accurate main weapon, but its machine guns don’t benefit) but it’s been very open to breaking.
I think it needs to be rethought completely.
If we’re settling on an excel solution, then the formula can get more convoluted without too much worry I think.
Ideally the Aim stat should reflect the weapon in question more than it does now, whether its a multiplier or a tiered factor, I agree.
I think for armor saves, a “gradual” increase, ala how levelling up works in D&D, where each step increases the cost slightly.
Would just have to change it to a table.25/10/2017 at 19:00 #74769
A couple of other points I think I have mentioned before but maybe good to have everything in one place.
4 The cost of the aim stat is too low. Not sure what it should be but I know if I was power gaming I would have no hesitation in choosing an aim of 3 for everything.
5 I have move away from the army battlegroup activation by card. I found that a flip/flop when a battlegroup of the same side was activated twice or three times in a row perhaps at the end of one turn and the start of the next this was almost enough to win games in itself. The relatively small number of turns making this a bigger deal. Instead I randomly roll for initiative and this stays fixed for the game. Both players randomly determine which of their battlegroups is active. The player with initiative moves his choice of unit in his active battlegroup and then the other player does the same until there are no unactivated units left on either side in the active battlegroups. Then new battlegroups are randomly determined. So basically when your opponent makes a move you know you will get to reply with something but not necessarily the unit you would choose if you could choose from your entire army. I do this along with the optional rule of rolling a 6 for a reaction. Seems to give a very enjoyable flow to the turn. I also limit reactions to one move and one fire per unit per turn.
6 I like to deploy by moving on from board edge. This soon sorts out the faster moving units and looks less like troops lined up for a battle of ancients.08/11/2017 at 13:25 #75850SkullhammaParticipant
I’d really like to see rules for flyers. Laserstorm is great fun, but I want to use my Fightabommas and Firebirds! I could imagine something more abstract like in Epic 40.000 (flyers appear only on the table when they are used) or a permanent presence on the battlefield like in NETepic. Either way, there are so many great 6mm models for flying vehicles that Laserstorm will always be considered “incomplete” wihtout rules for them.08/11/2017 at 14:16 #75853Who Asked This JokerParticipant
I don’t like the multi-dice saves As in Roll 1 two or 3 D6 for a save. With this, you can’t pick up a handful of dice and save for a bunch of hits at once. You have to roll each hit one at a time. Consider distilling saves down to a single D6.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
--Abraham Lincoln08/11/2017 at 19:35 #75865
Yeah, the absence of flyers is sort of a glaring omission.
At the time, I had somehow convinced myself that people wouldn’t want it, but that’s obviously nonsense 🙂
John – I rather like that mechanic because it solves a lot of scaling issues, but if you come up with something comparable on a single die, I’d be interested for sure.09/11/2017 at 13:02 #75905SkullhammaParticipant
The multiple D6 for bigger units is one the things I like best about Laserstorm, since it protects the superheavies well but also provides a chance to destroy them with a single shot. I’d like you to keep it this way, please.
And we need FLYERS! 😉09/11/2017 at 16:13 #75923Who Asked This JokerParticipant
John – I rather like that mechanic because it solves a lot of scaling issues, but if you come up with something comparable on a single die, I’d be interested for sure.
WARNING This comes from eyeballing the rules. No actual game-play experience
First off, I don’t think the extra granularity in armor is really needed. You have enough traits and abilities to add plenty of variety.
Second, there were quaite a few 100% saves which would likely result in a negative save number on a D6. I’d suggest turning everything over so you could express even better saves as 8 or less on a D6 instead of -2 or better. It just looks better. The percentages cannot be accurately mimicked with a D6 but you can make a workable system that gives the feel…hopefully. 😉 Infantry did not change in armor but I will express all saves as that number or less.
So infantry saves are 3, 2 or 1 based on type. Includes light vehicles.
Heavies are 6, 5 or 4 based on type. Equate the 6 to a 1 or 2 save. A 5 to a 3 or 4 save and a 6 to a 5 or 6 save.
Super heavies would have saves of 7 or 6. 7 equates to anything with a 2 or 3 save. 6 equates to the 5 save.
Behemoths have an 8 or a 7. 8 equates to a 2 or 4 save and a 7 equates to a 6 save.
Weapons remain the same except cut all save mods in half round down. At least with the infantry type weapons, every one made sense. There was differentiation beteen the Buzz bomb and the plasma rifle both end up with a -1 save mod but the plasma rifle is GP and the buzz bomb is AT. Small arms and MGs have 0 save mod as does the gauss rifle but the latter is a GP while the others are AI. It all kinda works.
No need to make the saves positive numbers. Instead of deducting from the die roll, you can deduct them from the save number. No need for any more “squad leader” math. 😉
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
--Abraham Lincoln19/11/2017 at 03:55 #76530Willard MooreParticipant
Greetings Ivan and LaserStorm fans, Scott and I really enjoy the game down here in Huntsville, Alabma, and appreciate the chance to participate in the next revision. As you know designing units with out a great deal of Excel work is painful. Which forced me to build the Excel LasStorm Unit Designer and Army builder. I think your system is very good, but we should focus on simplify the design system so more people can play without the need for an Excel design tool. I think you should be able to design a unit by going through a set number of steps and using some simple formulas or look up tables.
Also, I would also like to see air craft separated out from Grav vehicles. Right now we classify aircraft as Gravs with no limit. The issue here is to require another set of weapon characteristics such as Anti Infantry, Anti Armor, and Anti Air. I have a large number of VTOLS for ground attack and air transport, but I feel the game does not support the air combat portion dimension very well. I know it is easy to envision weapons that engage ground targets just as well as air, but in truth the high speeds and altitudes of the aircraft can definitely justify another weapons category, and I have so many ADA vehicles and missile units that are sitting in the box and crying out for their birth right to join the battle.
Ivan, I will be touch,
Cheers19/11/2017 at 19:00 #76568
Yeah, distinct AA units is a must.
I wouldn’t be opposed to a simpler points formula, though that may also open up the possibilities for exploits.
If you have any thoughts at all in that regard, I am absolutely open to hearing them.
Looking forward to hearing from you 🙂31/12/2017 at 18:26 #80360
Another couple of variants I have used and rather like and put forward for consideration as optional rules.
7 Units needing to take a morale test when the battlegroup actions are completed are unable to move closer to enemy. This means fire can be used to pin enemy units giving another tactical level.
8 The same unit can only make a maximum of two snap actions a turn. One movement and one fire (if of a type allowed to do so). This means every successful snap action does not go to the same unit with the best firepower.
I realise these may push the boundaries of what people can remember without on table markers. Personally I don’t have an aversion to same.01/01/2018 at 17:24 #80410
Having no markers is basically the Rubicon – Once we go down that path, then it’s a whole new kettle of fish 🙂
Limiting snap actions by unit makes an awful lot of sense.
When we do the revision, I’d like to add more optional rules and that will almost certainly be added.07/01/2018 at 12:04 #81076
9 Double time. I think the last time we were talking about this you were still undecided as to who could double time but recommended sticking with infantry and cavalry only. I would suggest including anything with legs, so mechs and spider like vehicles are included. I find mechs with only short range weapons and a low movement rate (which feels right) don’t work too well being too slow to get into the action.08/01/2018 at 17:17 #81214
I’ve gone back and forth on it every since to be honest.
On one hand, its simpler if all units can double-time it (and maybe more “realistic” ?).
On the other hand, infantry and walkers need it more, as you suggest, than tanks and light vehicles.
I think I’d be open to limiting it to legs only or increasing the risk for conventional vehicles.08/01/2018 at 18:24 #81222
10 Claiming objectives. A suggestion re objectives. At the moment any unit inside 4″ contests an objective. I find this leads to situations where you just know you can’t get anything in close enough to contest on a given turn. I would suggest control is determined by the army value of contesting units. A command stand is worth +1 army points, an infantry stand worth 2 and a vehicle or light vehicle unit 1. If a unit is reduced to half strength or less it’s army value is -1. This mixes it up a little. EG a group of grav light vehicles has swooped in on an objective, you have nothing near but if you can take out half the vehicles they have an army value of zero and the objective remains unclaimed.10/01/2018 at 18:59 #81421
The initial thought was that the morale check (literally driving the enemy off the objective) would mostly handle this, but I do like the idea of different units being “worth” different amounts.
I like the idea of infantry being more valuable as well. Gives them more to do, and it does tone down the “get one tank in range” syndrome a bit.
Will consider but very likely to accept this.13/01/2018 at 10:09 #81747
Yes sorry Ivan I used the wrong example. Push backs (one of the reasons I love this system) do pretty much deal with the situation I described. My suggestion helps with the one tank rush you describe and just gives a bit more depth to play. More options and you can take control of an objective rather than just disputing it. You can use a mix of units to outscore your opponents claim to an objective combined with using fire to reduce your opponents claim and or drive them off. Also helps with claiming objectives like a hill or building by sitting out of sight behind. This gains you nothing if more opposing forces come in range where as in the current scheme the objective is disputed scoring nothing.22/06/2018 at 18:07 #93821
11) Units who would be able to claim a cover save if shot at gain a +1 in the initial assault roll if assaulted to reflect the fact they are behind an obstacle or in a building and assaulting them is more difficult than it would be against an opponent in the open.23/06/2018 at 20:26 #93885
12) Vehicles if allowed to run roll for failure on 2d6. Not related to morale as it represents mechanical break down. Pass on 4+.30/06/2018 at 17:54 #94260
I am traveling so no detailed response but both of these have gone on my list of likely inclusions.12/12/2018 at 09:01 #105563cmnashParticipant
Hi Ivan, Do you have any idea when this revision might arrive?
.12/12/2018 at 21:22 #105613
Best answer is “no”.
There’s been discussions with two parties about possibly buying the rights to the system, but I am not sure if that’s going anywhere.14/12/2018 at 10:05 #105717cmnashParticipant
Ivan, Thanks for the quick reply
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.