Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by steve_990

  1. Tournament ready games can also be fun, but not all fun games are tournament ready.
  2. First off, I didn't mean to have a bonus to be cumulative, so you only add the highest bonus in your fleet. As for being more tactically interesting, it would not only be from a 'which ship do I bring to the game' perspective (as you could flavor certain ships like a carrier to have a higher bonus than say a dreadnought), but more from an enemy ship perspective. As in, which ship do I try to focus fire. The heavier gunned, or the one that gives a higher initiative bonus to their fleet.
  3. My vote is for linked AD to be a separate stat line that you just add after removing damage from. No math, just adding, and keeps the tactical flexibility of the current linking system. Straight combining sounds like it removes too much choice out of firing options for my taste.
  4. Let's please stick to the alternative activations. It's the most tactical and less random of the options. As for initiative bonus, I'm fine with modifying it. Maybe give bonuses to the smaller fleet because it's easier for them to co-ordinate, or give bonuses to the person with less Victory Points to show desperation, etc... (Not sold on this, just giving examples that pop in mind). You could even have different bonuses based on your ships. Like dreadnoughts have +3, battleships +2, etc... And you take the highest value in your fleet. Would give some tactical consideration for what ships to target.
  5. I like throwing lots of dice... but not opposed to throwing less for a better game experience... as long as it IS more fun.
  6. Can't speak for others, but I find simple text telling me the arc is best as it won't clutter the printout. Maybe have it so you can add or remove them? Also, as a suggestion a minimize button would be great :-)
  7. Completely agree with points 2 through 4. Point 1. Maybe if you make all movement straight ahead with a single pivot with the degrees you mention (270 for TL 0, 180 for TL1, 45 for TL2), but allow an additional pivot for each 2" movement less from the max. For example you move a TL1 ship with 10" MV. You can move straight ahead for 10" with a pivot before, during or after your move. Or move up to 8" with 2 pivots, 6" with 3 pivots. etc... Maybe max it to only 1 extra pivot allowed or extra pivots are limited to 3-TL or something. I think it's the extra token you need that seems awkward to me. And that's 'seems like' - I think it's pretty easy Point 5. I would miss the TL 0 circle. It was nice to activate some frigates and just say "they fly in a circle and end where they are". Now THAT is the fastest movement phase ever
  8. Oh, I'm not suggesting swappable pegs, just ones at different heights in the box so you can glue them on as you want. Give the look a more 3d look too. Swapping is a pain in the butt - I agree. I'd also be ok with collision rules if they were not too over the top in either damage or complexity.
  9. Count me in on the 'don't change the scale' team. Variable peg heights would help solve many of the ship overlap issues. As in either pegs at different heights, or adjustable pegs for up and down when ships get too close.
  10. I really dislike having official rules for casual games. They are totally unnecessary. Most people, when they choose to do a game for fun will often just come up with their own crazy rulings for their own amusement. Nothing wrong with that. If you have these things in the main rules, it causes the constant question if those rules are in use in formal play or not. Make the game as solid as you can for formal play and limit too many optional rules - those will only divide player bases. Player A wants the option, Player B refuses to play with the option, etc, etc... Allies in fluff terms can be based on anything. Zones of control, racial ties, they like the pants their buddies wear. Allies in table top game terms should be well thought out and balanced so that there are as few 'the only alliance worth playing' combos as possible. These things MUST be separate concerns.
  11. Those look good! Well done! I've actually thought that a PC game of Firestorm Armada would get the table top game more attention. No idea if Warcradle would want to go down that path, but if they do and it' s priced right - I'd buy it in a flash!
  12. Great video @Stoobert! I really like this system. The waypoints I'm a bit cold on, but can't think of a better alternative. Nice and quick and simple.
  13. You've made my day. Starcon 2 is one of my all time favorite games.
  14. Totally! Little stories about mix ups, traitors, or battle simulations are all great stories that add to the overall fluff. I just want to avoid the heavy handedness that may come from saying that every fleet has reasons to fight every other fleet in the game. One off stories are a great addition.
  15. The problem is that with a blanket rule like this it will help the Sorylians, but will also massively help Aquans. Better to just adjust Sorylian stats. Which as we are due for a v3 from Warcradle, it will be the perfect time. Heck - we might not even have the same movement rules at all.
  16. Count me in on the need to paint part! lol
  17. I'll just leave the solution I came up with here : https://thedicehateme.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/new-firestorm-armada-turning-template/
  18. Moving twice might be a bit much - especially for the control objectives type missions. Perhaps a Movement boost? 4" or something?
  19. Wow! Well done! You've done more painting than I have in my life in just a few days... lol. And they look good too!
  20. "LAUCH SRS!" ....... I also completely agree with Wolfgang. If you write a backstory in canon fluff for why every race is fighting each other it will be a total mess and it completely unnecessary. The general fluff that Spartan started is fine, it was the messing about with it by changing what was before and adding things that didn't make sense that was the issue. Let's not do a total rewrite just so someone has an official reason to do a Dindrenzi on Dindrenzi battle.
  21. Happy to help, Commodore... Hopefully whatever the rewrite is for 3.0, Battlescribe handles it better than with 2.0 ;-)
  22. Fluff helps with narrative for those players that enjoy it. Many of those players tend to play in familiar groups - so the narrative is shared. In these groups many people choose rival factions to make this happen. Fluff not supporting a Terran on Terran fight won't stop those who play in such a group from coming up with their own reasons. I'm ok with defining the sides of the conflict, but saying everyone just fights everyone else seems like lazy writing to me.
  23. More a question for the Warcradle guys than anyone else.... Is there any chance of unlocking the Dystopian Legions forum? It wasn't the busiest place, but I did enjoy the odd discussion about the game there. I know it's future will be discussed, but it might be nice to talk about the old game while we wait. Thanks!
  24. Renegades would have access to the same technology - at least in the opening engagements.
  25. Well I'm not familiar with Dropfleet, but my point was that movement is important in a game like this and I'd like to see a similar importance maintained.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.