Jump to content

Stoobert

Member
  • Content count

    704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Stoobert last won the day on April 19

Stoobert had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Stoobert

  • Rank
    Chronically 3rd Place

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    You Ess Eh?

Recent Profile Visitors

731 profile views
  1. Stoobert

    Spartan old rules!

    Some torpedoes have limited arcs and aren't on turrets(any arc). A torpedo can apparently be programmed to fly through asteroids or around a planetoid (they ignore terrain of this type). If that is true I suppose it doesn't make much sense torpedoes cannot be programmed to fire out of the left side of a ship and immediately turn around and fly to the right.
  2. Stoobert

    Spartan old rules!

    @Jorgen_CAB thanks for your feedback. I really value different customer perspectives on FSA. From my experience as a former Vanguard most gamers don't like FSA 2.0 enough to buy product or play again. Some prospective customers who said 'no thanks' to FSA had similar ideas and feedback as you. There are also those who bought a fleet, played, and then quit. Granted rejection will happen for ANY game, but the frequency/percentage at which it happens is the difference between a thriving player community and not. As much as I played myself, I have to admit the 2.0 version of the game had deep flaws and was often repetitive. I'm wondering if this should be moved to the Firestorm Armada section of the forums since that's mainly what this is about?
  3. Stoobert

    Ship Stat Changes

    @Skyhawk the Terran Heavy isn’t bad stat wise but it’s weapons loadout doesn’t mesh well with the Teuton, making mixed squadrons impractical. Terrans just need a second cruiser type like the other factions. Like the others I’m eagerly awaiting an explanation why CJ thinks the Falx is fine, compared to other Battleships of equal value
  4. Stoobert

    Ship Stat Changes

    The Falx is a dud no doubt. Poor lizards. Yes agreed I was talking mostly about cross faction balance. A dud unit here and there is one thing but when you peek at a few years of tournament standings and Warlogs a pattern emerges. But still lot of balance is subjective and hard to quantify. In a game with buff/combo mechanics (X-Wing, Warmachine) the meta is more about synergy combos, and there are generally only a handful of power combos in the top tables at any given time. Since FSA mostly lacks combos the meta is about the prevalence of cost effective classes in any given faction.
  5. Stoobert

    Ship Stat Changes

    The premise of the OP is solid, some ship classes don’t differentiate enough from others and the Wayfarer is one example. There are also imbalances (as in any game) where a class just doesn’t provide the same value as another class of equal points in almost every situation. To some extent chasing “the meta” is part of the fun of a game. But as a frequent competive player of FSA and many other games, I’d rate 2.0 FSA’s overall balance as below average. Of course it is a slippery slope. “Boost my fave ship!” is a common request and no one will be happy 100%. WC has a big job ahead of them.
  6. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    “Repair” is a misnomer for removing Crit Effects, cause as we know it is not removal of the damage itself. “Recovery” is a much better word. If we accept the timescale and notion that ship Crew can Recover from Crit Effects then it’s just a balancing act to implement. How effective are Crew? 5+? 6? Some other Crew vs Effect dice formula? When? Are Capital ships better? Are all Effects equally difficult to Recover from? WC will figure something out if they like this idea which I hope they do.
  7. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    Whether repair happens at the beginning or end of each turn seems relevant mostly for TAC cards and FSD escapes. Whether repair happens at the beginning or end of activation is more relevant, particularly for Effects like Main Drive Failure if you're headed for a planet. I don't necessarily think there's a right or wrong way to do it, and you could even do both. For instance repair attempts could happen at the beginning of each activation, but you could optionally play a TAC card at the beginning of each turn to get a guaranteed repair. It's kind of just a matter of game balance and how it feels. Regardless I really like the idea of crew running around in "damage control teams" and I think the extra time spend on this mechanic is worth the trade off.
  8. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    @Wolfgang Jannesen cool idea. Method 2 is a neat idea and not dissimilar to a suggestion I heard from a friend at my FLGS. It gives a great feel of "assigning damage control teams". Any engineer will tell you that there is no guarantee a problem gets solved, no matter how many on the team... and inversely sometimes just one engineer gets lucky on the first try. I like it. If the numbers need a little adjustment for balance, that's fine, but this method seems fun and conceptually doable.
  9. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    Thanks @Wolfgang Jannesen and dare I say my prior move proposal is more accurate as well, especially when moving through/over other models which happens frequently in FSA. Frans I think you may be reaching the point of "agree to disagree" with some people. I've got no problem with differences of opinion and I respect yours. My opinion that a spaceship game does not need to to have a fiddly and/or time-consuming movement system to be decent, it just needs to feel more like I'm flying a spaceship in space than steering a boat on water. This was a shortcoming of 2.0 IMHO. I am not interested in Taskforce nor SW:Armada but I am not suggesting anyone else play anything. Their game is their choice. FSA 2.0 is available for play now and forever for anyone. If someone wants design fiddly and time consuming they may consider more 'real physics' or 3D movement system, as it might feel a whole lot more like spaceships than boats. But that's not my call, again. Example: There are games like that such as Attack Vector: Tactical which are highly detailed (Newtonian) and that one could draw inspiration from.
  10. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    @Skyhawk those census figures from Stuart are between 800-900pt v2.0 depending on ships and fleet of course. You can do a Battleship, Battlestation, some SRS wings, a few upgrades, 6 cruisers, and 6 frigates for 900pt with either Terrans or Aquans. If you downgrade that Battlestation to a Carrier and take 4 cruisers you've got yourself an 800pt fleet.
  11. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    @Frans “picking its bones clean” in relation to a 2 hour game sounds sounds pretty disastrous and final. Yet the two major FSA tournaments have had round limits of 2.5 hours for the last 4 years. So if those round limits needed to be comfortably 2 hours that's a reduction of just 20%-30% game time. To use your bodily metaphor, that’s more like putting FSA on a diet, not picking its bones clean.
  12. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    @Kaptyn Krys thanks I was asking the question on behalf of others, not necessarily myself. I definitely fall into the camp of NOT feeling like 2.0 is/was a solid game (after many many plays of it) and think it needs major changes. But I respect the beliefs of others. We have our answer, nonetheless. Thanks Warcradle Richard. It's really good to know that the scale of the models won't change and our collections will be useful in the next game.
  13. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    We may be talking about two different things. There is already in 2.0 a combined stat for legacy models, for example the Storm, Chironex and Isonade... which are different sculpts but the same stats. I'm talking about a brand new class of ship, for instance the "Moray" (I'm just making that up) which is released for 3.0. Its stats (if different) could be backported to 2.0.
  14. Stoobert

    Future FA rules

    You know, I've been advocating for a survey of the community of players/collectors for a while now. There are at lease three basic categories of players and how they feel about the 2.0 rules: needs a lot of change, just make a few tweaks, or no change at all. Each is entitled to their own opinion, of course. However regardless of how the percentages fall in those three categories, there are going to be at least a few annoyed/disappointed people when the next ruleset drops. But 2.0 is staying the same for all I know, forever! And since some people believe 2.0 is a solid game, why not offer some support those who wish to keep playing it? I wonder if Warcradle has given any thought to: offering backwards-compatible 2.0 stats for new ship classes that are released, at least for a while releasing new scenarios and campaigns for 2.0. @Kaptyn Krys has a bunch already. And last year there was a tournament pack I saw from the Adepticon folks that had some too This could even been a sanctioned effort spearheaded by community volunteers. Just wonderin'...
  15. Stoobert

    Movement Changes?

    That laundry chart might be more fun than Race for the Galaxy, and it is certainly cheaper.
×

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.