Jump to content

DanSG-19

Member
  • Content Count

    904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from CorroPredo in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    Pok hits the nail on the head here. We have currently two different systems that do pretty much the same thing (Targeted Strikes and Boarding), with the caveat that Targeted Strikes can also cause Critical Hit results to appear and Boarding may occasionally result in a capture (currently). Simple solution to reduce the page count while keeping the base mechanic? Roll Targeted Strike and Boarding together, or just eliminate Boarding. Removing the ability to capture ships also makes a lot of sense to me. As for SRS and PD Mountain, the more I see and hear about it, the more I think it would be best to just get rid of Interceptors altogether. Keep Fighters as the Jack of all Trades, remove the PD from Bombers, ditch Assault Shuttles and keep Support Shuttles as is. Simples. 
  2. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Pok in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    The problem with boarding is that you now have a whole separate stat and mechanics, wildly different from main combat rules, for what is essentially targeted strike with a chance to destroy the ship outright(capturing). Is it really worth the extra hassle instead of making it a short-ranged weapon called "boarding"?
  3. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to alextroy in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    Time for a serious game based discussion of Boarding. There may be more to the boarding changes than this states, but it addresses the main issue Spartan sees with Boarding:
    Removing Capturing Ships: Too much rules space for a uncommon occurrence. Outside of outrageous rolls or squadrons with extreme AP values, only fleets built to make it work really used this rule. Pulling it from the game removes the need for writing comprehensive rules to cover the rare occurrence. It also removes the extreme result when an expensive Tier 1 gets removed from play by one lucky roll. Tracking for 1 Time Event: Currently, each ship Boards once which means you need to track whether a ship has boarded. Removing that means you no longer need to track and can just board whenever it is possible. This is yet another reason for Removing the Capture of ships. Imagine you could do this as many times as you manage to be in position with a squadron. Focusing Use: Seems they want to Focus Boarding on taking down systems rather than destroying or capturing ships. Makes sense. Why should marines be the most effective weapon in the game? Now the question I have is do we really need boarding as separate rule at all? This is not a matter of theme and realism, but one of extra rules for a niche system.
    What is the purpose of Boarding? When Can it be used? Can we get the same results without needing the special rules (Boarding Rules, Crew Points, Assault Points)? Without ship capture and with multiple use, it seems boarding is a short ranged weapon that allows Targeted Shots under an alternative resolution system then AD vs DR/CR. If this is the case, why not strengthen the rules for Targeted Strikes in Point Blank Range and do away with boarding entirely?
  4. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Huai in New blog post, a taste of 3.0   
    Now the single most important passage in that blogpost of course was:  "August 2017
    Brand new models arrive with statistics and rules for the factions within[..]" ^^ i can't wait to get some new (looking) models.
    Those Terran destroyers are in dire need of some 3-dimensionality ^^
  5. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Frans in New blog post, a taste of 3.0   
    This is where boarding belongs:

     
  6. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to gr1mdan in The move to blisters, good or bad?   
    Just had a word with the man in the ivory tower - Fleet Boxes are not going anywhere. Blisters are released alongside those fleets who get a starter/fleet box.
  7. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Flamebeast in *Supsended* Firestorm Armada Player Finder   
    Having seen the whole thing boil over from the inside, I can assure you that it wasn't Alex that started the fire. He just got driven over the line because that was the only thing he could attempt to try and kick some momentum into a community he genuinely loved being a part of, and hated seeing taken advantage of.
  8. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to UbiquitousWookiee in *Supsended* Firestorm Armada Player Finder   
    Thanks, Fracas. 
    On a separate note I have to say that I abhor censorship. I speak of what Spartan has decided to do to their former employee, Alex Mann. 
    Link
    Further updates to the Player Finder will be suspended until a public apology, on these forums is issued. I'm sure this will have zero lasting impact on Spartan staff, but it's my way saying their behavior was unacceptable. 
     
  9. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Flamebeast in *Supsended* Firestorm Armada Player Finder   
    Aye, but if any of them had any balls, they'd have attempted a public rebuttal rather than a blanket ban without warning, or public notice.
    Frankly the whole situation is indicative of Spartan's attitude at the moment - any criticism is brutally suppressed or ignored regardless of it's validity. Apparently the narcissism is strong at Evercreech these days.
  10. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from azrael in Firestorm: Taskforce Update by Spartan Neil   
    This is the only bit of the post that I paid more than the usual attention to. 
     
    TERRAN ALLIANCE BATTLE-CARRIER!!!!!!
     
    Looks like my fleet's admiral will be getting a new flagship after all... 
     
    Back on topic; I do like the idea behind the modular ships and magnetizing them depending on what you need/want to field that particular day. I should have started magnetizing stuff ages ago, means I wouldn't have about a dozen spare cruiser and heavy cruiser engine sections sat in the bits box now! 
  11. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from Kermit999 in Terran Tactica: Defenders of The Charter   
    Wayfarers: 
     
    In yet another case of Terrans sucking at fleet classification convention (heavy cruisers that are actually gunships, a dreadnought that is actually a super-battleship, a pocket battleship that somehow ended up being a battle-cruiser, and of course, the "torpedo destroyer"...), the Wayfarer fits the role of corvette in the Terran Alliance fleet while being called a "light frigate". There is nothing light about this "light frigate" aside from DR3 and a distinct lack of torpedoes. It is fast, has the same broadside batteries as an Armsmen frigate, still gets a shield and on top of that, gets Sector Shielding. Because 2 shields on a frigate that doesn't require you to sacrifice speed and a TAC slot LOL!
     
    These little gits are the bane of anything called a "destroyer", due to being hard to hit for nearly all capital ships, and their ridiculous (for Terrans anyway) speed. If your opponent doesn't bring a squadron of destroyers, then the Wayfarers can sit back with the Armsmen and Teutons in the early game and snipe poor, defenseless frigates with 6AD broadsides at 40". Be sure to use Sector Shielding when enemies are at a distance, makes it more likely that those 2SH from Sectoring will come into play. A squadron size of 3 to 6 ships is large for the Terran small ship squadrons, and gives you a chunkier frigate squadron for the same cost as four Armsmen. You get no hard points or upgrades, because it's only a frigate! 
     
    Perseus:
     
    The unholy love child of a Teuton and an Isonade, the Perseus is a fast cruiser capable of fighting off other Tier 3s and sometimes Tier 2s. 10"MV means you can get into and out of trouble fairly quickly for a Terran ship with "cruiser" in the designation. Without upgrades and hard points, the Perseus has good firepower with decent beam weapons in most arcs, and 'meh' torpedoes. Oddly for a Terran ship, your fore beam weapons are not limited to Fore Fixed, but instead have Fore Arc. This ship also has Reinforced Fore and Sector Shielding. You use that to drive towards something while making it harder for them to damage you. Then you swing around to point your broadsides at the target and mulch them. 
     
    For hard point options you have a choice of +1SH and Shield Projector (Self) for +5pts, or Turrets for +0pts. Take the turrets, they're free! For the upgrade slot, the Perseus gets Weapon Shielding. You take this too, so that enemies will have to kill off your light cruisers to actually degrade their firepower. With the turret weapons fitted, you can sit back and snipe like a scrub in RB3 with 12AD from linking your turrets and broadsides, or 6AD at RB4 if you're afraid of getting your paint scratched. If you give no fraks, you charge at the enemy, using terrain to mask your approach and then unleash a hot 14AD load on your enemy's face in RB2. The torpedoes are still meh. 
     
    Harpoons: 
     
    You've got to be kidding me, right? 
     
    EDIT: I suppose I could do the Harpoon... 
     
    The Harpoon does everything that the Artemis can do, but better. Because reasons. It is a torpedo destroyer that can sit back at long range and spam 14AD salvos at anything without an Interceptor escort or buckets of Point Defence (like frigates...). It has the same defences as most Terran Tier 2 ships, with one shield, DR4, CR6, PD3 and HP4. This doesn't matter, because you can kemp bush and still spam your torpedoes which ignore all Line of Sight restrictions. Unlike the Artemis which has to sit in the open like a scrub and fire its stupidly short ranged guns. If the enemy closes on you, you can run, because unlike the Artemis you don't lose your only good defensive MAR if you move. Alternately, if the enemy closes on you, you can fight. This is because the Harpoon actually gets guns that are worth more than a steaming pile of dog *****. In battle, you fire the 14AD torpedo spam at anything that is a Tier 3, just like the Artemis did before it got replaced by the Harpoon. Eventually, you may find that the enemy is in RB3. This is fine, because you still get 12AD of torpedo spam. You can also spam your torpedoes from half way across the damn table. You do not get close to the enemy, if you do you will be a boarding magnet because of your crappy AP1. 
     
    For the hard point options, you get +1SH and Shield Projector (Self) for +5pts, or Turret Weapons for +5pts. For upgrades you get a choice of either Stealth Systems (if you want to be sneaky Hobbitses) or Torpedo Spook (if you give no fraks about enemy Point Defence) for +10pts, and the choice between Decimator Warheads or Nuclear Torpedoes for +5pts. The only thing you don't get is Weapon Shielding, which is fine because the poor old Artemis never got it either. If you want to hunt frigates and corvettes, you take Nuclear Torpedoes for more inferno, Stealth Systems and +1SH and Shield Projector (Self). If you intend to take on Tier 2s and make carrier drivers cry, you take Decimator Warheads, Torpedo Spook and Turrets. Now go out there, and crush frigates until someone brings those stupid OP Works Raptor Torpedo Cruisers with their 15AD at all ranges torpedo spam and rips you a new one... 
  12. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Ruckdog in My New Terrans   
    Making more progress! The paintwork is essentially done on these guys. Next step is a coat of gloss varnish, and then it's on to decals!

  13. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from Kermit999 in Are our Destroyers any good?   
    The destroyers have a different role to the cruisers. Cruisers provide early game torpedo fire, and later on can move in and shoot stuff with beams/primaries. The Artemis is very much a 32" range mine, that can fire again and again, and can't be shot at from 20" or further. If you want a versatile ship capable of long range support and close range gunnery in the same package, go for the Teuton. If you want a Nuke cannon squadron that will scare the **** outta someone, go for the Artemis. 
  14. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from Kermit999 in Battlecruisers or Heavy cruisers ?   
    The Marshalls have twin Torpedo Launchers. They get the usual Cruiser torpedoes, but also have broadside launchers as well. This means that in RB4, you get 9AD, at RB3 and RB2, that goes up to 12AD, and in RB1, you get 13AD through linking. The Marshall is the ONLY Terran ship that gets better AD with torpedoes as it closes on the target. The Marshall also has Torpedo Spook. So your opponent HAS to re-roll any successes for the initial PD roll, making it likely that the torpedo strike will get through, especially if you fired the turrets at the same target and did some damage. For LOLs, you can give those torpedoes Decimator Warheads and buy the Countermeasures MAR. Since you want to be in RB1 for the Turrets, firing Decimator Warheads inside 8" of the target is a good idea, since if you score a critical hit, you not only force a command check, but Countermeasures forces the opponent to require three successes to pass that check. Of course, you could always buy Nukes. Nukes and Torpedo Spook? Oh yes please! In comparison to the Apollo Class Battleship's torpedoes, it's no contest. Apollo gets 8AD at best, the Marshall gets 9AD in that range band (RB4). 
     
    Now, for fighting the Dindrenzi, Terrans can do some things to mitigate all those nasty Railgun shots flying their way. One thing is to simply avoid it by flying around or even through terrain, to impede as many shots at you as possible. Another thing, is unless the Dindrenzi have Gunships, they have **** firepower on their sides. Most of the time it's just gun racks, and those only fire in one direction unlike a proper broadside. If you can get alongside a Dindrenzi ship with frigates, cruisers and battleships, you can usually get the Dindrenzi to panic and try to win a turning fight (which they can't). Terrans will not ever win a long range gunnery duel with Dindrenzi (unless the Dindrenzi have rubbish rolls with their Railguns. Then the Terrans have a chance), so don't get into a gunnery duel at long range with the Dindrenzi. 
  15. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from Kermit999 in To bring Apollo/Razorthorn up to snuff vs Tyrant   
    I've found the +3 Wings on the Tyrant essential when dealing with anything Directorate, not just for the battleship but for surrounding ships. At least 2 Support Shuttles and 1 Interceptor if possible are what I take. I frakking hate just about everything the Directorate can throw at the Terrans. When I get the Xelocians, I'll be going wing heavy with them as well. 
  16. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from Kermit999 in Feedback on FSA rules from new players, ideas for change, from a tournament   
    FSA 3.0 is coming. It's so obvious now that Eddard bloody Stark should be saying it. This means that some things in the rules and how the mechanics of the game work will change. It's not a new concept, we've all seen editions come and go in various game systems (and probably lamented it, gotten angry and walked off in the case of Wallethammer 40 Battlemallets...). That said, we all have different ideas for what needs updating, changing and tweaking. The thing is, this is Firestorm Armada. Not Star Wars Armada, or Halo Fleet Battles, or Battle Fleet Gothic, or Drop Fleet. It would be a bad thing for Firestorm Armada as a game, and the existing player base I think, if FSA 3.0 makes this game an imitation of something else. Sacrificing the identity of the game just for popularity's sake is really not the way Spartan should go, otherwise, what's the bloody point? 
    @ Commodore Jones: I use fighters too! Yes, I get odd looks for not using bomber spam or interceptor spam all over the place, but fighters are cool. Good for bullying frigates, corvettes and threatening cruisers, blocking enemy bomber strikes... I like the plucky little underdogs! 
  17. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from Kermit999 in Feedback on FSA rules from new players, ideas for change, from a tournament   
    To reply to the OP: 
    - Linked Fire must stay. If Firestorm Armada switches to Combined Fire for all weapons and attacks, then Attack Dice values across the board must be lowered, or ships made vastly tougher than they are now. We already have squadrons that can routinely push 20+ AD in one salvo. I don't think people will be too happy with Marshals rolling up a 32AD Combined Fire Beam Weapon attack in RB1 that re-rolls 1s to hit, or Cataphracts with an RB2 36AD attack. Or Harpoons rolling a 21AD Nuclear/Torpedo Spook torpedo barrage from the other side of the table... 
    - Removing successes due to damage is something I first came across in HFB. It's a mechanic that I don't get along with. It sort of works in HFB because all ships effectively have three HP, their three Damage Tracks, so at most they lose two successes. More than that and they're too busy being dead to worry about losing successes due to damage. In FSA, that would be more of a headache than it's worth unless you make ships have Damage Tracks instead of Hull Points (I'm also not a fan of that mechanic either). The current system works fine, doesn't need changing. 
    - Range Band simplification idea is interesting, taking it down to Short, Medium and Long Ranges. Beyond the Gates of Antares does something similar with Effective, Long and Extreme Ranges, but instead of altering Attack Dice values, that modifies the to hit value required on a D10 based on distance to target. It could work, though Attack Dice values across the board would have to be modded to cope with losing a range band. 
    - Linked to the above on Range Band simplification, making all weapons the same range bands (Primaries and Kinetics having the same range bands, for instance) would make things simpler. That said, stat cards, apps and PDFs can help with learning the range bands. It would also radically alter how fleets play. 
    - Indirect Weapons not losing AD due to crew/HP loss is an odd one. It makes sense game play wise to have something that can finish off a damaged ship, or still do some damage, late in the game. That, and the Tarakians would be royally screwed if Indirect Weapons suddenly lost AD from HP/CP loss. 
    - Isn't that the damage system we already have, or am I missing something? 
    - Fixed Fore is necessary I feel. Again, going back to playing HFB and having UNSC Marathons and Paris frigates firing MACs around corners effectively is a little weird. You would radically alter how the Dindrenzi and Tarakians play if their Kinetics and Grav could suddenly fire in a Fore Arc, instead of Fore Fixed. And probably make them completely OP and everyone would be crying for a nerf. Best to leave weapon arcs alone I think. 
    - I personally think the movement template we have now is fine, but that's just me. Movement mechanics should be left alone I think, manoeuvre is a big part of the tactical side of the game and making movement too simple would be a bad thing. See Halo Fleet Battles for details. 
    - Frigates going up to TL1 would be a big change. Perhaps too big? I personally don't see a problem with frigates and corvettes keeping their TL0 (aside from the Thraex which is TL1, because Dindrenzi). 
    - Moving SRS activation into the Boarding Phase does make sense. Right now we can board stuff with Assault Shuttles and then board stuff in the Boarding Phase, it's kind of disjointed. 
    - I like Fighters for bullying frigates and possibly cruisers and the larger threat range. But yes, Fighters currently are rarely used it seems because Bombers and Interceptors are so much more effective. Something to help Fighters out would be good. 
    - Moving Mines to the shooting phase would solve the Drive-By Mining Issue completely I think. It also does make sense that a weapon system (mines) would be deployed in the same part of an activation as the other weapon systems. 
    Anyway, those are my thoughts on the points brought up. 
  18. Like
    DanSG-19 got a reaction from Kermit999 in Giving the Tyrant one last chance   
    For some reason, the Tyrants fail to hit against anything. Up until that critical hit reactor blowout on a Directorate dread, the most they had done was scratch paint on an uncloaked Relthoza BB and blow away a Relthoza frigate. My dice rolls with the Tyrants almost always can be described as 'clucking bell'. I did joke with my opponent that the only reason the Tyrant hit is because a dreadnought is bigger than every other class of ship in the game currently, it couldn't miss no matter how hard it tried. As for targets, I tend to make sure it has at least something to shoot at, regardless of if it is a tier 3, 2, or 1, squadron. It just tends to miss whatever it tries to point at. Most of the time, I aim for Tier 2 and Tier 1s. Has the added bonus of inflicting 'oh god, a battleship is getting close to me!' on the opponent. 
     
    The Tyrant does have some nice toys to play with, don't get me wrong. It has a great utility as Interceptor carrier and as a speed demon of a battleship (+1 MV and -1 TL? oh where have you been all my life!?). It is also just as tanky as an Apollo. But for some reason their guns just never hit, except for THAT critical hit. My Apollos, painted up to look as shagged out as the Galactica, will routinely make enemy squadrons go away as if it's another day at the office... 
     
    I don't know, maybe it's just me having some sort of effect on the Tyrants, making them miss. Maybe my dice don't like them...
  19. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Commodore Jones in V3 Wishlists   
    Don't base it on anything Taskforce. V2.0 is good, very good, it just needs a few tweaks. Work with what's there and DO NOT just import over rules from another game.  Did that with V1.5 and look what that did, killed Firestorm in several markets, filled the official forums with almost nothing but arguments over what/who's house rule set was better because anything was better than the craptastic core rules at that point.  I get this niggling feeling 3.0 is going to be like that.
  20. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Madmac in STL Trader Proxy Fleet (work in progress)   
    These are my two types of STL cruisers.   Opportunity class, Mark 1 (with paint) and Mark 2

  21. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to quiet01 in Indomitable Class Battle Carrier   
    I wouldn't hold my breath.... humans do not look good when they turn blue.
     
    When was the last time FSA got an actual release?.....
     
    Buehler.... Buehler..... Buehler.......
  22. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Botticelli in Cyclic Shielding and losing your shields   
    RAW you would still ignore the coherence effect, but I remember that Spartan gave a general ruling on TAC's some time ago saying that the TAC effect is cancelled when the specifications are no longer met.
    Edit: This is from the Errata from March 2015:
    I think this counts as a precent.
  23. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Odal in Terran paint schemes? Starblazers style, blue/red?   
    Welcome to the Alliance Admiral.  
    Heres my Terrans.  look forward to seeing what you do. 

  24. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Diadochi in Feedback on FSA rules from new players, ideas for change, from a tournament   
    I'm unsure what to say. There are many responses but so many seem either not tackle the subject directly or would come across as very rude. I don;t know how this will come across, so apologies in advance for any offence caused. 
    If someone finds movement too difficult or tricky then I'm sorry, but the game shouldn't be changed just to suit one person or a small group of people who want a game with easy-sloppy-movement. To me at least the movement simulates the difficulty of manoeuvring the particularly cumbersome battleship sized vessels. I understand there are difficulties in moving squadrons of ships. To this I say the difficulty of manoeuvre, aiming board-sides, FF and such is supposed to be there, it's part of the game. Another consideration is the rules as written show the true distinctions between fixed fire, arc fire and turrets. Wishing FF to be easy, is a bit like wanting to keep your cake and eat it, it erodes away detail.
    Maybe more energy needs to be put in by the player into speeding up their play with practice, or players need to accept they cannot get things perfect every time within a reasonable window of time and just get on with it - imperfections and all. I personally are not a fan of chess clocks, but maybe as a voluntarily measure that might help. Rather than change the game, change the style and outlook of play. In the end I suppose it depends on your outlook, either the game of manoeuvre is a desired/important feature of the game as a whole, or it is not. Some like a big battle simulation, others favour a faster tactical style game (like X-Wing or Star Trek Attack Wing).
    Regarding house rules and other agreements between players I am definitely in favour of players allowing each other to speed up/bypass pieces of play that are deems unimportant, such as allowing the rest of the squadron to follow the lead vessel, I do the same. But the key here is it should be voluntarily, not part of the standing rules.
    Finally, I don't want FSA to become only about firepower and AD, thus why I see as important manoeuvre and the granularity between FF, arcs, turrets, weapon ranges, weapon types, all those details that get in the way of the cult of speed.
  25. Like
    DanSG-19 reacted to Commodore Jones in Interceptor SRS Rebalance   
    Something I've been brewing about on the size/effectiveness of Support Shuttles. While larger number token works fine for Medical Runs (roll to restore Crew points equal to wings in token), it's subject to diminishing returns on Engineering runs (-1 to repair roll for each wing after the first, a roll of one still fails) why not expand that a little bit. Give it so that Engineering Shuttles can make a repair roll each die/wing past the first reduces the to-hit needed until it maxes out at 3 wings (where a roll of 1 still fails) any after that allows a second repair roll at the standard and -1 to the roll etc, so that way you could make two repair rolls and might have a reason to take a full 6-count Support Shuttles.
×
×
  • 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.