Jump to content

avien

Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by avien


  1. I don't think it's strictly necessary to print pictures of the ships with stats for OOP models. 

     

    I think what might be cool is in the background section if they had sketches of each class of ship and the progression, but it's entirely for flavour of the evolution of the fleets. But you could use this section to tie the classes together for players.


  2. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the intent is to unilaterally dock with the target, not simply "slam into" it. Yes you want to get there quick but there's no reason to go full thrust right into the hull.

    I'm inclined to agree. I also think that applying 21st century knowledge to a game based hundreds of years into our future is not necessarily a good idea. I could probably come up with half a dozen sci fi explanations for a brute force impact not killing the occupants of a specialised boarding vehicle if I put my mind to it. Some sort of gravity altering harness, inertial dampeners or some other mcguffin technology. Simply put humanity is in its infancy when it comes to scientific knowledge.

    Ultimately I imagine small craft which decelerate prior to impact, "land" on the hull and start cutting.

    At the same time I don't necessarily see it as a practical form of offensive attack (unless it's a stealth mission of some kind) high likelihood of casualties for minimal gain and realistically its more likely to happen in the aftermath of a battle.


  3. Wasn't there ship collision rules in the older edition, because a lot of the time we are finding the game becomes a mash of ships in the middle, where stuff just cant move. Now if there was collision rules like dystopian wars, that would be different :)

    Given the immense distances involved in space combat accidental collision is unlikely. Keep in mind your ships really only occupy the space of their stem, the models are just there to look good. I hope that 3.0 refines this concept and removes all mentions of models touching etc since it really shouldn't matter


  4. Don't delude yourselves.

    Faster and simpler means less depth of tactics and overall play.

    Something must be sacrificed for speed and simplified mechanics, despite what some may think or say.

    Absolutely true! It's simply a question of how much has been sacrificed! That's what has to be seen. Although I'd rather have a somewhat tactical game that people are looking to play than a superbly tactical game that struggles to find players!

    Hopefully it's not just a total beer and pretzels dice rolling exercise!!


  5. It's a legitimate concern about the split and potential downsizing in FSA player base. For my part I don't get to play at all. I might play a game twice in six months but taskforce could change all that. A nice fast ruleset could appeal to my gaming group so it's all positive for me as long as the tactical depth is still there - fingers crossed. But I can see why FSA players are concerned


  6. That's a valid concern, and that's also why I prefer “modular” rules, because that enables you to adapt the complexity of the game to the size of the game and the time available without splitting the player base.

    I agree with you here, a plug and play sort of modularity might have been a wiser choice.

    The fact that it uses the same models means that it won't split the player base, since you can't commit to one without committing to both.

    I think splitting the player base is a valid concern. Just because I have models that work in two games doesn't mean I'm locked in to play both

    When I played 40k, those models worked for kill team and 40k in 40 minutes and I played neither

    My deadzone models are compatible with warpath and I don't play that either...


  7. Going forward, my plan was to use Task Force as a demo tool for Armada, anyway. I know we're probably sounding like a broken record at this point, especially since we don't even really have the rules in hand, but Spartan have been doing a good job of making Task Force sound like it solves every problem.

    Potentially (and hopefully) yes... But also potentially over correcting and it has me concerned about too much loss of tactical depth. Different ship profiles and drastically different rules could make it hard to graduate from one system to the other, though perhaps that isn't the intent. Hopefully the rules are broadly similar so that this is avoided. I'm eagerly awaiting sight of taskforce rules!


  8. I'm looking forward to seeing these taskforce rules. I'm slightly concerned that it's over correcting and dumbing the rules down too much. The only element I really have a problem with is movement. And while I think the game needs a bit of speeding up, just to the point that large games don't take all day, I think 30 minutes is too short to have real tactical depth.


  9. Hey guys, looking for a little help here

     

     

    I'm getting some decals done up for naming my ships. I'm getting a lot done as future proofing but I'm not really clear on the naming conventions of the Dindrenzi and Terrans.

     

    Both being human factions pretty much anything will go I suppose, but I'm just just wondering if there are established naming conventions already.

     

    From what I can work out Terrans use Mythological and astronomical bodies and Dindrenzi use war related names???

     

    Cheers


  10. I'd rather have stat cards back (could be PDF fleet manuals with the unit entries in card form so that you can print them yourself and they can easily be updated) than an app. Although I see the potential usefulness, I want my tabletop games to be made up of hardware. If I want software, I play a video game. But then again, I will be 30 in a few days, so I am basically an old man and don't get those kids today and their technology anymore. ;):lol:

     

    PS: I like linking because it seems more interesting to me. Combining everywhere seems dull in comparison. I think that the biggest problem with the AD calculation comes from multi-arc ships like the Aquans. E.g. Directorate is very simple in this regard.

     

     

    If 30 is all it takes to be a luddite theres no hope for humanity :P !! I'm also 30 and I am all for a good app for stat references. 

     

    PDF stat cards would be a second, but I wouldn't want physical cards. Too much production costs and it would put off tweaking of ship rules. I'd rather they tweak units as necessary and the pdf/digital stats allows for this


  11. Better to fix "snaking" by other means than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Pivot moving would lead to FSA movement becoming spongy, vulnerable to cheating, while losing the feel of the momentum mechanic. Keeping some sort of template helps to keep movement solid, fair and keeps true the differences between the different factions and their ships.

    How does the template assist in differentiating the factions? I understand your other points, just not clear how it differentiates factions since they all use the same template.


  12. I agree on the PR front. I find BoW seem to really push their buddies. I don't find them to be the impartial journalists they try to claim to be. With the amount of coverage they give prodos, its criminal they haven't covered the Kickstarter mess for AvP. They don't want to ruffle feathers, which I suppose is fair, but it goes against the whole idea of them being unbiased in my opinion.. But that's way off topic....

    That said I am a backstager and enjoy their content.

    I do think Spartan would benefit from getting their foot in the BoW door for a FSA academy style series to up the profile


  13. SRS? Russian jet pictures? This topic got way off course. :)

    Re: simplifying maneuvering and dice pools. I have hope/trust that Spartan will find a way to do this without removing the tactical aspects of the game. It needs both.

    1. I've seen several intelligent men in their 20s/30s with engineering degrees struggle to figure out the template. Flipping the template over and around is not intuitive. Maybe this isn't your experience. Ok. But it's what I've seen.

    2. Dice pools. This needs a little help. People can only do it quickly if you've memorized the stats of your ships and played dozens of games.

    3. Disbelief at folks who take longer than 30 seconds to move? Guys, sorry I have to push back here. Sure, 30-sec move can be done. But only if most of the following are true:

    • it's the 1st or 6th turn and your movement doesn't really matter much
    • you're not in the thick of a battle, pre-measuring to multiple targets in different arcs, trying to optimize your range bands, avoid mines, set yourself up for an assault, and avoid placing your squad within his ideal range band, keeping a 4.25" distance yet under 6" between each model, while steering around asteroids... or all of the above
    • you're not playing to win and just don't care
    • you're not holding your template above several models and flying over (or tipping over) other ships
    • you planned ahead your move and your cooperative opponent moved his squad you predicted in the way you predicted
    Otherwise, an activation can get quite complicated and lengthy. I welcome a change while keeping the spirit of the the game. A 'pivot' maybe is the way to do that. we'll have to see what the team comes up with.

    I agree completely with all points.

    On the experience front, I like the idea for a campaign system. Realistically it's just a case of a list of refits and MARs that the ship gains. I think each should come with a points cost so the ships get more expensive as their experience grows as the danger is that one guy gets a lucky streak then he's running a fleet with hundreds of points of free upgrades that nobody can touch.


  14. avien I understand how you feel about movement, BUT movement is very important in FSA (much more so than in Halo).

    Eyeballing (or loose rules on turning) gives a significant advantage to factions like the Dindrenzi and can lead to disagreements or player fustration. Unlike many other miniature games out there, movement is extremely critical in FSA and movements taken in turn 2 can result in issues in turn 4 due to not having the fore sight to see where that movement would leave you down the line.

    Perhaps Taskforce will make it simplier in this regard... or try house ruling 45 pivots and then move 1 inch forward is an acceptable turning method.

    Haha I think I'm getting the reputation as that guy who won't shut up about movement


  15. Is snaking really that bad of an issue? So what if you gain a little extra movement. Is not like only one race gets that advantage.

    It's an artifact of the template for sure, but it's hardly a game destroying one.

    Most games I just measure and go. It's usually pretty obvious how far you can turn to easily reach most of the board. I only bust it out for hard turns or if you need to watch out that you don't clip terrain.

     

    Not a game breaking issue, just slows down what is already a slow process


  16. Thanks for the considered response, we may disagree on *small* but that's no big deal.

     

    My club much prefers the old Full Thrust rules so I don't get to play FSA much either.

     

    What you are highlighting (and I agree with) is that an FSA game can be very congested with large models on awkward bases and a huge reliance on terrain (more than in Planetfall?). I think one of the key things that needs to be addressed is to make the game feel more spacious rather than some kind of cross between long range sniping and a knife fight in a telephone booth.

     

    EG:

    • ALL effects, including movement, should be measured to the (nearest) flight peg, base size should not matter.
    • The *no touching* rule for models should be removed and players be allowed to just use flight pegs when space is tight.
    • Combine range bands 1 & 2 so there is less incentive to get close, boarding & SRS distances would also need to be adjusted. As most weapons, or at least their sensors, are going to subject to some kind of *inverse squared* rule this makes some scientific sense.
    • Maybe terrain could be in concentrated in a smaller number of larger areas to simplify the battleground?

    Smaller models would help too but then the game would not look so impressive :(

     

     

    Yeah that's pretty much the case. There are too many times when models pile up for that template to be anything but a hindrance. People end up hovering it above the ships and doing rough movements anyway. I just think getting rid of the template would be much smoother. My 2 cents. 

     

    Agree on most of your points though, the peg should be the standard measurement point for all parts of the game. The no touching rule also makes no sense. I'm not sure about combining bands one and two, but it might be better to only have to remember two bands short and long range for the sake of simplicity. 

     

    Terrain can stay as is.... if you get rid of the template  :P

     

     

     

    When FSA v1 came out the club played a few games using a mixture of tape measure and turn templates, we found it slightly slower than using just the templates (YMMV).

     

    Because the game has spine mount weapons any move-pivot system will need to use some kind of template otherwise the Dimdrenzee (rebel scum!) will get an unwarranted boost. I agree the published templates are awkward and have not changed significantly since v1 despite the models getting bigger.

     

     

    Anyone who *snakes* their models to gain an advantage should be forced to play Attack Vector Tactical until their brain melts and flows out of their ears  :angry:

     

     

    Yeah using both tape and template really slows it down best to stick to one measuring method and if you have to use a template, makes sense to use it for everything. The Litko template is nice and thin, but it still gets awkward to use in tight clusters...

     

    I never understand the argument that it would boost dindrenzi, you don't have to turn the full 45 degrees when you turn so sometimes to are eyeballing it anyway....

     

    No template, no snaking  :D  ;)  


  17. A *small price*, really?

    The FSA movement system manages to convey a feeling of spaceship movement with very little complexity compared to the majority of space games, if you want to see how convoluted things can get look at Attack Vector Tactical (not recommended).

    If you really want to speed up overall play times then written orders and simultaneous movement is probably the best method. It's not a technique I like very much but in my experience it really does speed up play.

    Yeah, a small price. Changing to a pivot system loses very little for a lot of gain in play time. I'm well aware of how bad systems can get.

    If it's any consolation I happen to think that the current movement does a good job representing space movement, but most space games are so obscure that frankly their systems don't count. Besides, saying it's pretty fast compared to X game doesn't somehow make it speedy. It's still cumbersome when ships get packed in together and you have to somehow get that template in between the scenery and the ships.

    im not saying the system isn't a good one, just that the template needs to go away... But again pointless discussion, Spartan agrees with you so you get to keep your template and I have to settle for dropfleet because that's what the group wants to play when it comes out!


  18. i have yet to have a prospective player complain about the movement template. spot pivoting would make it too similar to halo imho

    I wish I could say the same. Most prospective players I've tried to introduce to the game have been put off by the movement system. I'd blame myself for poor demoing ability except I've not had any difficulty getting people to play dropzone, dreadball or deadzone or any number of boardgames... But Regardless, it's likely to remain as is


  19. Because how ships move and turn is what differentiates FSA from a land game, allow ships to pivot on the spot and you are essentially playing a game with funny shaped grav tanks :(

    A small price to pay for a faster game. I actually disagree though, the template puts off new players... They don't think 'hey that's a neat difference from gothic' they think, 'ugh, this is so slow and finicky'. In my experience at least. My vote is on the spot pivoting for -1 movement but I think the guys have already more or less confirmed the template is staying so you'll be happy about that!


  20. i've actually just wandered out to my kitchen and timed myself using the movement template and a tape measure.......(don't laugh ;) - my wife is already judging me hahahaha!) it officially takes 15 seconds longer to move 5 ships properly using the movement template than just getting a tape measure and moving them.

    I will also say that unless you are using the movement template, you wont be able to accurately sort out the turn limits and in my opinion this is one of the best rules in the game. Smaller ships should turn quicker. If you ditch the movement template, how would you represent this? It would just have to be a "move x inches and then you can turn" which basically means you are doing the same thing, but with a tape measure instead of the template.

    Please Spartan! Don't change movement!!!!!

    Haha! Yeah but that's well and good in ideal circumstances, as I said, it's when you get in tight with other ships or terrain that it becomes an issue. You physically can't fit the template in sometimes so you are hovering it above and doing it by eye anyway.

    I disagree on the turn limits being hard to measure without the template, it's just inches. A tape measure does a better job of it. Simply because you don't have to try get in between models.


  21. In a tournament, then by-the-book play will (and should) be enforced. So far, all of my games have been between a friend and myself, so this has never been a problem for us. Sadly I work weekends, so I can't speak of the broader community on my end. I can't see many objecting. In my experience any method of speeding up play in any game has never found much objection.

    That's kind of the point though, isn't it? It shouldn't be an agreement between players to bend the rules that speeds it up. I'd much prefer to use the correct rules than have to bend them to get people to play the game.


  22. i really don't mean this to sound rude or aggressive, but how does the movement take so long? you pick your ships, you already will have an idea of where they go, you should already know how far they can move and what the turn limit is, you stick the template down and you move them. a little adjustment at the end to make sure the arcs are ok and on to the next ship. 30 seconds at most surely?

    Repeating this process x15 when ships get in close and you have 3D terrain. I've seen a lot of people get around the terrain but by using 2d terrain, but that shouldn't be necessary considering Spartan uses 3D terrain in their own images.

    Sure you get faster with practice, but 20-30 seconds a ship is unnecessary. Ditching the template and eyeballing the turns makes movement take half the time the couple of times I've played that way.

×
×
  • 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.