Jump to content

Magarch

Member
  • Content Count

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Magarch last won the day on September 4 2015

Magarch had the most liked content!

About Magarch

  • Rank
    Altcap

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  1. Indeed, there are cases of Kickstarters being restarted about the middle of it, simply because mistakes were made by the creator that he recognized and wanted to prepare it better the next time. It happened to me once as a backer and the second launch was indeed going more smoothly. As Overread said, it's just a matter of when and why you do it. That's not something you do at the last moment, because it just seeds unnecessary doubts in the mind of backers. Basically, it's all about communication.
  2. Been a while I didn't comment; I was just watching quietly for a while, waiting for some news...including this Kickstarter. I know the rules for 3.0 are showed on this forum, but it bugs me it's not really covered on the Kickstarter. Having new models is nice, but remember, they're selling the 3.0 rules for Firestorm Armada with a universe, and background books. So far, we got a few pictures about the new ships and....not much on rules, and just a time table and a few pages about the Pathogen and the Saurians. It's not enough, we need more. Just having renders of cool models doesn't sell a good game with solid background. But in all honesty, I'm just not sure they can show much more than what is showed so far. I also think this kickstarter was launched too soon. They should have waited to finish the Dystopian War one, so that the comments about "starting a new Kickstarter while the other isn't finished - does that mean they need cash to finish the first?" wouldn't even exist. They should definitely have put pictures of the models and more stuff about the rules and the background on the home page of the Kickstarter. It is needed, that's the first thing people discovering the Kickstarter see - and the first feeling you get is important to read any further, let alone click on the "pledge" button. Maybe canceling the Kickstarter and restarting it anew later when everything in the first is settled and you have better preparations for this one isn't such a bad idea.
  3. When I got into Spartan Games, I bought a lot of ships. I really liked the design at that time, and was interested by the number of factions available. That number is, quite frankly even now, still good and the game could stop having new ships and still be successfulL. The game mechanics were solid, even if "bigger" games were taking quite a lot of time and moving ships could be sometimes very tricky when there is a huge cluster of ships in the middle of the board (not talking about 3D terrain). I must admit that now, I slowly moved away from Firestorm Armada - and Spartan Games in general. Too many broken promises, too much wait, not enough love for retailers, having more and more difficulty to order news products (and more time so that it actually comes), some troubles with orders not having everything and then having a pain to have the missing components back...it was always something little, one at a time and just having a "oh it happens" feeling, but they kept adding to the pile until it became a "ok, now that's getting annoying" feeling. I also have some wondering about how actually Spartan Games employees are treated, sometimes - passion is good, but it's still work and needs to be rewarded with a proper salary. Volunteers are...well, a delicate thing, especially when so many things seem to be on their shoulders (rules, seriously?). Yes, it matters in this age for some people. But I digress. The real thing that made me out is that outside of UK, Spartan Games is now nearly inexistent. It's clear to me that everything is centered in the UK - and the UK only. Outside of this, games are really hard to get. The Brexit won't be making things easier either. Retailers outside of UK are really having it hard, and my main shop for Spartan Games just dropped all of their products because the manager wasn't selling enough...and was having too much trouble to have them in times, when the online shop gives so many bundles that he can't compete. Like, at all. Of course, with no official place to gather and play, no need to say the community took a deep hit as well. I'm hearing the promises. But now, I will only judge on what I see is done. No more waiting in expectation. And no more money for "new projects" that left a bad taste in my mouth (yes, I was stupid enough to believe in that Taskforce thing...Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me). For now, SG's focus is on Dystopian Wars. I don't expect anything for Firestorm Universe for at least a whole year. That's the conclusion I've made so far.
  4. That's my guess, but I think the reason it's not mentionned is certainly linked to Firestorm 3.0. Maybe we would be able to play massive space battles with this system, when it will be released. Everything was made so that it would fail, including the "old guard" cries of indignation. But then, maybe something will change with 3.0.
  5. The keyword is "temporarily". To be honest, we have all the main helixes for the core factions, and it must be said they are six of them. That's still quite something. Sure, you don't buy new models, rather complete what you have or starting another army. Still quite some time before a new wave, I agree. But honestly, would you think of something else with Halo Ground Command coming out? It was obvious Spartan Games doesn't have all the workforce needed to follow all their product lines at once. It's not for nothing they had to leave Uncharted Seas. So this time frame is actually looking coherent, to me. Not satisfying at all, sure, but coherent. I'd rather have a coherent company than a crazy one saying dates completely impossible to fulfill.
  6. In retrospect, I think I should have bought the Reinforcement box rather than the dual starter box. Mainly because it's a fact it will take an unknown time before I see the individual blisters/rules for playing the other ships in Taskforce/tournament sets. So effectively, I can only play with Armada because it's the game that has the damn complete rules. I also think it was a very bad move from Spartan Games - they knew they don't have the logictics to follow rules for that many games at once. They take too much time to release them and now the Hype is gone. Having both Taskforce and Armada is crippling, because it means they have to test the next releases for both games and edit the rules in a shorter window of time so that they are available when the miniatures are. We saw that problem with Planetfall, it shouldn't have been a surprise to me that it would become the same way (if not worse) with Taskforce. And yet it was. I guess I can be pretty naive even at my age.
  7. Well, meeting a power gamer in tournaments isn't especially the fault of the game or the list; it's just how the player plays. And we all come back to the same thing; different mindsets usually struggle to agree on what is fair and what is not if they didn't talk about it before the game. Like you're saying, these lists are hard to counter if you don't know how to play against them. That's why I'm talking about the "new" factor. Players at that tournament were, IMHO, just unprepared. That happens for all games, when someone is thinking out of the box and comes with something unexpected. If people know what to expect, it's immediately different. I would rather stay with TO deciding how many battlegroups they want to allow. Maybe eventually some suggestions ie 4000 is more suited for one battlegroup, and so on, but that's all I would recommand IMHO. For fun tournaments, there is always the possibility to; 1) State that it is a fun tournament and asking to participants not to "exaggerate" 2) Asking for players to submit their lists to the TO before the game and having their autorization to play it. If the list submitted is too optimized, the TO just tells the player to redo it in a more acceptable way. 3) Putting prices for others things than tabling your opponent/winning the games; rewarding the players who are fairplay, more prices for painting rather than the top players, actually giving no price for the top three (if they won their games, that's a reward in itself after all - no need to recognize them twice ) and putting them for others things, and so on. I think that working on the players rather than the lists would be much more effective on long term.
  8. So, one tournament where the player in question used a list unexpected by other players because they just didn't think about it, thus optimized in a very specific role. Don't you think that the "'new" factor was maybe a good part in the defeat rather than the use of full dual core in itself? Of course, I wasn't here and so I can't say what happened in these games - as well configuration of the board, scenarios used and how the players managed it...But I think we should have more game data before talking about nerfing. After all, building a list is already pretty restrictive in Planetfall - the Helix have requisite units, most often quite very strict and options are rare. The game is still "new" somewhat so it doesn't have the number of choices like another Well Known Game. Banning automatically some lists because they are felt "OP" would be quite hurting for this diversity - and also making us unable to react to innovative strategies/lists because we are too used to our own "comfort zone" with our gaming habits. Before saying it's overpowered, I would like to try to play a few more games against these Dual Core lists. It was certainly effective at this tournament, but I'm not sure the list alone was enough to win. Let's try to find some counters first. If we really can't find any, then I think we can talk about the power of these lists. For example; - Of course doubling the units is quite useful, but you can already do that with one Battlegroup - by doubling the specialist Helix. Dual Core has the disadvantage of having a lot of requisite, meaning it's quite a hole for points. - Full Dual Core Helix are numerous, much more than specialist helix. I don't know the players opposing that Directorate list managed their activation order, but it is obvious the player can't so easily focus all his firepower at once and with four Medium Squadons as he wishes. He has to finish one Core before going to the other, unless he uses that TC that allows it to do so. This card is so expensive that he won't be able to play it each turn. - Dual Core Helix are indeed powerful, but they're not that long ranged and fast. They're strong on short boards. I suspect it won't the same with a longer distance between the armies or with an army actually playing the long range game. - Full Dual Core Helix don't have a lot of options at deployment, since all of their units have to deploy in Command Range of their respective Heavies. It's easy to see where they will be and they have no choice but starting quite cramped. Now where are my artillery sky drop tokens... - Just saying, but keeping an eye on which unit the player is activating can be useful...just so in case he doesn't make a mistake by activating a squadron from the other Core while in the middle of activating the first. - And of course, Directorate isn't known for its tremendous morale. Destroying the Heavies will be sure to initiate several Command tests for the surviving squadrons of its core. Most of the time, Disorder tokens will rain - Retaliators may be good, but even them can't be that effective when they're crippled with disorders.
  9. So basically, you wanted to have a common ruleset for tournaments specifically? When you're talking about the communauty, you're actually talking about the part that play tournaments and are in a rather competitive mindset? Because the actual communauty for Planetfall isn't only that part, even the one coming on this forum. About finding a solution...well, first you have to find an actual problem. It's true I read some complaints about dual core lists, but by seeing the reports and general feeling around me, I'm not sure they're actually such a problem asking for a solution. There is a fear, yes, but I think it's mainly a natural reaction to something you're not used to play against. Once you do that a few times, I find it's not really that problematic. Not one asking for a mutual agreement from the communauty that isn't already in the rules, I mean. Zeph, did you have that many feedbacks about the negativity of Dual Core lists in the tournaments you played/from several players you met?
  10. Well, simple; if you agreed to play only one battlegroup, that list isn't possible. Everything goes back to the mutual agreement. Then after, it's all about player feeling; after all, there is no glory in an easy victory. What I mean is that if each player makes a list adapted to each other, you will rarely see such cases of abusing lists with no chance of victory for the other side. If I play with my competitive friend who likes to make the most optimized lists, then making an optimized list should be the best answer to have a fair game together. If I play with my background-loving friend who makes very thematic lists not because of the profiles but of his own personnal story, then I make a background friendly list as well. For the same reason than the other example; to have a fun, fair game. All of this isn't possible without talking with your fellow player about what we both want to play to have a nice game together. There is no thing as a list without context. That's something that you will never solve with the rules alone. Because let's be honest; adding more restrictions will never get rid of the possibility of min-maxing - because that comes from the player's intention, not the rules. What it will do, however, is sacrificing the freedom of players to play what they want how they want it, just for the sake of removal of a few lists made by some players in a very specific mindset. The true question should be; is it really worth it? Are there that many reports of "unfun" games with "horrible dual core lists" spreading everywhere like a cancer? Is the simple ruling of agreeing with your opponent on the number of battlegroups before the game not enough to make things as "dual core vs one core" simply not possible if one of the players feels that can be a problem? Now I let everyone answer honestly.
  11. I would just add something: to me, no matter if it's "friendly" or "competitive", in both cases you HAVE to agree with your opponent about the number of battlegroups before playing. That's in the rules and frankly speaking, if someone is trying to play the "sneaky way" by "forgetting to talk about it and thinking it was two by default", then he just has to be treated the harsh way; He didn't make the agreement with you, thus he remakes his list. Doesn't want to do that? Well, he doesn't play with you. Mutual agreement between players before a game isn't an option ; it's mandatory, no matter how you intend to play. For tournaments (I guess that's what you call "competitive", even if it's more a playstyle than anything else), I think it's pretty obvious the organizers have to say how many battlegroups are allowed. Then all participants tacitly agree to that number. Simple and effective.
  12. Since you have to agree with your opponent before the game about the number of battlegroups you're allowing for it, I don't really see where is the problem. Double core is only possible if you set up the possibility to take two battlegroups. If it is allowed, then it's just one strategical option for both players - and usually means one of them intend to play that number. Beside, taking two full core helix mean having a lot of activations - and that means ending all the activation on one core before going to the other. It may not sound like a disadvantage, but in some cases, it can be.
  13. Honestly, I would say like Xen but indeed the rules are ambiguous. That's why I can't really take the rules as reference here, just giving my personnal opinion on this matter. That doesn't matter when you ask a question about rules. About factions, there is simply nothing. Maybe when Spartan Games will EVENTUALLY release the other profiles, I suspect there would be some Fleet Book that would be more precise about what you can take in your fleet or not as factions. I think taking the same basis for Armada is a fair beginning.
  14. Both page 8 and page 17 talks about the defense of the targeted model. However, there are certain cases when you can combine with something else, usually with Interceptors and PD against Bombing Sorties or Boarding Assaults. That's why the sentence is written like this, since it covers both Red and Blue defenses, but that doesn't mean you can combine all the shields of your squadron for one targeted model. This is written nowhere in the rules.
  15. The answer is page 8 of the rules, point k) P+S means Port AND Starboard - thus weapon can be used both arcs. On the other hand, some weapons may be P/S, which means Port OR Starboard, thus only firing in one of those arcs.
×
×
  • 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.