Jump to content

Charbe86

Member
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from fracas in 3rd Edition Fleet Construction   
    I still want to see a level below patrol fleet, say 500 points minimum 1 medium sq 1 small sq.  Something in the intended scale of taskforce but within the FSA rule set.
  2. Like
    Charbe86 reacted to blut_und_glas in Cloaks in 3.0   
    Just firing off a few random ideas about what such a something could look like:
    The main point is, I think, that it should affect the enemy's attack roll in some way, to differentiate it from Shields and to underline that idea that it is about not being hit instead of tanking hits. To-hit modifiers are out, as these are already covered by Difficult/Elusive Target.
    What about Cloak preventing firing solutions to be used against the cloaked ship? No linking or combining fire, when you go against Cloak, perhaps no focused fire and/or targetetd strikes as well? Seems thematic, but has no effect on attackers who do not rely on linking in the first place. So maybe throw in the heavy dice on top. Or maybe not.
    Or, instead of halving the attack pool, how about giving Cloak a value (x), with x being the number or dice that are substracted from the attacker's pool?
    Or how about Cloak straight up preventing attacks at certain range bands (which ones could also be governed by an (x) value of Cloak)?
    Or perhaps there is no penalty to the attack roll itself, but to target a cloaked ship, you need to expend a Command Point? (Then you could also introduce a Specialist MAR, that reduces that Command Point cost, so that certain ships become dedicated "sub hunters".)
    Just thinking out loud here.
  3. Like
    Charbe86 reacted to blut_und_glas in Cloaks in 3.0   
    Neither.
    Not because I don't know or care, but because I think both options are not really fitting.
    The old halving of pools does no longer feel as organic as previously, because other halving rules (e.g., linking) have also been removed.
    The new heavy dice mechanic on the other hand has too little impact.
    So, something else is needed. Something inbetween, with more impact than the current beta rule and at the same time more at home within the context of the rest of the new edition.
  4. Like
    Charbe86 reacted to S..Mike in 3rd Edition Movement   
    When the beta group started up, it seemed to me that there was a lot of discussion on the boards about movement.  Some complained that it slowed down the game, others didn't have an issue with it.  As you know, 2nd Edition firestorm is very free-form in its movement.  It's one of the things that attracted me to the game when I first got into it.  Each ship has its own movement (MV) and turn limit (TL) stats to get it where it needed to go, which allowed for a lot of tactical choices, and good differentiation between ships.  There was some substantial discussion among the beta team as to what (if anything) needed to be done with turning.   After several tests, here is what made the cut into the rules:
    Ships continue to have a maximum and minimum movement (unless you're at Full Stop, but that's another story) that they can execute.  The MV stat is the maximum, and the minimum is 1/2 MV, rounded up.  Simple.  In turning the ship, we are moving away from the 'turn around the edge' method.   The former "Turn Limit" (TL) value has been renamed/replaced with "Drift" (DF).  When making a turn, the model rotates up to 45 degrees in place.  A ship must move at least its DF value between successive turns of the model orientation.  We've come to call it "Pivot Movement".  The pivot doesn't cost movement to execute.
    In our casual games, we have been able to pretty much get rid of the old template.  The ship bases already have 45 degree lines etched in them, so you can temporarily mark the position of one corner, make the turn, and continue on. 
    If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to get a graphic to illustrate the method.
    Mike
  5. Like
    Charbe86 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?
  6. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from reddwarf in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    I've started another thread to continue this if you want Frans, but if you wouldn't mind getting thing rolling again there that would be great, as my technical skills are quite lacking in regards to the forum and I have no idea how to quote between threads.
  7. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Huai in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    I don't believe boarding would be common place, simply because it would generally be a one way trip whether you succeed or not, and who's prepared to through away lives like that?  That doesn't mean it wouldn't be effective when it is used, quite the opposite.  
     
    Getting the boarders on to the ship would be difficult, I don't believe maneuverability would be an issue due to the huge mass difference between even a corvette and a boarding shuttle, but PD definitely would be, which is already represented in the game.  Shields may be an issue here, as well as things like propulsion methods and artificial gravity, but there's not enough fluff available to say either way.  
     
    Once aboard the offensive party is trying to damage the ship as much as possible, while the defenders are trying to limit that damage, which means the defenders are limited in their options.  You could vent plasma into a corridor, open compartments to vacuum, or have automated gun turrets with armor piercing rounds, but what are the consequences for your ship and crew? The boarders however are simply trying to sell their lives as dearly as possible which gives them free reign to use any offensive weapon which won't accelerate their own deaths.  A ships marine contingent would also be equipped similarly to a planetfall unit, where as the the rest of a ships crew is unlikely to be armed, and very unlikely to be armoured, which means the main battle would be almost purely between the two marine forces.  
     
    If we're aiming for realism, a boarding attack should behave more like an indirect weapon but damaging ships AP and CP instead of HP, allowing for a roll on the critical table for particularly high success.
     
    Ships being captured is unrealistic, apart from the effort required to do so, how do you control the ship unless the crew cooperate.
  8. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Huai in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    I disagree with you on this. One we have no indication of the size of the marine team going in, given the way boarding works now you could be sending over an entire ships worth of marines.  Two, marines are going to be equipped for a boarding action and, unlike the defenders, boarding parties don't have to restrict themselves to weapons that will avoid collateral damage, both to the ship and it's crew.  Third, we always assume this is a battle inside the ship but, if you remove the chance to capture the vessel, almost every important system has external components a boarding crew could damage to great effect.  Finally, these are space ships, a little damage goes a long way, and cascade effects aren't just possible, they're likely.   So in conclusion there is no reason for removing or weakening such a fun component of the game.  
  9. Like
    Charbe86 reacted to CoreHunter in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    how about simply changing the way 0 turn limit ships move as just let them move to a place within their MV distance and get a free pivot at the end. Then just leave the teir 1 and 2 as they are now. 
  10. Like
    Charbe86 reacted to Flamebeast in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    Agreed. Getting rid of boarding reeks of an attempt to homogenise playstyles, which will hurt the game in the long run. The sheer variety of options is one of FSA's biggest strengths, and any reduction in that is a bad thing.
  11. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Venter in The Ivory Tower has spoken...   
    I like the idea of the games being developed together, it might lead to more/better fluff, as well as better game play intergration.  
  12. Like
    Charbe86 reacted to WestAustralian in Of rage quitting and broken promises   
    When I quit, it won't be with a Rage fuelled rant about "typical Spartan" and "broken promises". It won't be with a heartfelt goodbye saying how wonderful the ride has been.
    When I quit, it will be when I haven't painted in ages, when I can no longer be bothered checking the forum, it will be with a growing void of silence
  13. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from S.Mike in Of rage quitting and broken promises   
    I'm glad this got a response from a Spartan, it indicates a possibility for improvement.  I like SG, you have pretty models, and what is, in my opinion, the best set of rules for a fleet scale space miniatures game available.  I have to admit that the general sentiment of the community nearly put me off investing in FSA though.  If I may offer a constructive criticism: have an update of some kind for each game at least once a quarter, even if it's only a fluff blog, long silences promote fears of abandonment.  
  14. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Venter in Of rage quitting and broken promises   
    I'm glad this got a response from a Spartan, it indicates a possibility for improvement.  I like SG, you have pretty models, and what is, in my opinion, the best set of rules for a fleet scale space miniatures game available.  I have to admit that the general sentiment of the community nearly put me off investing in FSA though.  If I may offer a constructive criticism: have an update of some kind for each game at least once a quarter, even if it's only a fluff blog, long silences promote fears of abandonment.  
  15. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from WestAustralian in Patrol Fleet Box On The Way   
    My Relthoza patrol fleet is on the way, should be here within a week, and it prompted me to ask two questions.
    1st. Any tips for playing games that small, from what I've read the patrol fleet doesn't necessarily represent a great selection of ships for Relthoza.  
    2nd. What do I buy next? I'd like to have enough ships to build at least a couple of different, viable, 1000 point lists, but budgetary constraints mean that will be a slow process.  So I'd like some advice on best options.  
  16. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Daeghrefn in Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?   
    I've only just started playing, so I don't have a great deal to contribute.  One thing I would like to see is a fleet size one down from patrol, with no tier 1s, for quick games.  
    I would also like to say I haven't found the learning curve to steep, and I hope they don't try to over simplify things for the sake of speed.  This is a fleet battle game after all, not a dogfight.
  17. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Ruckdog in Please use metric...   
    I'm a tradesman, I work exclusively in metric, I was raised on metric, but estimating is so much easier in imperial.
  18. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Wolfchild in Please use metric...   
    I'm a tradesman, I work exclusively in metric, I was raised on metric, but estimating is so much easier in imperial.
  19. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Hive in Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?   
    I've only just started playing, so I don't have a great deal to contribute.  One thing I would like to see is a fleet size one down from patrol, with no tier 1s, for quick games.  
    I would also like to say I haven't found the learning curve to steep, and I hope they don't try to over simplify things for the sake of speed.  This is a fleet battle game after all, not a dogfight.
  20. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Pathogen in Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?   
    I've only just started playing, so I don't have a great deal to contribute.  One thing I would like to see is a fleet size one down from patrol, with no tier 1s, for quick games.  
    I would also like to say I haven't found the learning curve to steep, and I hope they don't try to over simplify things for the sake of speed.  This is a fleet battle game after all, not a dogfight.
  21. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Dataphract in Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?   
    I've only just started playing, so I don't have a great deal to contribute.  One thing I would like to see is a fleet size one down from patrol, with no tier 1s, for quick games.  
    I would also like to say I haven't found the learning curve to steep, and I hope they don't try to over simplify things for the sake of speed.  This is a fleet battle game after all, not a dogfight.
  22. Like
    Charbe86 got a reaction from Ruckdog in Models for tabletop simulator   
    This is both a suggestion and a request to spartan.  It would be great to see an official dlc pack for tabletop simulator.  Not only would it be great for people like me who want to play long distance, but it could be a good way to get new players into the hobby, and a little extra income for spartan.  
×
×
  • 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.