Jump to content
Vedar

Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?

Recommended Posts

Possibly, and I blame the gaming culture in general. The huge surge of X-Wing (and other 30min games) has created this almost "lazy" gaming feel. On the flip side you have 2.0 which is incredibly slow for newer players and hard to get big games finished within 3-4 hours (1200 points) so you end up not with fleets, but a skirmish space game almost with 12-15 ships in most 800 point games. What's even funnier is that most X-Wing players play multiple games so they are physically there the same time as myself doing 2.0, they just get to do a couple more games.

 

I'm starting to try and think of TF as a "module" for 2.0. A plug in and play system.

 

@Quiet - not stocking the game is another story altogether, one I hope can start to get fixed as it's a similar story over here. However, shops won't buy in stock for a system that isn't played and customers won't play a game that isn't stocked but can't even build a scene to that level. It's a strange old world at the moment with Kickstarters everywhere, lots of systems, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming that what qualifies as “fun” for you also qualifies as “fun” for everyone else…

 

And you're assuming you're the representative of group of potential players for Firestorm Armada. So everything you're saying can actually be told back at you. ;)

 

I understand perfectly your statement. Yet, in this modern age when there are plenty of games around - and with lives horribly busy all the time -, I believe the majority having all the time they want in the world without any outside interruption is quite thin and few.

 

So, I can understand if Spartan Games is trying to offer a "faster" and more simple game for those of us who know that spending 4 hours in a skirmish game is quite a luxury nowadays.

 

Please understand that we players in favor for more simple rules for movement aren't especially "lazy" or "looking for a game not suited to us"...I actually like FA very much.

 

It's just I wish I could play more games to satisfy my envies...Sure, I can play 2000 points games with the actual rules for FA, but I also know that I will be lucky to finish it to the last turn and that I will feel my head quite...heavy at the end of the day. I would still have a lot of fun, yes.

 

But I could have as much fun with a faster and smoother set of rules AND play more games. :)

 

Note that I'm actually the same as Zelord; I believe actual FA is working fine at "small levels", because the game is really working like a skirmish game, being so detailed and all.

 

No wonder then when I try to play a really big battle, like those described in the fluff, it suddenly becomes long and tedious. So, like Zelord, I would love more simple rules (especially for movement, but going Halo for damage and shooting is also a good idea to my eyes)...just that I can really enjoy putting more ships on the board.

 

That's all it is, to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're assuming you're the representative of group of potential players for Firestorm Armada. So everything you're saying can actually be told back at you. ;)

 

I understand perfectly your statement. Yet, in this modern age when there are plenty of games around - and with lives horribly busy all the time -, I believe the majority having all the time they want in the world without any outside interruption is quite thin and few.

 

So, I can understand if Spartan Games is trying to offer a "faster" and more simple game for those of us who know that spending 4 hours in a skirmish game is quite a luxury nowadays.

 

Please understand that we players in favor for more simple rules for movement aren't especially "lazy" or "looking for a game not suited to us"...I actually like FA very much.

 

It's just I wish I could play more games to satisfy my envies...Sure, I can play 2000 points games with the actual rules for FA, but I also know that I will be lucky to finish it to the last turn and that I will feel my head quite...heavy at the end of the day. I would still have a lot of fun, yes.

 

But I could have as much fun with a faster and smoother set of rules. :)

 

Note that I'm actually the same as Zelord; I believe actual FA is working fine at "small levels", because the game is really working like a skirmish game, being so detailed and all.

 

No wonder then when I try to play a really big battle, like those described in the fluff, it suddenly becomes long and tedious. So, like Zelord, I would love more simple rules (especially for movement, but going Halo for damage and shooting is also a good idea to my eyes)...just that I can really enjoy putting more ships on the board.

 

That's all it is, to me.

 

No, I'm not assuming to be the representative of a group of potential players for Firestorm Armada, I'm just talking for someone who already plays Firestorm Armada, namely myself.

 

And I'm certainly not the only Firestorm Armada player who thinks this way btw.

 

I'm basically just saying that if you wanted a pear you shouldn't have bought an apple, and that you mustn't expect for people who happen to like apples to appreciate it when their apples are turned into pears.

 

But Spartan is going to sell pears too apparently, so the apples are probably safe for now.

 

Everybody happy... :)

 

I normally play in multiple 6~8 hour sessions btw, with big fleets on a 5' by 8' table, and if I end up with a head feeling heavy it usually has nothing to do with the game.

 

 

image-4119765.jpg

 

Usually some evil monks are to blame...  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is an odd discussion- in my experience, because everything dies so damn quickly at a larger value, bigger games (up to Mighty Armadas, 'cuz then you have the added complexity of multiple TAC pools and such) tend to play slower, but with diminishing effect on the degree it slows down the larger the game gets.

Also, smaller tends to be more strategic because of the choices you're forced to make- lists are more fine tuned. I know the argument exists that the BB is king of Patrol games, I just don't agree with that notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is an odd discussion- in my experience, because everything dies so damn quickly at a larger value, bigger games (up to Mighty Armadas, 'cuz then you have the added complexity of multiple TAC pools and such) tend to play slower, but with diminishing effect on the degree it slows down the larger the game gets.

Also, smaller tends to be more strategic because of the choices you're forced to make- lists are more fine tuned. I know the argument exists that the BB is king of Patrol games, I just don't agree with that notion.

 

My Battleship is a target for my enemy to shoot at while my Cruisers, Corvettes and Frigates do the actual work. The Carrier is there too because...uhhh...I had the points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v3 changes I'd like to see is the removal of special damage charts.

Cyber can work of DR hits like PF and go off the crit table without doing crit damage. Precision strike can stay -1 to hit but count the targets DR as the CR.

Either make Teir 3s or just call 0TL ships free to move measuring from peg to peg and any facing. Bombers and assault srs shouldn't provide PD bubbles.

Sadly one of these games will kill the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's exactly like Pok said- One game is deep, rich, and has crazy complexities that make for extremely interesting play and matchups BUT takes a long time to play. The other is going to be fast, lighter, by its very nature less deep, BUT takes less time and has tournament support? Which one going to win among new players? Which one is going to be played because it's what the tournament organizers are using? Which one is going to draw Planetfall players who haven't yet dipped into spaceshipland because it uses familiar concepts like Helixes and doesn't use unfamiliar ones like Crit Rating? It'll be a few years coming, for sure, but one of these games is set up to overtake the other, which is a shame.

 

I'm really hoping I'm wrong here. I've seen some of the Taskforce profiles for the new ships- they look... Interesting? Empty? They seem kind of empty to me. Kind of like there isn't much substance there, at least not nearly as much as I enjoy in Armada. I cannot forsee the new game living up to what Armada does for me, you know?

 

At the same time, I would like some precedent set where maybe there's some sort of lore justification, or campaign book that lets them interlink, or something. Maybe there can be some "Slowplay" rules for Planetfall representing non-beachhead actions in the same way that Planetfall's description lends itself to beachheads. Honestly, I can't really bring myself to care all that much about Planetfall when everything I hear seems to say the game tends to end after three-four turns. If I painted up a dudeman, I want it to be able to potentially do more than three actions in a game, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planetfall plays very nicely. Sure games end faster, but you can do a lot during that time. I really enjoy it.

It's a different feel from Armada, but still feels Spartan enough to be a lot of fun. I expect Taskforce to do the same.

I see Taskforce and Armada living well with each other. If there are stats for both using the same models it may end up with one being the go to in an area - but I could see the other being viable depending on player availability and time.

I'm looking forward to fast play Armada in the form of Taskforce as most people I play with don't have a lot of time - so I rarely get games in.

That's the great thing about Planetfall and Taskforce. Suits time restrictions nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taskforce's very nature is less deep, BUT takes less time and has tournament support

This is what generally wins in the American market: solid and supported ompetition. Look at X-Wing for a prime example... However, that model is very hard to sustain long term unless you're constantly updating the rules like a computer game (Star Craft).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't Spartan Games give Firestorm Armada tournament support as well? Yes its a bit slower but its balance and system lends itself to a level of precision that is needed in tournaments. Heck there have already been tournaments for FSA.

My fear is that Spartan Games will stop supporting FSA other than here are some stats for ships we made for Taskforce. All real support will be pushed for TF and Armada will be left to fade away.

Like I said fear...

Either way longer games still have a place in the market or else 40K would have completely died out years ago.

40K is slowly dying out, though that's due to price gouging, rules/unit imbalance, fast paced edition changes and a whole heap of other issues... 

 

There is a risk that Taskforce will become the 'default' Firestorm Game, I think it's a small one though. Yes, Taskforce is probably more suitable for organized play than FS-A, but the FS-A community has done a good job of providing that support already. Unless we're a more fickle bunch than I thought, FS-A will still be played, now alongside (as opposed to competing with) FS-T. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unless we're a more fickle bunch than I thought, FS-A will still be played

I've no doubt that it will be played. What i, and most here, fear, is that the users of this forum are *the* playerbase for F:Armada after TF is released and established. I've not seen the TF rules, but if they're even half-competent and faster than FA, there's no real incentive for the new player to get into Armada.

 

In a way, it's funny that TF is touted as the "skirmish" game, but apparently it's better at handling large number of models than FA, which is far smoother as a skirmish system...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel we players want different things and have different priorities, which is right and reasonable. Regarding movement both sides have made their thoughts known. Neither side is likely to convert the other. Play testing will likely resolve many of these arguments anyway. What looks good or bad in theory may not be the case in game-play. I hope 3.0 retains the essence of Firestorm Armada but is a better rules set, more robust, clear and elegant without losing any essential FSA-ness..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faster and simpler doesn't mean not tactical at all. It's just different.

As TF will allow those who never wanted to try FSA due to speed of the game - it's a good thing. If stats are out for both, that's also good. People will play what fits their scene and desires.

Remember this game spawned from Neil getting feedback at cons. Clearly there is a desire for a TF style game. I don't think it's the end of the world for FSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-tactical => fast and simple

Fast and simple enables you to have a lot of distinct entities on the table without spending a lot of time any one entity. There's a reason skirmish games can afford to have a lot of detail; there isn't much on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there exists a market for a simplified beer & pretzels space combat game, and it is highly likely that that market exists, then FA players are better served with Spartan catering for that market than with company “X” catering for it.

 

And the main reason for this is that should such a game manage to kill FA it is much better when that game happens to use the same miniatures as FA does (even come with FA stats included.)

 

That way at least continued miniatures support, and hopefully rules support, would be provided for in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the glimpses I've seen of Taskforce comparing it to FSA is like comparing checkers to chess or comparing Go Fish to Poker. It looks like a quick simple game for when that's all you have time for.

I'm skeptical it will be able to scale up as easily as Neil hopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I've always hoped for a more in depth FA version myself rather than faster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often it is the larger games that have the much higher level of abstraction and simplicity and the smaller games having the higher degree of granularity and detail. Taskforce vs Armada seem to be flip flopped in this aspect.

I do not agree that simplistic rules automatically make for a less strategic game. That is purely up to the rules, in my opinion, regardless of their complexity.

We shall see what the future brings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the glimpses I've seen of Taskforce comparing it to FSA is like comparing checkers to chess or comparing Go Fish to Poker. It looks like a quick simple game for when that's all you have time for.

I'm skeptical it will be able to scale up as easily as Neil hopes.

 

It scales up in a way that you can put your whole fleet out and not feel like you need 2 days to play it nor have a raging headache.

 

I love 2.0, it's one of, if not, my favourite game EVER but TF is simply much better at getting it done quicker. Even if it means a larger fleet. If certain people don't like that than no love lost. They can still play 2.0 with their models as before. Yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.