Jump to content
Vedar

Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?

Recommended Posts

I'm hoping this is still a long term project.

Due to real life issues, I still have yet to get a game :( . Would like to get at least a couple years before having to buy a new book.

 

If they follow their standard practice the rules would be free online so there would not be a need to buy a new book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as with 2.0, a book will probably be released if people want to buy that (some people are old fashioned, like me, and want to flick through pages instead of dragging up a PDF on a bloody screen), but the 3.0 rules will also likely be available as a free download. Strangely enough, I don't think Spartan are going to pull off a Greedy Workshop on us. 

 

The only modification for really big games (2001pts and up, probably only needed for 3000+ points) I'd suggest is double activations, so moving, shooting and assaulting (if necessary/possible) with two squadrons/ships, instead of one, simply to speed things up in the massive games. Limit it to two though, any more than that and you end up in the usual 'IGoUGo' turn one whitewash realm, where whoever activates first wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually tried double activations in a 2v2 once. Wasn't pretty. Stuff just got ganged up on and torn apart. It really changes how you play the game and we didn't use it again. It's still the same amount of moving models and rolling dice anyway so in practice doesn't speed things up. It does mean that stuff dies more efficiently but that's not always a good thing

Imagine a battleship taking fire from 2 cruiser squadrons. Theoretically that ship goes from full health to crippled before it activates. At least it would get a chance to do something before the second enemy squadron activates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd implement the DW multiplayer rules. We do it for multi PF games and it works perfect. However it doesn't necessarily "speed" the game up so to speak.

I'm confident that Alex and the team will take their time, not tweak too much (as we love the game already as it is right?) and make it a tiny bit more streamlined. Linking is no issue to myself but it has occasionally held up demos with some people. It is complex in comparison to many general "roll to hit, roll to wound" games where weapons don't degrade but that is what makes FSA so special. We don't want it to change massively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they follow their standard practice the rules would be free online so there would not be a need to buy a new book.

 

Which were released a few years after the actual book which gives incentive to buy the book when it is first released. I would have to wait until the free one is available which may or may not work if I ever actively play during that wait time.

The problem with new editions is that rarely (except for D&D) do groups want to play old editions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a snake like Frans suggested? You can turn with every inch of movement but depending on TL you use a different template with a different arc. So a TL 3 can only turn 11.45 degrees per inch (45 degrees once you move 4 inches) where a TL 1 turns 22.5 degrees per inch (45 degrees after 2 inches). So instead of the now where you move X forward then 45 you make a lot of little turns? 

 

The thing that I find gets in the way of using the turning template is that it is full width. There are some unofficial ones out there that are C shaped, maybe half an inch thick at all points. Basically a rigid "snake." Those can be significantly easier to position when there is a lot of traffic in the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why even use a template for both moving and turning? Simply allowing a pivot on the spot is quicker, and will dampen (if not eliminate) snaking, with a small 45o turning gubbinz to make sure no-one over does it.

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 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :(

 

I might be wrong, but I don't think Bessemer wants to eliminate the mandatory movement distance before turning.

 

I think he wants to use a tape measure for all forward movement, and a small template to limit the amount of turning.

 

And if this turning is then done around the stem instead of around the base side you also eliminate “snaking”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be wrong, but I don't think Bessemer wants to eliminate the mandatory movement distance before turning.

 

I think he wants to use a tape measure for all forward movement, and a small template to limit the amount of turning.

 

And if this turning is then done around the stem instead of around the base side you also eliminate “snaking”.

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

The problem lays with the template indeed, not with the movement system in itself.

 

The only problems I'm having with the movement system is that you can't move at less than halve speed, and that ships can go from full ahead to full stop in the blink of an eye.

 

I would only play once against someone who employs “tactics” like snaking, and it would be a very short game… ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Combine range bands 1 & 2 so there is less incentive to get close,

 

Many of your suggestions have merit, but I have to take issue with this one.  With the exception of beam weapons, range band 2 is actually a more optimal firing range than range band 1, so this would actually remove a disincentive for getting close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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?

1) Unifying the rules is always a good thing; the current disunity causes confusion

2) Clearly this rule is here so you don't end up with a game of flight stands on the table and all the models piled uselessly to the side... In other words, the rule isn't there to facilitate gameplay.

3) This wouldn't help at all

4) You can build your terrain and playing area however you want; everyone has a terrain meta. If you want a featureless, empty table like space actually is, go for it! But don't be surprised by how people adapt their gameplay to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Unifying the rules is always a good thing; the current disunity causes confusion

2) Clearly this rule is here so you don't end up with a game of flight stands on the table and all the models piled uselessly to the side... In other words, the rule isn't there to facilitate gameplay.

3) This wouldn't help at all

4) You can build your terrain and playing area however you want; everyone has a terrain meta. If you want a featureless, empty table like space actually is, go for it! But don't be surprised by how people adapt their gameplay to it.

  1. Agreed.
  2. My assumption was that this was inserted as a courtesy rule to avoid damage to models, What I've seen suggested in this forum is that model size and peg length are an integral part of the game rather than an *accident* of modelling. My aim here is to de-couple game play from modelling.
  3. I think this could be worth experimenting with, if there is less incentive for players getting close (because range bands 1 & 2 are identical) it might result in games playing differently. It would certainly affect play balance.
  4. This isn't about a *meta*, the FSA rulebook clearly specifies what sizes terrain should be (generally 2-12 inches) and what fraction of the game should be terrain. The end result can be a very *busy* table. I'm suggesting that the terrain fraction stay the same but that there should be fewer but larger pieces of terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. I'd say they accidently and unintentionally became an integral part of the game, regardless of the original purpose behind the "no touching" rule. Personally, I'm ok with removing the Models when things get tight.

3. As a Dindrenzi player, I ALWAYS end up on top of my opponent, due to the Forward-Fixed weapons. I don't want to be there!

4. I've tried using max-sized terrain, while following 25% coverage and 8" spacing...

Gas Cloud: creates a huge 28" zone of the table with open LOS. Field day for Dindrenzi

Asteroid Field: Creates a huge area no one ever moves through, and significantly restricts Direct Fire while boosting anyone with decent Torpedoes

Debris Field: Similar to Asteroids, but at least most are willing to fly through it.

I'm trying to create my first battle report video, starting with Terrain set-up.

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.