Jump to content
steve_990

What Taskforce rules would you like to see in Armada 3.0?

TF to FSA 3.0  

80 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

With a lot of the models sharing stats with other models, and a lot of these models sharing stats being OOP, the only thing this official and non ambiguous ruling is going to be able to accomplish is institutionalize unfairness.

"Institutionalize unfairness" seems like a gross exaggeration to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WARNING! The following post has been rated 'B' for Brutally Honest... 

 

Nope, definitely not in Whineseer... Anyway, with all this talk of 'institutionalize unfairness' and tournaments getting full of more 'gamey nonsense', you'd think the damn sky was falling. Okay, we have a ruling now on whether or not it is okay to remove models from bases. Apparently it's not okay to remove models from bases. That's fine, we're meant to be playing a table top wargame with miniatures, not a table top wargame with stat cards and empty bases. kaptyn_Krys is right, people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When the need to win overcomes the need to enjoy, it's time to find a new hobby than war-gaming.

You are, of course, aware of the basic idea of tournament being a competitive event, right? As in, playing to win?

 

I'd suggest something more laid back, like crocheting for a new hobby, but according to my grandmas, the tea club can be downright savage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to agree with the tourney mind set our club is super causal with most games, but when one of our players was going to nottingham for battle mallet we all proved we could play at a very competitive level and drive trucks through that game's loop holes...

 

So i for one welcome rules that are less open to exploitation but how far do you go? so we can adjust peg height awesome but as someone else said that means now they will use telescoping pegs... do we have to have a ruling saying use the peg it came with so you choose a length and stick with it... i would hope no as many players use other pegs for display, storage ect and would be punished... yes this rule could only be in the tournament package but then how muddled do the rules get? we have TF TF-tourney, FSA FSA-Tourney thats alot of rules...

 

Back on topic, id be inclined to keep the game systems separate still, the colour coding is awesome but as i said in the planetfall forums... as a colour blind person or if someone prints their pages in black and white it would be lost... faction specific SRS is less important than fixing fighters unless it was faction specific fighters to make them more viable... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to answering the original poll, none of the rules, thanks.

 

Taskforce is taskforce. It is a different game int he same IP universe as FSA. Different rules, different itch scratched.

 

FSA is FSA. Same thing. Different rules, different play process, different itch scratched.

 

My group doesn't have serious time issues with FSA, and it always sort of boggles me when people talk about the game taking forever. My best guess is that forever >= 2 hours. My group will blow through a four player grand fleet game after lunch and end just before or just after dinner. However, we are wargamers. We grew up with complex rules, are comfortable performing calculations beyond arithmetic, and find battlemallet abysmally stupid and unbalanced. A fleet action in SFB(look that up if you want to see a LONG game play time) is a fun, crunchy, and not too long enterprise for us.

 

That said, I doubt my group would foo-foo TF out of hand. We could find the elegance in the rules and play it once in a while. We do it with PF. I have found many of the group prefer DW because of the complexity of interactions and necessary cerebral engagement -- heck, some of my group find FSA too simple(Yes, almost everyone in our group owns multiple Spartan games, and multiple forces within each game. We're nerds.)

 

Different games, different itch to scratch, same pool of minis. Win-win, what's not to like? Let the crunchy rules play, let the simple rules play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think as long as there are rulings for things that are bought up with relative frequency are ruled, it's a good thing for the game from a tournament perspective. As for how far it goes - that doesn't matter. If, for example, removing ships from pegs was deemed tournament legal - that's good too. The key thing is that there is an official stance. I highly doubt that telescoping or altering pegs will be a major issue anyway as it only allows ships to bunch up, which wasn't hard even with all pegs the same height and ships with different sizes. In other words the advantage isn't really going to make a difference in a game.

 

This isn't like wallet hammer, where basing all your troops flat on the ground is a huge advantage.

 

With the colour coding of dice - I don't see an issue with it. I usually play Planetfall with non-standard uniform colour dice and just announce "These are the Heavy Dice", "These Explode", etc...

 

As a side note, Uhoh22 - not sure if you were saying you are colour blind or not, but if you are planning of playing Taskforce, I created some Battlescribe files (link in the General Taskforce forum) that have a [Red] or [blue] call out next to all the weapons. Might be a good tool for you.

 

@DSW - I agree the games should have their own feel. I posted this from the perspective of wondering what rules TF had that would be an interesting style of rule for FSA 3.0 - not an exact carbon copy from one game to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until you meet another fleet with telescoping pegs.

I can see it now, two players raising and lowering their respective BB to block/unblock a position.

Player 1

Raise BB so nose goes over

Player 2

Raise BB so models touch making position illegal

P1

Lowers BB so nose goes under

P2

Lowers BB to block

*Repeat*

I laughed. Oh, how I laughed. Thank you for the post-work giggling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My group doesn't have serious time issues with FSA, and it always sort of boggles me when people talk about the game taking forever. My best guess is that forever >= 2 hours. My group will blow through a four player grand fleet game after lunch and end just before or just after dinner. However, we are wargamers. We grew up with complex rules, are comfortable performing calculations beyond arithmetic, and find battlemallet abysmally stupid and unbalanced. A fleet action in SFB(look that up if you want to see a LONG game play time) is a fun, crunchy, and not too long enterprise for us.

 

You don't get it, that's fine.

 

When I talk about the time needed to play at FA, it's always when there is a significant number of miniatures on the board.

 

I know you can play a few dozen of ships in each side with the actual rules quite quickly. I do that as well. Thing is, that's not the problem. You say it yourself; when you make a Grand Fleet game with 4 players, you go from lunch to a bit before dinner. Meaning approximatively 9h00 to 18h00.

 

That's a whole day you have to lock to play a huge battle. That's not something you can do easily each week with everyone.

 

On the other hand, and to give you an example with something totally different, I recently began to play the game Kings of War - which could be described as the Taskforce of RIP Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Rules are much simpler, nearly stupid level simplicity, and yet the time needed to play a huge battle at 3000 points is astounishing. I can do that in 2h30 while in WFB, it was asking for nearly 6h.

 

The thing is, if you can reduce the time for unneeded detailed mechanism to keep the same fun and have the pleasure to bring more miniatures on the board, well you just play more often. About my experience with KoW, it's actually easier for me and my friends to find a date to have a game, since you still play a significant game in 2 hours rather than moving a few poor lonely units/ships on the board.

 

So, no, 2 hours game isn't an issue. The issue is the size of the game you can play in 2 hours.

 

 

About some people seeming to say that wargames with simple rules "aren't true wargames"...I would suggest for them to look at historical games. Some are plain stupid simple, and yet they're still considered as highly tactical wargames.

 

So, stop being so arrogant with FA, thank you. I can get you like the game, as I do myself, but I'm tired to read the same false arguments all the time. Simplicity doesn't mean loss in tactics/strategy. That's not what simplicity does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points about wargaming and simplicity Magarch.

 

As for me, I've got a couple of games of Taskforce behind me now, and I'll say that I prefer Armada for it's slogging nature as opposed to the quick death one of Taskforce. I can play more and faster with TF for sure, but there something about a cruiser getting smashed for a few turns before going down. 

 

Taskforce feels almost like a game of dogfighting fightercraft where Armada feels like huge, powerful warships pounding each other. Nothing wrong with either - just prefer the later. :)

 

Having said that - I think there are a few rules in Armada that could be streamlined and need less steps without sacrificing the in depth slogging warship feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fleet building based on Helices would be cool, but i would strongly prefer NOT to roll on a damage chart with the other player.  The current system of meeting or exceeding a set number, or multiples of that number, works very well and is a much easier mechanic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fleet building based on Helices would be cool, but i would strongly prefer NOT to roll on a damage chart with the other player.  The current system of meeting or exceeding a set number, or multiples of that number, works very well and is a much easier mechanic.

I'm hoping to get a TF game in today. Once I have used the chart, I can form my opinion on it. Such a thing is new to me so I don't know how to feel about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Helixes!

FSA is a point balanced system, not a squadron or squadron type balanced system.

The helix system works for Planetfall, because the game and it's mechanics are designed around it. Switching to Helixes would require considerable changes. Not just in game mechanics, but also in unit size but also Hardpoint and Upgrade costs. It would also make accompaniment and mixed cruiser

The consequences of switching fleet building mechanics have far more impact than many would expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

About some people seeming to say that wargames with simple rules "aren't true wargames"...I would suggest for them to look at historical games. Some are plain stupid simple, and yet they're still considered as highly tactical wargames.

 

And which games may that be if I may ask?

 

 

FSA is a point balanced system, not a squadron or squadron type balanced system.

 

Actually FA is balanced at the squadron level because only full squadrons are worth their points...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a TF game in today. Once I have used the chart, I can form my opinion on it. Such a thing is new to me so I don't know how to feel about it.

Damn! That's a good one. Should have put that in there instead of some others. I'd love to see that in Armada!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying you would like a TF style damage chart in Armada?

 

Ohhh... no, no... Sorry, should have been clearer. I loved the idea of merging squadrons together. I wish I added it to the list.

 

I actually really dislike the table. Adds too much random IMO. You can get a great hit and roll poor and only do disorder.

Link to comment
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.