Jump to content
Stoobert

Feedback on FSA rules from new players, ideas for change, from a tournament

Recommended Posts

It's been posted that FSA 3.0 is in the works next year, and the rules are still in flux.  I ran a tournament this weekend (7 players yay!) and from a mix of new, old, occasional, and "used to play but got tired of it" players.   I told then new rules were coming.

Most common complaint was basically "game takes too long and my brain hurts".   These are smart guys, by the way, 20s-40s, computer jobs, master's degrees, etc.

Since we were together for several hours, these are some ideas I shared and was given about making FSA faster and less complicated, while retaining the fun tactics of movement and arc we already love about the game.  These are rough ideas, not specifics.

  • They find the linked dice mechanic cumbersome and brain-hurty, and then I asked: "what if all dice were the "combined" mechanic, not "linked".  Response: A big "YES please".
  •  Then (like Taskforce) the damage, crew loss, disorder and even terrain were subtracted from the successes after dice rolled, not removing the dice rolled beforehand?"  Response: a collective "yes that sounds easier".
  • They find range bands hard to reckon with.  Then I mentioned Taskforce, and what if all ships just had 3 range bands, short (0-12), medium (12-24), long (24-48)?  Then the effectiveness of a ship at any range is simplified, and reflected in the number of available in that range band.   Example rather than a Dendrenzi/Kenetic be 12" bands: 5/6/4/2, just have it be: S/M/L 4/6/5 or whatever.   Positive response.
  • They like that different weapon types: beam, kinetic, etc exist, but found the different range bands increment hard to remember.
  • No one really understands why indirect weapons aren't affected by hull damage or crew loss.  "Who's loading the torpedo tubes then?" someone asked.
  • Someone proposed three things: hull loss, crew loss mechanic and disorder tokens could be simplified into two damage concepts:
    • damage that reduces your AD and PD, that either is repairable (crew and/or disorder) and or isn't (hull loss)
    • damage that takes offline certain systems (shields, engines) and is either repairable or isn't
  • They all really like the weapon arc concept, firing from multiple arcs, and turrets are cool - but 'fixed fore' wasn't as popular.
  • The movement tool is fiddly, when I offered that taskforce you just spin 45deg, they thought that was a step in the right direction, but maybe going too simple, something in between would be good
  • Turn limit 0" is deemed unanimously silly, because spaceships going breakneck speeds. Almost everyone agrees that the game would be more tactical if frigates (and some cruisers) couldn't "spin in circles"
  • It would be nice if SRS phase and boarding phase were combined, and it all happened AFTER ship firing phase.  There's no reason you have to launch your bombers while your ship is surrounded by enemies.  move away, then launch them.  It's also obvious that boarding is done through some sort of shuttles or assault pods full of marines, so that sounds like SRS and there's no reason it can't be part of the same phase.
  • Why would anyone take fighters?  either give fighters some other power, or weaken interceptors a bit, OR why not just call interceptors fighters, get rid of fighters - and be done with it.
  • Lying mines are too fiddly, what if mines were an attack like any other weapon system, that mines happened during the firing phase.  Just put a token in the back arc and you're done.  This nerfs mines a little, but no one seems to think mines are underpowered

Anyway I'm just sharing what we talked about, enjoy, don't take personally, and I hope this is useful.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stoobert said:

 

  • They find the linked dice mechanic cumbersome and brain-hurty, and then I asked: "what if all dice were the "combined" mechanic, not "linked".  Response: A big "YES please".

Mostly agree, mainly because I'm bad with numbers!:D  In truth it isn't that much of a problem for me, but a faster method would be nice.

  •  Then (like Taskforce) the damage, crew loss, disorder and even terrain were subtracted from the successes after dice rolled, not removing the dice rolled beforehand?"  Response: a collective "yes that sounds easier".

Actually, this is one aspect i don't like about TF. As soon as you get on the back foot it can be a bugger to get back in the game, even with Exploding Dice. That being said, I do like that HP loss come off AD and Disorder comes off PD. That way there's only one modifier to remember.

  • They find range bands hard to reckon with.  Then I mentioned Taskforce, and what if all ships just had 3 range bands, short (0-12), medium (12-24), long (24-48)?  Then the effectiveness of a ship at any range is simplified, and reflected in the number of available in that range band.   Example rather than a Dendrenzi/Kenetic be 12" bands: 5/6/4/2, just have it be: S/M/L 4/6/5 or whatever.   Positive response.

Really? That's no different from 40k's myriad of ranges. No one has problems with those! The argument for ranges in space is a valid one, though. If FSA goes the TF way I wouldn't complain, but then I wouldn't complain if they left it.

  • They like that different weapon types: beam, kinetic, etc exist, but found the different range bands increment hard to remember.

Can't say I agree with this at all, the ranges are written on the profiles! The only thing you have to remember are the rules for the effects. Any complaints on those?

  • No one really understands why indirect weapons aren't affected by hull damage or crew loss.  "Who's loading the torpedo tubes then?" someone asked.

Fair one. It's never bothered me, but you do have a point. Maybe TF is the way to go with that. Say disorder markers come off Indirect weapons? 

  • Someone proposed three things: hull loss, crew loss mechanic and disorder tokens could be simplified into two damage concepts:
    • damage that reduces your AD and PD, that either is repairable (crew and/or disorder) and or isn't (hull loss)

                 Isn't this what we already have?

    • damage that takes offline certain systems (shields, engines) and is either repairable or isn't

                For example-weapon x takes down/reduces system A? Sounds like a method for Cyberwarfare if nothing else. Isn't this really just another way of explaining the Critical Hit system?

  • They all really like the weapon arc concept, firing from multiple arcs, and turrets are cool - but 'fixed fore' wasn't as popular.

Makes perfect sense as is to me. Was FF unpopular with the people using it (Dindrenzi players :P) or the ones facing it?

  • The movement tool is fiddly, when I offered that taskforce you just spin 45deg, they thought that was a step in the right direction, but maybe going too simple, something in between would be good

Current system with a pivot rather than current turns gets my vote. TF movement is too limiting for me.

  • Turn limit 0" is deemed unanimously silly, because spaceships going breakneck speeds. Almost everyone agrees that the game would be more tactical if frigates (and some cruisers) couldn't "spin in circles"

Don't agree. Feels fine to me as is.

  • It would be nice if SRS phase and boarding phase were combined, and it all happened AFTER ship firing phase.  There's no reason you have to launch your bombers while your ship is surrounded by enemies.  move away, then launch them.  It's also obvious that boarding is done through some sort of shuttles or assault pods full of marines, so that sounds like SRS and there's no reason it can't be part of the same phase.

Fair Point!

  • Why would anyone take fighters?  either give fighters some other power, or weaken interceptors a bit, OR why not just call interceptors fighters, get rid of fighters - and be done with it.

Just make Interceptors RTB after making an intercept/PD assist. The latter does get rid the issue as well, however.

  • Lying mines are too fiddly, what if mines were an attack like any other weapon system, that mines happened during the firing phase.  Just put a token in the back arc and you're done.  This nerfs mines a little, but no one seems to think mines are underpowered

Can't see how this changes anything,really. Your solution just changes the phase mines are dropped in, not how they function. Dropping in the Movement Segment makes perfect sense, especially when Double Mines comes into play! The main "problem" with mines is the lack of a counter, other than gritting your teeth. Maybe have mines  removed after attacking the first model that triggers them. That'd nerf them whilst keeping the current system.

Anyway I'm just sharing what we talked about, enjoy, don't take personally, and I hope this is useful.

Harumph, HARUMPH!:lol:

 

Nice one! Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firestorm 2.0 has a fair size player base, but it could be bigger, and these are the 'stoppers' why they play other games more often than FSA.  It's not uncommon for communities of people with a like mindset prefer things the way they are, you're entitled to your opinion. 

Does FSA need more players?  Do you have ample available players in your city?  Is 2.0 perfect? 

There is no right answer.

If you don't want them playing "your game", that's ok.  But they are nice enough folks and these are their thoughts, and for better or worse there we are.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stoobert,

I think you are a takforce  player. Why? Because when my 18then year old daughter brought taskforce in my gaming room to give it a try we had some points that spoiled us the game:

  • The movement system was ways to simple, only turn at the start and/or endpoint of your move? no minimal movement distance?
  • OK, there are three RB and the last one is unlimited range?
  • Unlimited boarding actions?
  • Unlimited suplies of SRS?

After a couple of games we resumeed, that this game is not the startegic game we whant to play, the Damage Table was OK, but there were not enough options for tactical use neither in the movement nor in the weapon fire segment.

So, without working down your list, I would say that the FA ruleset is more complex than the TF ruleset, and this is intended. The points (Mines etc) are very easy to handle (compared to V1), linked fire should pose no problem to anyone with basic math knowledge (otherwise just programme an little App and let your Mobile Phone do the job). 

Yes, I think that FA V2 is fine as it is, and the same thing can be said for TF - if you like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting the reaction I'm getting to this thread, when I mention that Taskforce has some interesting ideas.  "Go play Taskforce, then, and leave my game alone!", basically.  I don't understand the acrimony I perceive for ideas that aren't even my own; this is player feedback on two rule-sets I didn't write.

It's not my decision to make Firestorm 3.0, but I am trying to help 3.0 be the best game it can be.

@Oramion: And you are wrong who I am, by the way.  :P  I've played an estimated 75-100 games of Firestorm Armada and have placed 3rd in the North American Championships at Adepticon two years in a row.  Nice to meet you, and you are...? :huh:

I have played Taskforce twice.  Overall I didn't particularly like it, but I do think Taskforce has some interesting ideas, that are worth at least considering...if we want more people to play Firestorm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It is very important to understand that Stoobert  is reporting feedback.   While some of this feedback is elicited with preceding questions, that does not invalidate the feedback.  If it helps, the  underlying goal is to increase the local player base, and this feedback is what is currently limiting this local player base.   These players like the tactics and strategy of FSA, but found several problems with it which prevent them from playing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stoobert: Mea Culpa - it was just the direction of your first post, if the people you talked to realy think that the TF ruleset is fitting their likes for a game, I think they should play TF. 

I just hope, that the FSA Gamesystem is not streamlined to an end, where the tactical ptions are nearly not existing.

Imho the ruleset is very good,
when the Mines are realy a Problem I would supose to check them at the start and at the end of each activation, so that they do not interrupt the Movement, but this is a quite abstract  way to handle them.
And the question, if it is easier to reduse the number of sucsesse or to reduce the dicepool - I do not see, that one way is easyer than the other. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I am a bit reactionary, but considering my gaming experience over the years it's understandable. Streamlining and Ease of Play was what got me the $h!tactic D&D 4th edition, and the heaping pile of drek Shadowrun 4th and 5th edition, Firestorm Armada V1.5 to name a few. All of which ruined the games for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real change I want to see is in the form of the awful cardboard movement assist thing. It gets in the way when ships are in a tight formation and is clumsy to use. Or maybe I fail at using it (totally possible). Maybe force interceptors to count as using an attack run and RTB after using their PD to assist in shooting down torpedoes and maybe give fighters the ability to use their normal AD value vs. targeted strikes. 

 

I do like the idea of getting to choose when SRS tokens deploy. That would be an interesting mechanic. Like if they deploy during movement they can act normally but if they deploy during shooting they can't, so as to balance it a bit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ryjak thanks for summarizing, and you are correct.  Although it was a tournament I voluteered to run, and 7 players showed up, it was also a sort of "focus group" of people who like the models and ideas of FSA, and might play FSA more often if it took less time and didn't make their brain hurt (their words).  The majority of the players are former Warhammer/WH-40k players, a couple Flames of War guys - so they understand and enjoy complexity.  

FSA has a lot going for it - great looking models, comparatively low price point to other minis games, and relatively easy to learn.  But something about the actual game play seems to make people's brain hurt and games take a long time - so they buy a few models, play a few games but...don't come back.  They go and play 40k again or Warmachine or Xwing or Full Thrust or FoW or Saga or whatever.

Like you I hope that the complexity and tactics of FSA can be maintained while eliminating the time spent on unnecessary complications, without ruining the game.  I love this game.

We are sooo lucky to have a game company that listens to its players as much as Spartan does, they basically are asking for our feedback in their blog post, to help 3.0 be a great game.

I hope that other people can ask those in your area for feedback "hey the new 3.0 is coming out next year, what do you think about this idea _____?  What do you like and not like about FSA 2.0?"   These kinds of questions are very helpful - so we have to keep an open mind.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reply to the OP: 

- Linked Fire must stay. If Firestorm Armada switches to Combined Fire for all weapons and attacks, then Attack Dice values across the board must be lowered, or ships made vastly tougher than they are now. We already have squadrons that can routinely push 20+ AD in one salvo. I don't think people will be too happy with Marshals rolling up a 32AD Combined Fire Beam Weapon attack in RB1 that re-rolls 1s to hit, or Cataphracts with an RB2 36AD attack. Or Harpoons rolling a 21AD Nuclear/Torpedo Spook torpedo barrage from the other side of the table... 

- Removing successes due to damage is something I first came across in HFB. It's a mechanic that I don't get along with. It sort of works in HFB because all ships effectively have three HP, their three Damage Tracks, so at most they lose two successes. More than that and they're too busy being dead to worry about losing successes due to damage. In FSA, that would be more of a headache than it's worth unless you make ships have Damage Tracks instead of Hull Points (I'm also not a fan of that mechanic either). The current system works fine, doesn't need changing. 

- Range Band simplification idea is interesting, taking it down to Short, Medium and Long Ranges. Beyond the Gates of Antares does something similar with Effective, Long and Extreme Ranges, but instead of altering Attack Dice values, that modifies the to hit value required on a D10 based on distance to target. It could work, though Attack Dice values across the board would have to be modded to cope with losing a range band. 

- Linked to the above on Range Band simplification, making all weapons the same range bands (Primaries and Kinetics having the same range bands, for instance) would make things simpler. That said, stat cards, apps and PDFs can help with learning the range bands. It would also radically alter how fleets play. 

- Indirect Weapons not losing AD due to crew/HP loss is an odd one. It makes sense game play wise to have something that can finish off a damaged ship, or still do some damage, late in the game. That, and the Tarakians would be royally screwed if Indirect Weapons suddenly lost AD from HP/CP loss. 

- Isn't that the damage system we already have, or am I missing something? 

- Fixed Fore is necessary I feel. Again, going back to playing HFB and having UNSC Marathons and Paris frigates firing MACs around corners effectively is a little weird. You would radically alter how the Dindrenzi and Tarakians play if their Kinetics and Grav could suddenly fire in a Fore Arc, instead of Fore Fixed. And probably make them completely OP and everyone would be crying for a nerf. Best to leave weapon arcs alone I think. 

- I personally think the movement template we have now is fine, but that's just me. Movement mechanics should be left alone I think, manoeuvre is a big part of the tactical side of the game and making movement too simple would be a bad thing. See Halo Fleet Battles for details. 

- Frigates going up to TL1 would be a big change. Perhaps too big? I personally don't see a problem with frigates and corvettes keeping their TL0 (aside from the Thraex which is TL1, because Dindrenzi). 

- Moving SRS activation into the Boarding Phase does make sense. Right now we can board stuff with Assault Shuttles and then board stuff in the Boarding Phase, it's kind of disjointed. 

- I like Fighters for bullying frigates and possibly cruisers and the larger threat range. But yes, Fighters currently are rarely used it seems because Bombers and Interceptors are so much more effective. Something to help Fighters out would be good. 

- Moving Mines to the shooting phase would solve the Drive-By Mining Issue completely I think. It also does make sense that a weapon system (mines) would be deployed in the same part of an activation as the other weapon systems. 

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the points brought up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this game! There's a few things I'd tweak (PD coverage and have some modifiers for relative ship positioning). I don't find the shooting calculation or range bands to be complicated (imo). Calculating linked fire pools requires a little bit of working memory capacity but isnt exactly what I'd call taxing. It doesn't take too long either. This is all my experience of course. I know it took a while to get used to some of the common figures and combos that come up (turrets+ etc) but that number potentialling is part of the fun. It provides an engagement curve that I personally found rewarding to master..

Range band variation for different weapon systems helps to mix things up a little. Remember, range bands = weapon systems effect give ranges and not their maximum range. This appears to be a common area of confusion among get players, new and old. Having come from a naval wargame background I was used to weapon system's effective ranges and I believe that is what is at work here mechanics wise.

Turn limit 0 - The table scale is different to that of the models. Again this is another area that appears to sow dissonance and controversy!. As long as the ship's organic crew and superstructure have a method to 'dampen' inertial effects, then as long as enough thrust is applied they could change their direction of travel up to whatever limits these systems and tolerances safely allow. So small masses, high thrust ratios, effective inertial compensation, could equal tight turn ratios.

I personally fear that any future version will be dumbed down to appeal to a greater market. Losing mechanisms that whilst lengthy or more preferably complex actually add interest, capability, choice and greater fine tactical depth to a game. Games used to be enjoyed for their complexity. I believe the tabletop market is not like that any more.

Long live the critical hit chart and a separate boarding assault damage chart

Stoobert, I believe your friends will either love or hate this system. Task force may be more to their tastes. Quicker to play but still involves maneuvre strategy. This isn't a bad choice at all as gaming should be for your own enjoyment. If anything it seems that Taskforce needs the feedback to make it even better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning, typical rambling ahead!

Response to Feedback

1. Dice algebra: the simple but complex algebra equations you must build in order to determine how many dice you roll is needlessly complicated, and a big roadblock to learning the game. Personally, I feel the easiest solution is to link as if damage did not exist, determine the maximum pool, and then subtract dice based on damage.
2. The different weapon ranges and range bands are important to the game's tactics and strategy; what is hard is remembering your ship's stats, particularly when you have multiple weapon system types. The base templates in X-Wing and halo are a proven solution.
3. Crew Damage & Crits:  These rarely have an impact on gameplay, for a few reasons, and create an 'execution tax' on gameplay.  In yesterday's game, Crew Damage never mattered, and only one Critical Marker (out of at least a dozen)  change gameplay (Arc Impeded, so no shooting).  If this special damage had the same impact on gameplay as Hull Point damage, then it would be worthwhile to track.
4. FSA is a good game because it is all about positioning (due to #2), which is why movement is so important.  Unfortunately, the game has a clunky system which is more appropriate for a naval war game. I like how it is not super abstract like Battlefleet Gothic and Halo, and is way easier than the Star Wars Armada snake tool, but it needs help.  I really like how X-Wing handles basic movement and model collisions, and think some elements are worth considering.  (Also, if you are still using the paperboard template, stop.  All you need is a marked 3"+ long straight edge, and something for making 45 degree turns.)
5. Forward Fixed: My opponents are just as annoyed with my requirement to line up my shots as I am.  The easy solution is to make a 10-20 degree forward Arc.  It's pretty narrow, but much easier to aim, while still constraining your movement.
6. TL 0 Smalls:  If they have a 9"+ Mv, it's simpler to allow them to displace X distance and face any direction.  It's what we basically do already, but it takes a few minutes to prove it first.
7. Mines should drop at end of Movement; either one Model places the Linked Mine, or Models place individually
8. While better than previous systems, no one particularly likes the current 2.0 SRS system. (Well, they like 18AD Bombing runs and stopping all incoming Torps...) The Star Wars Armada and Battlefleet Gothic systems are much better, and often feature SRS vs SRS combat, which is what everyone really wants, right?

If you made it all the way through, you clearly enjoy FSA like I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are first day pre algebra equations. 

Ranges and weapon types make the game. Everything in a single category is boring and means everyone always wants to be the same distance away. Beyond changing everything to the same ranges, it doesn't change much of anything going to long, medium, short aside from the name you've associated it with and removed 1 whole band. 

Crew damage plays a large impact in almost every game I play. It's a hugely powerful tool for boarding and in general for very quick damage to direct fire systems. On an ideal roll I can take off 3d3 crew from a ship with ARTs. That's an extremely strong and very game changing attack. Critical effects are also a large impact on my games. It might be the fleets you're playing they're less important, but to my game it is. It is extremely common for me to go after either PD, shields, AP or just impeded/disabled directional guns. With non cyber fleets, I've actually won 2 different games based on an engine failure alone, too. Having an enemy T1 lose engines and drift straight into a planet. I think the critical chart is extremely important and very high impact. It's not every game, but it's well over half. 

I have no way to fix movement, I don't know. It is clunky but it's also interesting at the same time. You have to actually plan ahead quite a bit, because where you end up now greatly impacts where you end up later.

Fore fixed is annoying, but I think it's supposed to have the added benefit of being powerful. The issue is, it's really not that powerful. That needs addressed so it's WORTH using. Making only kinetics be fore fixed, I'd like a lot more. Just make kinetics worth while.

Zero issues whatsoever with 0 turn, not only does it balance in points and taking it away would make t3s much less valuable, but it makes them distinct in their battle field ability. 

Mines should unconditionally not be placed at the end of movement, because that means they're always within 4" of your ships. Who is dumb enough to set mines that can detonate on their own ships intentionally every time? The whole point of mines in general is to drop them as you pass by. Area denial does not mean blow up your own feet. Mines ARE dropped while in motion, that's just the way it works. Drive by mining being removed would be a massive hit to many fleets and those fleets would need to be strengthened considerably for losing that weapon. If anything I'd even consider an SRS token that drops mines or can counter mines. Support shuttles would be FAR more valuable if they could counter mines. 1d6 per support shuttle in a flight and you require 2 successes to disarm 1 mine. Not sure that's the best idea, but it seems like an interesting one. 

SRS do need work. This has it's own massive thread. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback, @DanSG. 

1. Remember who you are and these guys are.  You are an experienced player who loves FSA.  Most of my guys are inexperienced FSA players but gamers who are not "sold" on FSA totally.

2. These guys like FSA, all have played FSA before, and they showed up for a tournament.  It's wasn't a demo.  I mentioned Taskforce to them because it's another game Spartan makes.  Most have not played Taskforce, but those that have it thought Taskforce was too simplistic. 

3. Firestorm Armada 3.0 will be a reality: "Taskforce is awesome" is not the point of my OP and "go play Taskforce" is not the solution either.  :)

4. It's quite possible 3.0 will necessitate revised ship stats.  FSA has changing ship stats (errata, new ships) already.

@Ryjak I hadn't thought of your #1 dice solution, but that is pretty elegant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To what end? What is actually gained? Is it hard to place them? Are you just unhappy that mine heavy fleets have this ability? I've never once had an issue where players couldn't understand how to properly place mines while moving. You can clearly tell where your ships were going, because you're moving them. I can see zero gain in any way aside from a nerf to mine laying ships. No speed of game increase, no easier to understand rules. Just a nerf and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine.  The guys I was talking to didn't seem to agree.  They thought finding a spot that was within 4" of the aft arc of every ship at some point during a 8ish" movement to be kind of cumbersome and confusing, particularly if the ships were turning or were not super close together, not to mention a spot that was advantageously close to an enemy.   They also wondered why mines are the only weapon (direct or indirect) that is not used during the firing phase.  Hurray for agreeing to disagree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know it occurred to me that I may be coming at this with assumptions that some folks don't share:

1. That Firestorm will, or should, get a 3.0 rules revision, period.

2. That rules revision could be a good thing.

3. That we, as an FSA community as a whole, would like global player base to increase or at least stay stable

4. It would be more fun if more people in our local area played FSA

5. Modification of the rules (be they big/small, or this or that) might help recruitment, period.

Maybe others don't feel any of those assumptions are true?   (no right or wrong here, i'm not being sarcastic, I'm just wondering if people think my assumptions are way off base)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responding to some of the SRS comments above, I must be the only one who uses Fighters.  Some of my regular opponents are Relthoza and Works Raptor I use Fighters a lot to since they easily have the reach (18") and hit bonus (PD hits on 3+) to dogfight enemy Bombers, Assualters (and occasionally Interceptors) while making attack runs on ships. Highly useful in stopping or lowering those deadly bomber runs or assault runs, with dice luck you can cut back on PD Mountain, wings also ignore cloaked and Difficult Target.  Since I play Hawker mostly, Cyber down a ships PD/Shields and you can make unopposed runs on ships, or trick your opponent into putting Interceptors on one thing by hacking it and making attack runs on something else out of Interceptor range.  Our local meta sees SRS-on-SRS combat on a regular basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSA 3.0 is coming. It's so obvious now that Eddard bloody Stark should be saying it. This means that some things in the rules and how the mechanics of the game work will change. It's not a new concept, we've all seen editions come and go in various game systems (and probably lamented it, gotten angry and walked off in the case of Wallethammer 40 Battlemallets...). That said, we all have different ideas for what needs updating, changing and tweaking. The thing is, this is Firestorm Armada. Not Star Wars Armada, or Halo Fleet Battles, or Battle Fleet Gothic, or Drop Fleet. It would be a bad thing for Firestorm Armada as a game, and the existing player base I think, if FSA 3.0 makes this game an imitation of something else. Sacrificing the identity of the game just for popularity's sake is really not the way Spartan should go, otherwise, what's the bloody point? 

@ Commodore Jones: I use fighters too! Yes, I get odd looks for not using bomber spam or interceptor spam all over the place, but fighters are cool. Good for bullying frigates, corvettes and threatening cruisers, blocking enemy bomber strikes... I like the plucky little underdogs! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be entirely incorrect, but is it not that everything aside from interceptors have to actually touch another SRS token to start a dogfight? So are they sitting a lot of fighters/bombers in the back for PD and you're sending your fighters after them? Only interceptors get an intercept bubble to catch incoming SRS. In all but the furthest ranges of a bombing run. you can simply move around a fighter token and continue the bombing run without incident from fighters. I might be off here, but that is how I understand it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • 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.