Jump to content
Stoobert

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

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Alex said:

In this case, modifying the peg alloes you to cluster ships in otherwise illegal (directly out of the box) positions,, therefore giving you an advantage over your opponent. I don't know how or why you are comparing it with painting the base to get a cool-looking fleet without gaining any sinificant advantage (greater interceptor screen coverage for starters)

Well, given that Spartan is now selling notched flight pegs so you can break them at different heights, I really don't see how its an issue.  Even without changing the flight pegs, just the depth you insert them into the base will allow for closer stacking - see Sentinels.  You can also keep the flight pegs as is, and add adapters, which again changes the height.  I can't imagine flight stand height mattering at all in  a tournament without opening up all kinds of weird variations to exploit the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pok said:

So to make it playable, I have to essentially mod the bases? That's essentially admitting to my point:)\

 

The game has, at this point, no chance of ever hitting mainstream..and whatever it had is now lost to one company offering prepainted, massive-franchise models, and one offering cheap, great, plastic models...and proof of continued support of the line. Trying to change the rules too much to account for new players will drive away what little of playerbase remains for no return.

Lol - you can assemble and paint your minis, but using a wire snips to cut a flight peg in half is too much work! ;)

As for comparing to SW Armada / X-Wing, Armada no more obsoletes Firestorm than Imperial Assault obsoletes Warhammer 40k.  Not to mention that Armada has its own issues, similar to X-Wing, where you have to buy multiple copies of one ship of an opposing faction to get all the cards to be playable AND there is the never ending buying cycle due to the continual power creep.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I start to understand, why the Movement seems so complicated and takes so much time, sorry but this is a ridiculous rule, because nobody is playing with models fresh out of the box when visiting a tournament, so I can not see any adventage my FP have, that another player should not have,
Otherwise, is it illegal to modify the ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Lol - you can assemble and paint your minis, but using a wire snips to cut a flight peg in half is too much work!

It's not too much work, it's just not supported by the rules. The game *should* be playable once you put the models together, without ANY need for modding, cutting, or otherwise amending them or their bases. If it's not, and to make the crucial aspect of the game fluid you need to essentially mod, no matter how easily, one aspect of the physical models, then it's flawed.

 

@Ryjak exactly what  I had in mind. I have no intention of actually playing either of them (got over SW years ago, and the rules for DFC don't appeal to me), but the mass appeal is there, far more than in firestorm, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

plastic-articulated-ruler-closeup-green-

 

What if the turn tool became more like an articulated ruler with 1" links, which you place in front of the ship similar to the way the SW turn templates work? You just set it the way you wish to move, adjust for turns and your TL, then move the ship to the other end? By placing the ship in the center of the ruler at the end, it would also eliminate the snaking movement thing, not that that's a huge problem at the moment. If/when terrain collision becomes a question, then you check if the base touches at any point along the path.

It would still have issues in tight formations, but so would any sort of turn tool.

This would save a ton of time for my own crew because we fidget a lot with measuring out movement, not liking where it ends or disputing something about the move, then redoing it one or multiple times to get it right. Then we fidget with the other ships in the squad till everything is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea, and close to the SWA turn tool I think, but the turn tool can't be too expensive to my mind.  One of the things I really like about this game and desperately don't want to change is that you can play the game with a patrol fleet box only.  You aren't locked into buying a starter box that has models you may or may not want for a rule book and assorted other first time purchase only tools and gear. 

That means any upgraded turn tool needs to be low enough cost to package into a patrol fleet without impacting cost very much.  I'm thinking something like the Litko turn template made from acrylic, though it retails for a couple dollars on its own.  I presume something articulated is going to be significantly more expensive. 

Image result for litko turn template

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I think the X-Wing Solution is generally a good way to go.  Multiple simple movement templates are easy to make, and while this limits your movement options, this isn't necessarily a bad thing... just avoid too much movement limitation.

For example, a ship with a 6" and a 2" TL has about 30 movement options, which is way more than the most maneuverable X-Wing ship.  At the same time, it's a very limited movement, with only 2 ways to make a 90 degree turn.

Something in between would be ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2016 at 10:37 AM, N2OJoe said:

You just set it the way you wish to move, adjust for turns and your TL, then move the ship to the other end? By placing the ship in the center of the ruler at the end, it would also eliminate the snaking movement thing, not that that's a huge problem at the moment.

Snaking only happens as a result of using the template on both sides of the flight stand as the ship moves forward- if the ship ends up on the same side of the template it started on, and the template is used to measure out the whole distance at once, the ship will not snake, and will still benefit from the general precision of being butted up against the template. Granted, I think an articulated template is going in the wrong direction, because something so large will naturally be more difficult to place on the table in most situations the base template is. Plus, it doesnt't really help all that much. Sure, the actual movement of the model is quicker, but at the expense of time spent fiddling with building your movement path... I can't imagine that saving a significant amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2016 at 9:21 PM, Ryjak said:

That's why I think the X-Wing Solution is generally a good way to go.  Multiple simple movement templates are easy to make, and while this limits your movement options, this isn't necessarily a bad thing... just avoid too much movement limitation.

For example, a ship with a 6" and a 2" TL has about 30 movement options, which is way more than the most maneuverable X-Wing ship.  At the same time, it's a very limited movement, with only 2 ways to make a 90 degree turn.

Something in between would be ideal.

My only issue with a pure template movement system is that it would make it almost impossible to line up fixed fore. You'd have to allow for some kind of pivot at the end or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ryjak said:

You're assuming there is no way to create a base with different firing arcs from the current 4x90 degree model, and this is definately not the case.

My thought was making a new arc from the middle of the back edge through the top corners. Comes out to about 56 degrees, and it's really not any worse to check than the normal arc if you just mark your bases. 

It's better than the current fixed fore (especially at long range) but it's still pretty limited. It would keep the effect that FF has of making it difficult to line up shots at close range, while speeding up play by removing the need to get super (and imho unnecessarily) finnicky about movement with FF ships.

This might also make a pure template movement system more feasible as well.

Arc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that angle change for larger or smaller bases? My intuition says it does, but I feel pretty confident that the math would show otherwise.

 

I like this solution, though. So, in my mind the reason Fixed Fore exists is so that ships can't place the diagonal line through a squad and double dip on Fore and S/P. This maintains that property while opening up the arc some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hive said:

Does that angle change for larger or smaller bases? My intuition says it does, but I feel pretty confident that the math would show otherwise.

Nope =] For any square base the angle is the same. The ratio between the long side and half of the bottom is always 2:1, so the angle of the arc will always be 2(tan^-1)(1/2) ≈ 56º

The only time it fails is with non-square bases, and I think there's only one in Firestorm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ryjak said:

The real question is: does the cost of lining up Forward Fixed exceed the gain for having a unique movement requirement to fire these weapons?

Yes? I mean, for the game as a whole. Think about how you play Aquans as opposed to Dindrenzi- How those corner shots work in your favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Presidente said:

I'm with Pok on the fore fixed, it just slows the game down and is a nightmare most of the time, halo is a great example of how it should be in 3.o as in it gets the axe:)

I respectfully disagree. :) I agree that in it's current state it can slow play, but I think having a limited front arc adds a lot of flavor to the weapons and factions that use it. I don't think it should be removed, just revamped a little. Plus, if 3.0 brings decent changes to movement, there's not too much reason to get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Presidente said:

I'm with Pok on the fore fixed, it just slows the game down and is a nightmare most of the time, halo is a great example of how it should be in 3.o as in it gets the axe:)

If Fore Fixed changes to the essentially Fore Arc like the UNSC MACs get in HFB, you can bet that either the Dindrenzi, Tarakians and Xelocians will have to be nerfed into the ground, or those factions will become auto-wins over night. Firestorm is NOT Halo Fleet Battles. If Firestorm becomes anything like Halo Fleet Battles, then I'll be ditching my fleets. Simple as that. 

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.