Jump to content
Stoobert

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, quiet01 said:

4. Some of speeding up the games falls on the players(know the rules, be familiar with the Ship and Stats) :o

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The one that never comes up!

Me and both my regular opponents can bash out a 1200pt game in 2-2 1/2 hours. not the 3-4 others seem to take. Sadly no amount of editions can account for human error!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, you just want a "better" movement template, but otherwise keep the mechanics.  If you're using the cardboard template, please purchase the Litko or Ironheart Artisans acrylic templates.  These help a lot, but aren't perfect.  I keep telling myself to trim the Ironheart templates, so there's only one turning section instead of two... or to make something out of laminated cardstock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you use the official template, please buy a 3rd party periphery"...again, it's not a solution, it's a proof there's a problem.

 

Anyway, if changing FF to F is somehow making the game lose all tactics (I mean, there is a point to it, Aquans do exist and fly autopilot), then pivot turns are 2nd best solution. The turn template is clunky and as inaccurate. Just allow pivot after reaching turn limit and aiming becomes much less time-consuming. Unless of course time-consuming aiming is "tactical" and heart of the game too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I shall spend my two pence here 

I like the rules 

Could they use a touch up here and there ... Yes 

But compared to v1 it's a fantastic game 

A lot smoother and quicker 

I think too many changes other than and stat tweak here and a mar rewording there will change it too much (ok maybe a little for one or two core rules)

But on the whole I think they have it right now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pok said:

"If you use the official template, please buy a 3rd party periphery"...again, it's not a solution, it's a proof there's a problem.

Considering how much acrylic has shown up in Spartan kits, I'm amazed they haven't made a slimmer turning tool themselves yet- and the tool packaged with Taskforce, like... Missed the mark completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pok said:

"If you use the official template, please buy a 3rd party periphery"...again, it's not a solution, it's a proof there's a problem.

 

Anyway, if changing FF to F is somehow making the game lose all tactics (I mean, there is a point to it, Aquans do exist and fly autopilot), then pivot turns are 2nd best solution. The turn template is clunky and as inaccurate. Just allow pivot after reaching turn limit and aiming becomes much less time-consuming. Unless of course time-consuming aiming is "tactical" and heart of the game too.

Free-hand pivoting is going to be less accurate than using a tool. We've all played many war-games and seen how fuzzy pivoting and turning can get. For me the hopefully crisp movement and careful gun position is half the game in FSA. 

 

6 hours ago, Hive said:

Considering how much acrylic has shown up in Spartan kits, I'm amazed they haven't made a slimmer turning tool themselves yet- and the tool packaged with Taskforce, like... Missed the mark completely.

Absolutely, or packaged with the more-new FSA patrol fleets..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Free-hand pivoting is going to be less accurate than using a tool

Less accurate then the "Ok, I will now shimmy the ship a bit at end of movement because no one wants to waste 5min to ensure I can *legally* aim the FF gun at target, since we all know I have the movement to do it"? Cause that's a house rule almost every group has that I heard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unsure what to say. There are many responses but so many seem either not tackle the subject directly or would come across as very rude. I don;t know how this will come across, so apologies in advance for any offence caused. 

If someone finds movement too difficult or tricky then I'm sorry, but the game shouldn't be changed just to suit one person or a small group of people who want a game with easy-sloppy-movement. To me at least the movement simulates the difficulty of manoeuvring the particularly cumbersome battleship sized vessels. I understand there are difficulties in moving squadrons of ships. To this I say the difficulty of manoeuvre, aiming board-sides, FF and such is supposed to be there, it's part of the game. Another consideration is the rules as written show the true distinctions between fixed fire, arc fire and turrets. Wishing FF to be easy, is a bit like wanting to keep your cake and eat it, it erodes away detail.

Maybe more energy needs to be put in by the player into speeding up their play with practice, or players need to accept they cannot get things perfect every time within a reasonable window of time and just get on with it - imperfections and all. I personally are not a fan of chess clocks, but maybe as a voluntarily measure that might help. Rather than change the game, change the style and outlook of play. In the end I suppose it depends on your outlook, either the game of manoeuvre is a desired/important feature of the game as a whole, or it is not. Some like a big battle simulation, others favour a faster tactical style game (like X-Wing or Star Trek Attack Wing).

Regarding house rules and other agreements between players I am definitely in favour of players allowing each other to speed up/bypass pieces of play that are deems unimportant, such as allowing the rest of the squadron to follow the lead vessel, I do the same. But the key here is it should be voluntarily, not part of the standing rules.

Finally, I don't want FSA to become only about firepower and AD, thus why I see as important manoeuvre and the granularity between FF, arcs, turrets, weapon ranges, weapon types, all those details that get in the way of the cult of speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

but the game shouldn't be changed just to suit one person or a small group of people who want a game with easy-sloppy-movement.

Small group of people perfectly describes the current playerbase. The game will change, or the  game will die as a commercial product. The question is how much do you change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Pok said:

Small group of people perfectly describes the current playerbase. The game will change, or the  game will die as a commercial product. The question is how much do you change.

I would actually argue that the erratic release schedule and at times questionable support are more reasons the game isn't more popular.  Give Firestorm Warmachine / hordes level of support and it would be much more popular, even with the exact same rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People start the game, or watch the demos, and then never go through. You can play Infinity, Malifaux, or even Flames of War in half the time it takes to resolve a 1000pts  game in Firestorm. And ALL of them have facing, range and so on as a much more important aspect of the game..but deal with it in a smooth and non-awkward way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pok I'm pretty sure none of them have a movement system beyond "displace Model X distance".

Complex movement is an integral part to naval/space games.  So, to be time competative, naval/space games must either:

A. Use fewer models

B. Move several models as units

C. Implement faster mechanics elsewhere

Naval games tend to follow option A, but FSA doesn't.  Halo Fleet Battles essentially adopted B as a solution, but I like moving each Model in FSA.  I don't like the clunky movement mechanics, and I'm a big proponent for adopting option C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small Scale Skirmish games are really, really different target audiences too.  I find FA to play more to the scale / time requirements of Warmachine or 40k.  The target audience is also not really someone who wants to play 6-10 human size models like in Malifaux / Infinity, but more to someone who wants an alternative to Battlefleet Gothic or someone who enjoys age of sail games like Sails of Glory.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23.10.2016 at 2:38 AM, Endgame said:

I would actually argue that the erratic release schedule and at times questionable support are more reasons the game isn't more popular.  Give Firestorm Warmachine / hordes level of support and it would be much more popular, even with the exact same rules.

The release schedule is in fact one of the very reasons I (and others in my gaming group) stick with Firestorm. I've played Warmachine/Hordes for years and I finally quit it because it's comparable to getting a bachelor's degree to just keep up with all the new releases to not constantly get surprised by new stuff at tournaments etc.

I have work to do and I have a number of other hobbies, I can't devote all my free time to keep up with one game's new releases. Getting new stuff released for "my" game maybe once a year is perfectly fine with me.

People at where I live also play supposedly "dead" games (War of the Ring by GW), that are no longer developed, because the rules are good and you can still get the miniatures. I don't think a constant stream of new stuff is nearly as important as fun and engaging gameplay that people can easily get into. A simplified turning mechanic (and I don't mean getting rid of it entirely) would go a long way to enhance accessibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oppi said:

The release schedule is in fact one of the very reasons I (and others in my gaming group) stick with Firestorm. I've played Warmachine/Hordes for years and I finally quit it because it's comparable to getting a bachelor's degree to just keep up with all the new releases to not constantly get surprised by new stuff at tournaments etc.

I have work to do and I have a number of other hobbies, I can't devote all my free time to keep up with one game's new releases. Getting new stuff released for "my" game maybe once a year is perfectly fine with me.

People at where I live also play supposedly "dead" games (War of the Ring by GW), that are no longer developed, because the rules are good and you can still get the miniatures. I don't think a constant stream of new stuff is nearly as important as fun and engaging gameplay that people can easily get into. A simplified turning mechanic (and I don't mean getting rid of it entirely) would go a long way to enhance accessibility.

I'd be fairly happy with 2 releases per core faction per year really. doenst have to be a big box of lots of ships. just something to keep things ticking over. 6 core racers, twice a year means you could have a release for one of the core 6 per month. they dont all have to be at the same time. Throw in alliance races to taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2016 at 4:10 PM, Stoobert said:

@Misterbucket, who says 4" mine laying distance needs to stay.   What if it was 6"?  Then you could safely lay mines out the rear arc at end of movement.

I like this idea a lot.  I could also see mines being deployed with the rest of the weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2016 at 1:11 PM, quiet01 said:

Going back to the OP.  Too speed up the game, something must be sacrificed.  Either Movement or Dice Mechanic are the big ones.  Doing away with FF will Speed up movement and the game.  The other movement change would be to move Squadrons in "formation", I.E. move one, place the rest in the same "formation".  The problem is that ships on the "outside" of a turn will gain extra movement and therefore move a greater distance.  Does this really matter in a game that is focused on blowing ships to smithereens?  

The extra movement could be solved by moving a "lead" ship and then subtracting an inch from the other models move for each turn the lead makes.  We play that way and it both speeds up movement and prevents any model from gaining extra.  It also allows FF to be thematic and not slow the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2016 at 4:11 PM, quiet01 said:

Going back to the OP.  Too speed up the game, something must be sacrificed.  Either Movement or Dice Mechanic are the big ones.  Doing away with FF will Speed up movement and the game.  The other movement change would be to move Squadrons in "formation", I.E. move one, place the rest in the same "formation".  The problem is that ships on the "outside" of a turn will gain extra movement and therefore move a greater distance.  Does this really matter in a game that is focused on blowing ships to smithereens

In friendly games I've done just that most of the time I play alone but on some times when I do have an opponent it isn't an issue. move the first vessel in the squod. and then [lace the others in formation

On 10/18/2016 at 4:11 PM, quiet01 said:

Ok Nay-sayers..... 

The Stats.... For this quick discussion, the Battle Ship is the scariest thing on the on the table at Patrol fleet level.

I am leaving the names off for this discussion and only using "Broadside" and not Gunrack or Turret to list AD Values.  The AD values are for RB2 and at full value without any modifiers.  In parenthesis is the average hits, rounded down.  Torp AD average hits not factored.  One of the ships has the Turret weapon Linked with the Fore weapon for comparison purposes(otherwise one ship would have three attack values). 

1. Fore 14(11), Broadside 8(6), Torps 7

2. Fore 16(12), Broadside 10(8), Torps 7

3. Fore 7(5), Broadside 14(11), Torps 8

4. Fore 8(6), Broadside 14(11), Torps 7

5. Fore 9(7), Broadside 14(11), Torps 6

6. Fore 7(5), Broadside 15(12), Torps 7

 

So, are there really any outliers that throw the sacred cow of "balance" out the window?

Take this into consideration also.  Most players would argue that the Aquans are Overpowered.  The stated reasons are variable and arguable.  HOWEVER, if all the factions had Fore weapons rather than Fixed Fore weapons, wouldn't they all be more balanced against each other?

 

If anything, I would argue the AD values are just fine... BUT many of the ships in the game should have Points Cost adjustments(both up and down!!) to better reflect the abilities of a given ship/squadron.

 

 

ng back to the OP.  Too speed up the game, something must be sacrificed.  Either Movement or Dice Mechanic are the big ones.  Doing away with FF will Speed up Gomovement and the game.  The other movement change would be to move Squadrons in "formation", I.E. move one, place the rest in the same "formation".  The problem is that ships on the "outside" ismithereens?of a turn will gain extra movement and therefore move a greater distance.  Does this really matter in a game that is focused on blowing ships to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link vs combined are not exclusive

 

for models that must be in a squadron with another, list its weapon profile as the linked value to be combined (I know this comes out to a few points less but the math is so much easier, especially when several ships are in different range bands)

when it remains as the only model of a squadron just double the weapon value

Link to comment
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.