Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

[Flamebeast]

2 minutes ago, WestAustralian said:

An absolutely, wonderfully, acceptable idea. I have stuck with old rules on previous games. House ruling the gap. 

Problem is that if most players accepted that solution, they would still be playing 2.0. Not holding out for 3.0

maybe your group is still playing, but around here everyone else is on hold

We're all on hold. I can't make a decision either way until I know the facts, and neither can anyone else. All I can do is try to make sure the die are cast in a way that is gonna help keep the game I love alive.

[Brimat]

Hehe, my gaming group is on the same track, staying with v2 if v3 turns out to be a bad game.

We still play regulary, because its a fun game and noone of us is explicitly waiting for v3.

[murphy'slawofcombat]

On 7/21/2017 at 8:04 PM, WestAustralian said:

An absolutely, wonderfully, acceptable idea. I have stuck with old rules on previous games. House ruling the gap. 

Problem is that if most players accepted that solution, they would still be playing 2.0. Not holding out for 3.0

maybe your group is still playing, but around here everyone else is on hold

The reason everyone is on hold with V3 is we haven't seen the new rules and can't get the idea if they are good or bad.... so far what little we have been told is isn't good so lets get a good look at the new rules and put this tp bed

[Commodore Jones]

Some things that came up in the Firestorm game this weekend. Things the guys in our group would like to see added back in 3.0.

Ramming: At the very least make it an optional rule that players have to agree upon before game like Voluntary Decompression. It wouldn't be that difficult to implement, just take the ramming rules from v1.0 and make it a Command Check instead of a d6 roll.

Split Fire return as a standard Firing Option:  But ONLY for Direct Weapons (do not want Torpedo Spam). This one came up 3 times in the same night, once with Aquans (14 AD broadside on a single Frigate) , once with Dindrenzi (battleship had a fixed fore line on two cruisers, split would have been nice) and the poor newb who (logically) assumed the Terran battleship upgrade would apply to turrets, and voiced the opinion that splitting broadsides was dumb when we informed him otherwise.

 

[murphy'slawofcombat]

I don't know about ramming Jonesie I've never  used it myself can't see a situation that i would 

[Xerkics]

3 minutes ago, murphy'slawofcombat said:

I don't know about ramming Jonesie I've never  used it myself can't see a situation that i would 

My Praetorian always loves getting close and personal , ramming smaller ships out of the way as part of movement rather than wasting a rail gun on them would be epic.

[mutantpoo]

We always kept the Ramming rule in our games. Nobody ever successfully did it yet and not used often but SO thematic  as FA was meant to be.

[Skyhawk]

8 hours ago, murphy'slawofcombat said:

 

I don't know about ramming Jonesie I've never  used it myself can't see a situation that i would 

 

This one of those cases where some people will use an ability while others won't. Its just a matter of different tactics. I can see how it would be thematic.

[Commodore Jones]

11 hours ago, murphy'slawofcombat said:

I don't know about ramming Jonesie I've never  used it myself can't see a situation that i would 

Hence the request to make it an optional rule. For those of us who actually do use it.

[S..Mike]

On 7/28/2017 at 7:32 PM, Commodore Jones said:

Hence the request to make it an optional rule. For those of us who actually do use it.

At this point in time, ramming is not part of 3rd Edition, sorry.  I don't say whether it can or cannot be in a future update, but for now it would be a house rule.

Second thoughts, see below.

[Presidente]

Its just not realistic unless your star wars then ramming in space is deffo a normality

[Skyhawk]

Only in the new story line. Ramming wasn't very common in the original canon.

[shinzuer]

It is realistic as a last desperate measure. Happens in the real world during war. Worked great in 1.0 with its restrictions. Never stopped using it. FA is best with a mish mash of different editions rules and charts .I'm sure 3.0 will be the same way.

To quote the great Egg Shen "There's Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoist alchemy and sorcery. We take what we want and leave the rest... Just like your salad bar."

[S..Mike]

On 7/28/2017 at 7:32 PM, Commodore Jones said:

Hence the request to make it an optional rule. For those of us who actually do use it.

@Commodore Jones You know, I think I spoke too soon before, about it only being a house rule.  I'll bring it up and see what can be done as an optional rule.  We ought to keep several of these things as options...standardized so that there is consistency.  Out of curiosity, how often do you see it used?  Every game?  Every third?  Or do you just want the option on the table?

[Commodore Jones]

Back in the day of V1.0 it came up about every 3rd game or so (used to play a lot back then, could get two sometimes three 1000 point games in a single four or 5 hour play session)

But I suggest limiting it to Tier 2 and 1 models, suicide frigates became an issue and we house ruled them out of the ramming option back then.

[S..Mike]

Perhaps so on the FF limitation.  I would definitely see this kind of thing having a command point cost.

[Meatshield]

3 hours ago, Commodore Jones said:

Back in the day of V1.0 it came up about every 3rd game or so (used to play a lot back then, could get two sometimes three 1000 point games in a single four or 5 hour play session)

But I suggest limiting it to Tier 2 and 1 models, suicide frigates became an issue and we house ruled them out of the ramming option back then.

*Starts pondering how many escorts could fit in a viable list and be used as "missiles"*

[Polaris]

can anyone post the original ramming rules? I never played V1, have heard ramming mentioned, and would love to try it sometime  

[Brimat]

With all the rules previews presented by @Spartan_FA_Mike is there an aproxx. date when we can see full rules and ship stats?

[Flamebeast]

On 31/07/2017 at 5:48 PM, Brimat said:

With all the rules previews presented by @Spartan_FA_Mike is there an aproxx. date when we can see full rules and ship stats?

Unless they release a free pdf on time, I'd expect it to be something like 3 months after release.

[S..Mike]

On 7/31/2017 at 10:48 AM, Brimat said:

With all the rules previews presented by @Spartan_FA_Mike is there an aproxx. date when we can see full rules and ship stats?

Scheduling questions need to go to Spartan Neil, I don't have information on that, sorry.

[Hive]

Hey, @Spartan_FA_Mike, here's a zinger for you- what's the status of the Amber campaign? Is it going to pick up again after the new edition?

[S..Mike]

Sorry @Hive, I have no information on it.

 

[CoreHunter]

Let me get this right they claim streamlining and reduced bookkeeping as the reason They removed mines, the changes to boarding, the change to how cp work right?

[CoreHunter]

But added a new command point record sheet, removed the standardized range bands for weapons, added a carrier mini resource game, altered shunt for the sake of change, and ported over the most broken command from pf, made turning faster and easier just to trivialize turning by removeing fixed arcs, split weapona into 3 categorizes when most ships only have 2 weapon systems.