Jump to content
S.Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"*

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.