Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

[Skyhawk]

Over all it looks good.

23 minutes ago, CoreHunter said:

of course their will should be roughly 3-6 fleet specific ones

What do you mean by fleet specific ones?

[Paradomutante]

the basics are ok, movement, shooting and SRS, but other thing like cloaks, shunts and command points need a overhaul, especially command points. Could be changed to a order system like old BFG with faction specific orders?.

[CoreHunter]

general ship stat ideas. using BBs.

Sorylians: 6DR 10CR 8MV 8CP 6PD 2SH 3TL (broad side battering ram)

retractable plating ( port / starboard) Reinforced (Fore).

Fore torps 2340 setup. 2 sets port /starboard scatter with weak linking focus is multiple target shots having 8" range bands.

Scatter: Ignores all penalties and dice modifiers from terrain and defensive MARS against targets within 10".

Orders:

(2-3)Thermal Assault: models in unit take a disorder and can make 2 assaults this activation. 3 Command points the unit rerolls initial 1s for their assaults.

(2-3)Experianced Repair teams: Models in squadron immediately make a repair check against all critical effects and disorder markers on a 5+ and repair 1 HP or CP on a 6+.

Aquans: 7DR 10CR 6MV 7CP 5PD 1SH 1TL 3SRS

precision strike (targetd strike cost 1 less command point) Secured Bulkheads (2) (CP counts as +X against assaults) SRS(H.Interceptors, H.bombers)

weapons pretty much unchanged with access to energy transfer.

Directorate: 6DR 10CR 6MV 8CP 6PD 1SH 3TL 2SRS

Countermeasures(16") (models in unit may take a disorder to give -1 to hit to enemy Squadrons within X"), superior Design(3) (counts as +XCR against critical effects but not critical damage) SRS ( Interceptors, repair shuttles.)

Torpedoes move to bio as does the Turret. Corrosive options for torpedoes. 

Orders:

(2-3)You've got mail: A squadron makes a cyber attack against an enemy within 24"  of each model using their combined CP as the AD value. If 2 command are spent on this each model in the squadron receives a disorder marker.

Relthozans:  7DR 10CR 5MV 12CP 6PD  2TL 3SRS

Shroud of Stars (4) (while cloaked all attacks at or from this model while cloak is active use linked values for all attacks; while cloak is inactive ship rolls X dice each 4+ regens 1HP at the end of it's activation) System network(5) (Swarm ships attached to this model gain the benefits of this models Shroud of Stars but only regen on X+) SRS (H.Assault shuttles, Bombers)

Stealth systems (upgrade): ship gets -1DR and -1MV. All attacks against this ship are at -1 to hit.

Orders:

(2-3)Endless Swarms: (for 2 command only) each model in the squadron receive a disorder marker. (2-3) Each model may make a launch SRS a second time this activation.

(2-3) Shroud the Stars: (2) at the end of this squadrons activation immediately choose and move a teir 3 Swarm squadron half its MV. (3) at the end of this squadrons activation immediately choose and move a teir 2 or 3 Swarm squadron half its MV. Does not count as activating and no squadrion may chosen by this Order selected more than one a turn.

[blut_und_glas]

@CoreHunter

While I do not agree on all of the points I really enjoy the creativity and reading about your ideas of where the game/factions could go.

Some specific comments:

On 14/08/2017 at 2:04 AM, CoreHunter said:

Defensive school: when defending a model may gain 1 additional SH for each other model in the unit. If the attack exceeds the CR all other models in the unit gain a disorder marker.

The image you evoke of the school of fish makes me think of sharing a Difficult/Elusive Target modifier more than Shields. Maybe make it so that in a squadron of maximum size (battle ready in the new nomenclature) ships which do not have Difficult Target gain that MAR, and ships with it upgrade to Elusive? Once the squadron is down a ship for any reason, this bonus is lost.

On 14/08/2017 at 2:04 AM, CoreHunter said:

Sorylians: Pack hunters and analytical masters.  Pack hunters: Relies on speed and multiple unit tactics so higher than average speeds and multiple weapons to support other units. Analytical masters: the longer the fight the better they are at dealing with the enemy they face; FT is equal to the game turn.

The increasing Fleet Tactics Bonus is gold! Like that a lot.

On 14/08/2017 at 2:04 AM, CoreHunter said:

Directorate: Bureaucratic and inhumane tactics. Bureaucratic: so ingrained with monotony nothing phases them so each unit may remove a single disorder before resolving disorder. Inhumane tactics: sacrifice others to save themselves once a turn a model that receives a critical hit may select one model in its squad to take 1HP damage to cancel one critical chart roll before the results are known.

The crit negation in exchange for a single HP seems strange. I would have imagined that damage goes up with the transfer, e.g., avoid 1 damage by assigning 2 damage to another vessel/avoid a critical by assigning a damaging critical to another vessel. Or just make it a straight redirecting of targets. After your opponent declares he is targeting a ship, you may force him to target a different ship instead. The new target may not be behind intervening terrain and has to be part of the original target's squadron, it may not have a higher DR/DR than the original target (to avoid a battleship tanking weak attacks originally meant to take out its escorts - does not appear very Directorate anyway).

On 14/08/2017 at 2:04 AM, CoreHunter said:

Hostile Liquidation: Target squadron receives a disorder marker and gains +1d3 to its MV and boarding range. Unit may make a free assault this turn.

Instead of a straight assault bonus with increased range, wouldn't this be an ideal place to reintroduce ramming? That would also keep with the theme of sacrificing an asset to gain an advantage you introduced with the inhumane tactics above.

[Edwin]

make sure there is 5 mm room in the middle of the new base to allow custom basing methods players have invented for transport etc. do not place the dice sockets to close to the middle of the base.

if there is a base topic please copy this post.

[Doomkitten]

On 8/10/2017 at 2:56 PM, reddwarf said:

It's weird.  In my opinion the "big things" like movement, fire mechanics, and wings (basic game mechanics) are moving in the right direction (notable exception--Command Orders).  But so many "little" things strike me as wrong, and/or hugely faction altering for no real gain that it's hard.  Kinetic, Pinpoint, Cloaking, Boarding, Ambush, Shunting, Primary/Secondary/Tertiary...they keep adding up.

Don't worry Spartan, I'll still try 3.0.  Just feeling pessimistic I guess.

I occasionally pop back, look things over. I've got well over 300 Firestorm ships, several friends with multiple sizeable fleets too. To say we are invested in Firestorm Armada would be an understatement in the extreme. We want to be able to play the up to date version of Firestorm Armada, but between the lost focus when Taskforce and Halo came out (dampened enthusiasm because we felt "our" game was condemned to be back-burnered) and now the concerns over such sweeping rules changes as have been explained in such an isolated, difficult to translate, manner... Honestly? We're all beyond pessimistic.

[Sniddy]

I've honestly tried to keep the flame locally 

And yeh the kickstarter this early and as @reddwarf says the little things....are things people care about and they're hard to sell

I don't have a working product to put in their hands to get some test games to get some non theory feedback 

We're gonna get 3.0 eventually without fan fare or enthusiasm and I don't think it will be 'good enough' no ones feeling it and the way things are going theres nothing to build a lot of enthusiasm 

I am holding onto lots of feedback and communication - that either bad things will be changed or are not as bad as we think once the whole big picture comes together - but it's an uphill struggle and given all I'm seeing I think 3.0 won't re-ignite interest, but smother it

  

[Xerkics]

On a side note I'm curious @Spartan_FA_Mike Have you guys considered buffing escorts across the board in light of SRS changes? They are usually kinda underused because of SRS in 2.0 or ignored in favour of capital accompaniments or frigs. Whether you are going to reclassify them into heavy med and light too as well?

[Polaris]

well now that interceptors can't block everything, instead only once a turn, escorts just became a lot more crucial for covering tier 1s from torps

[Polaris]

it could be interesting if escorts could combine there PD with the parent ship, for shooting at SRS, totaling the hits together to drive off tokens, rather then separate PD attacks

[Commodore Jones]

3 hours ago, Polaris said:

it could be interesting if escorts could combine there PD with the parent ship, for shooting at SRS, totaling the hits together to drive off tokens, rather then separate PD attacks

This is a house rule we use in V2 right now. Works quite well, and Escorts see a lot more use that way.

[Spenetrator]

So I've been looking over the rules for V2 - as someone who has been looking to get into the game for a while - and thought the Kickstarter was a pretty good place to start! After looking at the design overview blog I feel like most of the changes don't seem to bring much to the game... The command and control and power ratio rules seem to be over-complicated - (like the heat scale in classic battletech). (though no-one could complain about changing the range bracket nomenclature or more ship classes - nor re-balancing SRS - (especially if they were as broken as they were in BFG)

I loved the rules for the Kinetic/Primary/Beam weapons, and it sounds like the Primary/secondary/Tertiary are going to replace these - I think that will remove a lot of the flavour of the ships. Which is what drew me to Firestorm. I would rather have a Strength 5 Beam battery facing off against a kinetic Rail gun than just a primary battery or secondary battery- especially if the primary/secondary meant a set number of attack dice - say 6 for a primary and 4 for a secondary. Eugh.

As a potential new player it seems you are over complicating the general aspects of the game and simplifying the bits which differentiate between the races. Which seems like a company removing their Unique selling point - Like Sailor Jerries Rum changing their recipe so it tastes like all the other spiced rums! Madness!! 

As other people have mentioned, the devil is in the detail, And I hope my and other players worries are unfounded.

 

 

[alextroy]

The weapon classifications are not replacing the types, they are an additional designation. You can have Beam Primary or Secondary weapons. 

[Xerkics]

BTw i read about a "Super Carrier" in the Pathogen fluff are we going to have more than 1 type of dreadnought or is that a leviathan? 

[Spenetrator]

On 17/08/2017 at 5:30 PM, alextroy said:

The weapon classifications are not replacing the types, they are an additional designation. You can have Beam Primary or Secondary weapons. 

Thanks Alex, that is reassuring... So just to ensure I am clear, the changes to this are largely a naming convention and standardisation for weapon ranges and AD?

Primary = better AD @  RB 2-3/ Short to Med range.

Also a bracket of weapons which command orders can apply to.

[alextroy]

From what I saw at the FSA playtest at Gen Con, weapon type (as opposed to WAR) does the following:

• Determines when you can used Focused Fire on an attack
• Restricts which weapons can link on an attack
• Determines how weapons attacks are affected by damage on a ship

Best AD may not line up exactly with type, although I think they generally will.

 

 

[Skyhawk]

14 hours ago, alextroy said:

Determines when you can used Focused Fire on an attack

I wonder if this means they have found a way to limit focus fire?

[Polaris]

also @Spartan_FA_Mike what size class will defense platforms be in 3.0 ? in 2.0 they are the only tier 2 ship that is not a capital ship, and is small, they were rather odd being small taking a tier 2 spot, by size they now occupy the frigate territory (which I support) but will they be changed to medium?

[ThePayneTrayn]

15 hours ago, Skyhawk said:

I wonder if this means they have found a way to limit focus fire?

You can focus fire only in specific range bands, depending on the weapon type (primary, secondary, tertiary).

[Commodore Jones]

So I guess that means broke-@$$ Focused Fire is still going to be in the V3 rules?

[ThePayneTrayn]

40 minutes ago, Commodore Jones said:

So I guess that means broke-@$$ Focused Fire is still going to be in the V3 rules?

Correct. They are...not fun, in my opinion.

[blut_und_glas]

I still don't get why the criticism gets focused on the focused fire option.

To my mind, the issue is not the option itself but its interaction with scoring. And of those two, it's the scoring that is in more need of improvement, at least in my eyes.

Make winning less a function of destroying enemy units and more of achieving other objectives, and focused fire becomes just one more tool in the box. That goes for both Planetfall as well as Armada.

[CoreHunter]

no matter the scoring method a bonus to hit is going to be an overwhelming advantage. Focused fire has been in planetfall since it came out and has also been complained about since it came out. Focused fire is the reason relthozans got a complete butchering not tweaking but butchered into an entirely new army mid planetfall (instead of just removing focused fire) and a lot of customers felt betrayed and screwed over and rightly so. 

Focused fire is also the prime reason for the stupid renaming of range bands and the inclusion of primary, secondary, and tertiary weapons systems. As it is their failed attempt to fixing focused fire in planetfall. This attempt to sign off the new weapon system format as a way to control AD degradation is stupid as we already had weapon shielding which secondaries are mimicking and the weapons that already did not degrade which tertiary is mimicking. So adds little to the game other than a way to force in focused fire which has been considered a broken game mechanic for the entirety of planetfalls release with them blindly refusing to fix.

[alextroy]

Whether Focus Fire can be balanced is a matter of how often and easily you can use it. It was broken in Planetfall because some factions could just sit back and toss tons of dice. It will be less of a issue if it can only be done a few times over the course of a game. 

[Paradomutante]

Focus fire could be ok, if it had a drawback, like the orders in the old BFG. Hell i preffer a whole order system with Pros/Cons that a Command Points one.