Jump to content
S..Mike

3rd Edition Movement

Recommended Posts

When the beta group started up, it seemed to me that there was a lot of discussion on the boards about movement.  Some complained that it slowed down the game, others didn't have an issue with it.  As you know, 2nd Edition firestorm is very free-form in its movement.  It's one of the things that attracted me to the game when I first got into it.  Each ship has its own movement (MV) and turn limit (TL) stats to get it where it needed to go, which allowed for a lot of tactical choices, and good differentiation between ships.  There was some substantial discussion among the beta team as to what (if anything) needed to be done with turning.   After several tests, here is what made the cut into the rules:

Ships continue to have a maximum and minimum movement (unless you're at Full Stop, but that's another story) that they can execute.  The MV stat is the maximum, and the minimum is 1/2 MV, rounded up.  Simple.  In turning the ship, we are moving away from the 'turn around the edge' method.   The former "Turn Limit" (TL) value has been renamed/replaced with "Drift" (DF).  When making a turn, the model rotates up to 45 degrees in place.  A ship must move at least its DF value between successive turns of the model orientation.  We've come to call it "Pivot Movement".  The pivot doesn't cost movement to execute.

In our casual games, we have been able to pretty much get rid of the old template.  The ship bases already have 45 degree lines etched in them, so you can temporarily mark the position of one corner, make the turn, and continue on. 

If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to get a graphic to illustrate the method.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as bases have the maximum turn angle for each ship marked for both left and right it should work, since its only the maximum angle players would have to be concerned with. It removes the need for putting the cards on the table; which can be tricky when there's terrain and other models nearby; and also keeps with the idea of constant forward motion.

Potential problems;

1) Flight sticks are often done so that players can remove the stick for transport and storage; either just by slot or by using magnets. This means that there is potential during a game for the alignment of model and stick to fall out of sync by a little. This might give unfair disadvantage/advantage; especially so if the ship in question isn't modelled to be perfectly streamlined with a clear prow portion. 

Flight sticks have always been a tricky area due to their cylindrical design and it might be too late to suggest a square peg system or similar guide-line/lump/shape so that sticks can only go into a model one-way so that alignment is fixed. Granted you could say not glueing to flight sticks is a gamer choice and thus a gamer problem, but I think that removable flight-sticks is enough of a feature for many that its worth serious consideration of alternative approaches

2) Going backwards might also be an issue; whilst a different flight base could be provided any ship capable of going backwards with a maximum turn greater than 90 degrees it might lead to confusion on the base and would require clear size/colour markings to ensure that the angles for forward and backward motion are clearly identifiable for the players

3) Clarity of reading the bases. Some bases are fairly small and not all gamers have perfect eyesight; it might be worth consideration as to how the bases are modelled so that the lines are very clearly readable without ambiguity. Another way instead of just a marked line would be to have a bold colour segment that either highlights the full area of potential turn or highlights the full area of no potential turn (ergo leaving the area of potential turn clear). This, of course, makes for a more complex production setup required although it could be done with an insert if the base were modelled with a cut-out around the rim into which players could then insert a plastic/resin tab of suitable size to mark the turn circle (player can then paint the insert before fixing to base or insert could be shipped already coloured). 

4) Marking the edge before turning might be an issue. A simple pointing stick with a slightly textured tip (so that it doesn't slip - tested on standard game boards and 3rd party gaming mats) could be included in starting kits/accessories. Yes its basically a pencil but its amazing sometimes how something simple can be really important. Plus pencils tend to mark terrain. 

Of course any pointed pointed might also mark terrain and gaming mats so that's a little thing to keep in mind. 

In an ideal world a protector style base would work, but in the real world I suspect such a base would be impractical for gaming purposes both for the player (having to push fingers in to touch the rim to then turn the middle)(non-glued models wouldn't work for it) and for production (more complex assembly/design required than normal for miniature production company)

 

It is a neat idea and in general should work better than the edge moment method. It's also fairly standard as many other model lines used the fixed aspect of models for movement purposes and turn circles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points.  I think the trade-off in generally faster play will outweight the other potential issues.

2 hours ago, Overread said:

2) Going backwards might also be an issue; whilst a different flight base could be provided any ship capable of going backwards with a maximum turn greater than 90 degrees it might lead to confusion on the base and would require clear size/colour markings to ensure that the angles for forward and backward motion are clearly identifiable for the players

To my knowledge, we don't have any ships that go in reverse, or that have maximum turns >90 degrees.  Have I missed something somewhere?

3 hours ago, Overread said:

4) Marking the edge before turning might be an issue. A simple pointing stick with a slightly textured tip (so that it doesn't slip - tested on standard game boards and 3rd party gaming mats) could be included in starting kits/accessories. Yes its basically a pencil but its amazing sometimes how something simple can be really important. Plus pencils tend to mark terrain. 

Of course any pointed pointed might also mark terrain and gaming mats so that's a little thing to keep in mind. 

Also, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that players mark up the map/table/play mat.  I should have said "place a marker" or "use a template" or something like that.  Good catch though, we certainly don't want to be ruining other peoples stuff (aside from blowing up their ships, of course).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Commodore Jones said:

I foresee problems at tournaments with this.  There's going to be lots of Ref calls on opponent's moves.

Yep, with the kind of free form system that FA has, there is that potential.  Please keep me updated if this really becomes an issue.  If there is something that can be done to reduce problems, let's take a look at that.

Share this post


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

Good points.  I think the trade-off in generally faster play will outweight the other potential issues.

To my knowledge, we don't have any ships that go in reverse, or that have maximum turns >90 degrees.  Have I missed something somewhere?

Also, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that players mark up the map/table/play mat.  I should have said "place a marker" or "use a template" or something like that.  Good catch though, we certainly don't want to be ruining other peoples stuff (aside from blowing up their ships, of course).

 

I'm not aware of any backward going ships either, but its always good to keep such mechanic aspects in mind for the future. You might well introduce a new faction with a very different movement system or engine design of its own; or just specialist ships that can move in different ways. So thinking of how those could affect the games base structure is good at this stage as it lets you take steps to provide a robust system that works for today and for tomorrow without having to rebuild part of the game from scratch (quite literally for players if it means new flight stand designs).

And yes I got your meaning about marking and moving; my point was rather to highlight how damage/issues could potentially arise even when players were not trying to mark the surface. Ergo accidental damage. 

 

55 minutes ago, mutantpoo said:

I never really understood peoples problem with movement time. Are people like measuring to the tiniest mm with a laser or something ? It takes like 2 or 3 seconds to template.

You can get movement lasers as accessories. And yes in tournament games (esp if there's any form of prize including just the prestige of winning) people do measure very accurately. Or at least as best as they can. 

As for the movement template there were ways to use it that allowed you to gain additional movement plus, as outlined above, in close combat or near to terrain features it can be tricky at times to get a template into position to move the ship without bumping things or having to move things.

 

 

As I said this system seems to be the best and most practical. It's also common within most game systems. The problems or issues I outlined were potential issues that could be resolved with base deign changes or other aspects; of course its all a balance issue between complexity/simplicity and also cost of production and design if changes were considered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually adopted this movement system a long time ago in my local playgroup.  It nets approximately the same maneuver value (minus any trickery with the turn template) and makes life much simpler around terrain and close formations.  The only real difference we've noted is being able to run much nearer the board edge/terrain with 0 TL ships since you can move away in any direction without having to worry about running off the table or being forced into a terrain feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll need to mark the center of the front edge with a line of paint/marker or something to indicate the point to measure the 45 turn from, you can't use the ship alignment for this as some just don't fit snugly and tightly on their pegs and will rotate if gently brushed.

And no I'm not gluing it in place, I;d like to actually be able to store and transport the already bulky models without having to buy new storage for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tangentially related, movement and terrain? 

Do we still have slingshots? 

Asteroid fields still dangerous? Or can ships opt to move slowly through them (like in v1 - 1.5)

Gas clouds, any variants? Or just the same to minimise book-keeping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Meatshield said:

Do we still have slingshots? 

Yes, this is a command order move.  Pay 1 CO to gain d3+1" movement.

7 hours ago, Paladin21 said:

Hadn't thought about it, but we haven't seen anything on terrain yet.  Any possibility of getting a thread on that after you finish updating everything else?

Good catch, I'll get to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

Yes, this is a command order move.  Pay 1 CO to gain d3+1" movement.

don't like it being a command order and a D3+1" should still be +4"MV added to normal MV allowance as in 2.0 the commander of vessel (s) has the right to make tatical judgement call weather to use a sling shot or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, murphy'slawofcombat said:

NO WAY 

On 2017-7-30 at 10:05 PM, fracas said:

Maybe spartan should shift to a circular base

Circular bases would make a lot of sense if you're going to do angled movement off the base itself. Circles are much easier to visually read instead of square bases. 

Another aspect is that with a circular base you've got a clear middle to the base and thus a clear line from that middle to mark the angles; with rectangular bases its not as clear cut for most. Of course if they are sold pre-marked it takes out some of the problems; and elongated bases (oblong/rectangular) do make more sense for a lot of bigger ships that are mostly longer than they are wider (as is the common theme for most ships)

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.