Jump to content
Jester09

What is Size Class used for?

Recommended Posts

Hi all!  Our group is about to start FSA and had a quick question on Size Class.  I see the ships all have a Size Class listed (Large Capital, Small, etc.).  What is that classification used for?  We've played DW and Smalls were harder to hit from certain guns on bigger ships.  I wasn't able to find anything in the main rule book but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Thanks!!
Jester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, they relate to tiers, if you look at fleet building rules, and you want a full grand fleet, you need 2-4 tier ones (large capital) 2-4 tier 2 squads (medium capital, with defense platforms being an odd exception), and 3-5 tier 3 (small)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will make deployment interesting as putting down your heavy hitters first is going to betray a lot of your tactics early to your opponent. Or at least the area of the table you're likely to have the focus of your fleet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already been brought up and completely ignored in the thread where it was mentioned.  Spartan FA Mike basically said that his meta doesn't use deployment strategies and so they didn't notice any changes.  I find this to be an...unproductive, to be kind, way to look at it.  I want the rules to enable new tactics and strategies, not take them away.  Any deployment options now rely on good old fashioned meet in the middle and pound each other to scrap.  The only exceptions are reserve, which has significant disadvantages in terms of being behind activations and unreliability in planning for reserve arrival.  My group will probably (almost certainly) ignore this as it seems like both a completely arbitrary and exceptionally poor change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new deployment method will make center deployment of larger ships the only viable choice as any other option will just lead to a refused flank. The change also has ramifications on list building and ships balance. I have already voiced my concerns in the other thread and tried to find the reasoning behind this, in my opinion, drastic change but alas only the fluff reason and the fact that deployment didnt matter in Spartan FA Mikes meta came to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and fluff wise, doesn't it make more sense that the tier 3's serving as scouts inform the admiral of what vessels they can see first, allowing the larger ships to deploy in a more advantageous fashion? rather then the admiral, and the other tier 1's barreling ahead, telling the frigates where to deploy after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CoreHunter said:

How can a combat game players group not consider deployment of tactical significance? It seems more that they are not even seriously playtesting anything at all just rolling dice.

To be fair to Spartan FA Mike (god how i wish they just gave him a completely different name) he isn't the only one doing play testing, and likely doesn't have that much say or information given how often he has to "radio back to base" for confirmation on different subjects. He is mostly just the public relations spartan - and he is doing a good job in that regard (at least in my opinion). 

 

43 minutes ago, Polaris said:

and fluff wise, doesn't it make more sense that the tier 3's serving as scouts inform the admiral of what vessels they can see first, allowing the larger ships to deploy in a more advantageous fashion? rather then the admiral, and the other tier 1's barreling ahead, telling the frigates where to deploy after?

The idea is that bigger ships have more visible drive signatures and are therefore detected more easily. Counter arguments were brought up of cause, staging grounds and staggered sends offs could easily let smalls arrive first. Ultimately it matters little as Spartan FA Mike did tell us that fluff wasn't the deciding factor behind the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know fluff isn't the reason they changed it, the tactics side is diminished though.

i don't mind a whole lot, but i don't see the reasoning

1.it's another rule to keep track of (not a complicated one, but it does nothing to "simplify" the game, besides removing tactics

2. it removes deployment tactics, not completely, but the effect is diminished, the best use of FTB often was forcing your opponent to deploy first, and one of the benefits to extra activations, is you could hold your tier ones, until your opponent placed there's

3.fluff (arguments can be made either way)

the only real change is a decreased need for tactical acumen.

allow me to site an example

2 grand fleets 2000 pts, i had directorate, he had dindrenzi, a good old border clash.

i lost initiative, so i placed my admiral on the board first far left (you'll see) he begins to place his mediums and smalls on the opposite side (so i know his tier ones are likely coming on the admiral side) i place my mediums in the middle, and he eventually stacks his tier 1's (including a battlestation)  on my admiral side, as i put my tier ones on the far side opposite his mediums (seeing this he puts his admiral, on a dreadnought on that side)

my admiral was on a stealth system anarchist, and i moved at half speed, and used cyber to mitigate incoming fire, and stalled, while the rest of my fleet rushed his, with my admiral drawing the attention of all but 1 tier 1, i had a fairly easy time getting the upper hand on the rest of his fleet i used my cloaked carrier to tank his dreadnoght, shutting down weapons with the help of it's tormentor accompaniments(i even flanked in some gunships, started decimating from behind)  his flanks went to deal with my works raptor destroyers.

when my admiral was 23" away from his tier 1's, i used drives to max, and bolted hard right behind some asteroids, to join the fray, and finish his dreadnought.

it was then reality hit him, i had set up my admiral as bait from the first squadron placement. his battelstation was in a far corner, hardly posing a threat (i could essentially deal with it at leisure) and his battleships, way out of position, it took another full turn to bring his guns to bear, but by that time his fleet was gone, all but 2 broken squads of frigates. mop up didn't take long.

 

long story short, deployment is a major part of the tactics, and before placing tier one's was a curve ball, now it's mandatory.

no a huge deal, but i'd rather not be forced to place tier one's first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like deployment will  be one of the things we will be houseruling to stay as v2 if we do actually play v3.. Forcing people to deploy tier 1s first is for all the above mentioned reasons kinda stupid frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Paladin21 said:

It's already been brought up and completely ignored in the thread where it was mentioned.  Spartan FA Mike basically said that his meta doesn't use deployment strategies and so they didn't notice any changes.  I find this to be an...unproductive, to be kind, way to look at it.  I want the rules to enable new tactics and strategies, not take them away.  Any deployment options now rely on good old fashioned meet in the middle and pound each other to scrap.  The only exceptions are reserve, which has significant disadvantages in terms of being behind activations and unreliability in planning for reserve arrival.  My group will probably (almost certainly) ignore this as it seems like both a completely arbitrary and exceptionally poor change.

It wasn't completely ignored, there just isn't much to say about it.  We either go free form, heavies first, or heavies last.  It was placed on the list of rule changes to review, and a ruling will be forthcoming.  

Share this post


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

It wasn't completely ignored, there just isn't much to say about it.  We either go free form, heavies first, or heavies last.  It was placed on the list of rule changes to review, and a ruling will be forthcoming.  

Well, then I apologize for my earlier statement.  That was definitely the impression that I got as there was no mention of any consideration of change in the brief discussion of the rule, and so I assumed that it wasn't up for debate.  If it is, that's definitely something I look forwards to.  In a competitive meta, strategy starts in list building.  Closely following that is deployment; it's the first chance a player has to impose their will on the table.  Arbitrary deployment rules in terms of sequencing limit this first interaction between players and rewards people with weak tactical sense.  Note that I'm fine with Planetfall deployment rules, though far more structured than Armada, because you can offset having to put down full helixes in a large number of ways and if you fail to do so, it's your fault for not using the tools available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to deployment I also think the scale of the game is important to consider. Games with fewer models tend to mean that there's a lot more focus on the performance of each model. Thus placement and such becomes very very important. In larger games where you've got more models on the table its still important, but you've got more room to adapt; plus you've also less room in the deployment area to pick from (more models means less space typically - assuming fairly standard table sizes). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a Large table deployment can decide a game if opponent was stupid enough to place his tier 1 on 1 side you can go heavy on the other side and wipe him out before his tier 1 got anywhere close to contribute. So yes forcing tier 1 first will just make players deploy them in the middle rather than try to deploy tactically .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

It wasn't completely ignored, there just isn't much to say about it.  We either go free form, heavies first, or heavies last.  It was placed on the list of rule changes to review, and a ruling will be forthcoming.  

Im glad that spartan is still open for review of V3 rules. I feel the new edition has great potential but is hamstrung by several more ill considered changes. This being one of the major ones. I cant seem to find and pro's for the new deployment system, and many cons. Unless you guys know something i have missed it should by an easy choice when deciding which is superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, my 2 cents on this...

 

The reason you would enforce a "heavies first" deployment rule is if you want to represent the speed of lighter elements during deployment (ie., they're fast enough to react to enemy deployment, ergo are placed later and can counterdeploy and such) if mid-game all elements move similarly. Since many smalls move around twice the speed of their large capitol counterparta and are significantly more manouverable, this would not apply to Firestorm. It's... I won't throw around terms like "bad" or "wrong," but it is unecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course those same small ships could be sent ahead to scout, so that the heavies arrive in the right position :) 

fluff-wise it could go either way, which if given a choice, one commander may place his tier 3's first (for scouting) another his tier 1's (his smaller ships positioning to face the perceived threat)

so hers is to hoping ^_^

 

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.