Jump to content
Toxic_Rat

Movement Changes?

Recommended Posts

As noted in another thread, movement is one of the principal aspects of the game that takes time.  Which really should not come as a surprise...at it's simplest, the game is move and shoot.  It is in the how we move that takes up time.  I'd like to discuss ways to speed up movement in the game, both in terms of moving ships and moving squadrons.

Here are some options to consider:

1. Continue using the traditional MV+TL method to moving each ship.  Whether this is with the SG template, or something narrower is  up to the user.  The template is used both as a ruler, and to measure out the 45 degree angle used for turning the ship.

2. Change the turning method from the 45 degree template angle to a pivot around the flight peg.  This is the method proposed by the V3 beta.  

3. Change the turning method from a single turn to a series of arc templates.  Each TL value would have their own radius that they can traverse.

4. Do away with the template altogether.  I know @Stoobert has some thoughts on this.  I'm happy to share, but he deserves the credit so I'll let him describe it.

5. Use a series of movement templates, similar to X-Wing.  Very simple, you just move the ship to the end of the template and you're done.

With regard to moving ships vs. moving squadrons, the V2 rules as written require each ship to use the template to move.  I think many of us keep the bases in some sort of formation and then move one ship with the template, and the rest follow, forming the same arrangement at the end of the move.  This could be expanded so that one ship is designated as the lead, and it is moved according to one of the above methods first.  Then, each ship in the squadron moves independently, but must end their movement within X" distance, and not be forward of the lead ship.  Each ship would need to be facing in the same direction.

What other movement systems are out there?   Which would speed up movement for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 For me. Have always been of the opinion that people take too long to move as opposed to movement taking too long. That being said, I would also allow models to be removed from the base when close in, or at the very least add it as an optional. I know this approach has it's detractors, be it adds so much convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to hear @Stoobert's ideas. I like the idea of arc templates and the X-wing movement templates are a slick and readily available method. What I really like about arced templates is that it gives hardcore rule fanatics a way to go 'This is exactly how far forward I need to move to keep this ship in my fixed fore arc', and maybe push a fleet close enough to drop their stealth systems or enter a better rangeband by accident. This also drops the need for any 1" or 2" turns, and lets dreadnoughts pull off real gentle arcs.  The spartan movement tool went a long way to making all movement quicker in my games, but its certainly not the smoothest way of moving around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Toxic_Rat and @Wolfgang Jannesen....  I'm going to introduce my idea in a video.   It maintains the feel of physics in space, is faster, and approximates the capabilities of TL 0 TL 1 and TL2.  I also offer it is even MORE accurate than inch-by-inch movement, using only the arcs printed already on your base. 

You can watch here

To those who have concerns, I understand this may be a shock.   A bit about myself, not to brag but unfortunately because I have been told by some that I do not understand or care about FSA...  I have played nearly 200 games of FSA and paced 3rd three times at Adepticon.   So each of us is entitled to their opinion, but please don't accuse me of not knowing this game.  :)   We've even diagrammed a detailed movement range comparison in a CAD program. Give it a try!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Toxic_Rat said:

 Change the turning method from a single turn to a series of arc templates.  Each TL value would have their own radius that they can traverse.

 I don’t understand what you mean by an ‘arc’ template, but it sounds like what Alex Mann wanted to do. (See his blog for examples)

@Stoobert Thank you very much for the video.  I think with some refinement this would be an excellent system, and definitely much faster than the current system.  My first proposal would be to change the ship bases to something designed specifically for this movement system, instead of constraining it to the current bases with only two measurement lines.  I’d like to see your CADs first though.

Any system also has to deal with model “collisions” in some way.  The v2.0 system was frankly terrible, as it tried to do to many things at once and failed at everything. X-Wing miniatures developed a great system that works within the order/move-template system, and shows what a good system looks like.  It works because it embraced a few principles:

1. Bases take up physical space, so they can’t stack on each other.

2. While ship models are pretty, don’t let them constrain the game in any way.  Adjust or remove them from the base if necessary.

Thus, X-wing can be played without any miniatures, and for ‘big’ games, it’s actually much easier if you don’t use any models.  Same for FSA, except FSA doesn’t have the stat card that fit on the X-wing bases.

I’m advocating for using a base overlay which facilitates gameplay, and highly recommend a new flight stand that further facilitates gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.  A few thoughts:

1. Waypoints: only for when you have a lot of MV", but a straight line won't let you avoid terrain directly in front of you.  As Toxic_Rat says, it happens a lot less than you might think.  Waypoints are otherwise unnecessary.

2. Collisions: first I've never been a fan of "ship models cannot touch, and cannot take them off base" it creates a restriction that is not based on 1:10,000 scale.   Second, with my single-measure movement collisions are even more rare than 2.0 because you must move your ship between 1/2 and full MV in a way that bases do not touch, and you have literally an entire 90 arc in which to do so.  So if it doesn't fit there, try there, or there, or somewhere else.

3. Xwing-style templates are neat when you have 3-6 ships, and needed when movement is hide/reveal.   FSA has 12-20 ships and movement isn't hidden so templates are slow and unnecessary, with one exception: a position marker.  I recommend a "Pac-man-looking" template of a 40mm diameter circle with a 20mm notch cut out of it.  You can place optionally it on one corner of your ship before you move to mark your original position, if you feel your movement is going to be tight or you anticipate changing your mind.

4. I'm not a fan of new bases or hardware, because when 3.0 comes out there will be a "Great Dusting Off" of ships in the closet, old players wanting to try the new rules.  If we tell them they need to buy a dozen new bases that may dissuade them

5. @Toxic_Rat thanks for those diagrams.  The most important changes in the proposal is that TL0 ships can no longer move entirely in circles, and TL 1 ships cannot pull a full 180" turn, it's more like 135-160" depending on how far they move.  I find both of these changes acceptable and tactically more interesting, and I play Aquans FYI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree with points 2 through 4.

Point 1. Maybe if you make all movement straight ahead with a single pivot with the degrees you mention (270 for TL 0, 180 for TL1, 45 for TL2), but allow an additional pivot for each 2" movement less from the max. 

For example you move a TL1 ship with 10" MV. You can move straight ahead for 10" with a pivot before, during or after your move. Or move up to 8" with 2 pivots, 6" with 3 pivots. etc... Maybe max it to only 1 extra pivot allowed or extra pivots are limited to 3-TL or something.

I think it's the extra token you need that seems awkward to me. And that's 'seems like' - I think it's pretty easy

Point 5. I would miss the TL 0 circle. It was nice to activate some frigates and just say "they fly in a circle and end where they are". Now THAT is the fastest movement phase ever :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 1:  I understand the waypoint seems clunky at first, I really do.  Please try playing a whole 2.0 game with this movement method and I think you may see how easy it is, and how seldom waypoints are used.    Single measure, single move, single pivot - that's the goal.   Multiple pivots and stuff slow movement down again.  The waypoint token could just as easily be your finger and say 'waypoint' your opponent says 'yah ok' and you're done, particularly if movement is not close to your min/max.   Waypoint doesn't help you move quicker or better in any way with single-measure other than avoiding terrain.

Point 5: Yeah I used circle tactic alot too, I think it's cheesy but understand if some folks like it.  :)  If it's a big missed thing it can be kept as a capability of formerly TL0 ships in another way, like no penalty to re-start from Full Stop.  Same difference.

Edited by Stoobert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The ship may insert a Waypoint along the movement path in order to avoid obstacles.

This rule should be completely unnecessary, as using a Waypoint limits your total movement options... unless someone found a way to “cheat” the Waypoint system in some way?

Also, I would likely use a 1” incriment Movement stick instead of a tape measure for more precision.  Positioning is extremely important in FSA 2.0, and sometimes a tiny bit of movement makes all the difference between getting to shoot or not getting shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I follow @Ryjak.  While the proposed 'single measure' movement system doesn't require a waypoint rule, a waypoint provides a flexible a third option when a ship is moving near terrain. 

Without a waypoint, a straight line from origin to destination that crosses terrain forces a collision test, so the only two single measure options without a waypoint are: go straight through, risking collision, or take TWO turns to move in a L shape around the terrain.  

The waypoint is allowing you to move, presumably in an L shape, around the terrain in 1) a single turn 2) without risking collision, like we are accustomed to doing in 2.0.

And you're absolutely right, the best tool I've found for this  movement system is actually a 12" wooden ruler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 6:32 AM, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

These are massive drastic changes that mean my current fleets won't fit into the new systems without rebasing. I'm a little wary of totally redesigning everything like that

 

edited for sass

What are you using to determine firing arcs?   This method uses those same arcs on the bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone involved in Rebellion loved Stoobert's movement, once they saw the video and played it.  A major issue is we haven't come up with a great text explanation for a rulebook though.  With just text and diagrams it comes off clunky and weird.  As I recall the first time a Warcradle person looked at it in email it basically came back "huh" :)  It "seems" way harder and more complex than it is if you just have the text, which is an actual problem when it has to be in a rulebook.

I just love how it drastically speeds things up but keeps the emphasis on arcs and facing that is so critical to Firestorm.

And yes, waypoints are for maneuvering around terrain but making sure you don't end up in a completely illogical facing (the requirement to keep the waypoint and your starting location in your aft), and that's basically it.

Share this post


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

What are you using to determine firing arcs?   This method uses those same arcs on the bases.

You know I'm not sure what I was talking about there, the base system for that game would be an easy addition to Firestorm. It just needs a crew ring too. I take that back, sorry!

Share this post


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

@Ryjak To answer your question: no.  Given the current proposed rules for waypoint I haven't thought of how the waypoint would be useful for any other purpose.  Can you?  (curiosity, not sarcasm)

 No, I can’t... so it’s not necessary to explicitly limit using Waypoints to maneuver around Terrain.  You only need to say you may use Waypoints to avoid terrain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stoobert Ive just watched your video and I really liked it! youve put into words and examples something I guess I had half formed in my head but in a much more clear and consise way. 

top stuff. Ill certainly give this a go.

1 question. when using waypoints the hypotenuse is still up to your max move value yes? hence your comment on possibly making a waypaint a 1" cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kaptyn Krys thank you and I'm glad you like it.  Re: hypotenuse it's a good point of clarification.  The ship is actually traveling to the waypoint, then on to the destination, so the sum of these two "sides of the triangle" is what is compared to the MV value.    The 1" cost to place waypoint may not be necessary, but it does help prevent people from using waypoints unnecessarily, and makes sense from a physics/fluff perspective. 

If I were introducing FSA to someone to the first time, I would save save for later certain rules as "Advanced" (not optional) and Waypoints would be one of them. 

@reddwarf Thanks and you are correct. Not being a professional writer it's hard to describe its simplicity.  If I could take another shot at it would be simply this:

Quote

Measuring from the peg, a ship must move between half its MV value and full MV each activation from its origin to a destination within its allowed movement arc.   Holding your ruler steady after movement, rotate the ship to a facing such that its point of origin remains within its rear arc at its destination.

Movement arc/TL stat would be defined next.  I would offer that the higher-the-better like all the other stats : 3=270 ° , 2=180 ° , 1=90 ° .  0 could be 'straight line only', with a rotation after movement.  Some folks miss "move in a circle and stay in place", that could be an ability of TL4 at 360°.  This TL number (or whatever we called it) from 0-4 could also be related to terrain checks as it has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • 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.