Jump to content
Frans

Future FA rules

Recommended Posts

I’m not passingly familiar with the other systems, but the game mechanics for each is pretty unique... however, if you look at them from the overall game flow, FSA and BFG are pretty similar (blow up the other guy) while DFC is more focused on Objectives.

Or, it’s generally easier to stay alive in DFC, so you can actually focus on the objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I've been advocating for a survey of the community of players/collectors for a while now.   There are at lease three basic categories of players and how they feel about the 2.0 rules: needs a lot of change, just make a few tweaks, or no change at all.   Each is entitled to their own opinion, of course. 

However regardless of how the percentages fall in those three categories, there are going to be at least a few annoyed/disappointed people when the next ruleset drops.

But 2.0 is staying the same for all I know, forever!  And since some people believe 2.0 is a solid game, why not offer some support those who wish to keep playing it?

I wonder if Warcradle has given any thought to:

  • offering backwards-compatible 2.0 stats for new ship classes that are released, at least for a while
  • releasing new scenarios and campaigns for 2.0.  @Kaptyn Krys has a bunch already.  And last year there was a tournament pack I saw from the Adepticon folks that had some too

This could even been a sanctioned effort spearheaded by community volunteers.  Just wonderin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think its better to move forward with the WC relaunch being a full relaunch. Which is to say no rules for legacy models. 

Which isn't actually a huge problem because most fleets didn't actually have a vast variety of ship types. Indeed the only legacy would be different sculpts of the same ship - eg battleships. In my view its best to treat that as just an alternate model. Don't have legacy old edition battleships; just have the straight basic battleship. 

That keeps things simple and clean and means that new players are not left thinking "gods I wish I was around them to get those rare legacy models for their neat stats"  and instead focuses everything on moving forward with the game. 

 

For FA its not a huge problem; legacy models is more of an issue for something like Dystopian Wars where there were a lot more models in every range and a wider diversity of factions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may be talking about two different things.  There is already in 2.0 a combined stat for legacy models, for example the Storm, Chironex and Isonade... which are different sculpts but the same stats.

I'm talking about a brand new class of ship, for instance the "Moray" (I'm just making that up) which is released for 3.0.  Its stats (if different) could be backported to 2.0.

Share this post


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

As nice as that would be, I can't think of a single game publisher that does that. Why spend valuable staff time building rules for a past version of a game?

The Terrans get two battleships AND their homeworld, its kind of a 'did you bring enough for the rest of the class' scenario :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to have to disagree on some fronts there Stoobert.

2.0 is and always will be 2.0. But Warcradle shouldn't be beholden to be backwards compatible. 3.0 will be their baby, new models, new ships, new rules. WCS need to make 3.0 work for them and not just to keep vocal minorities on here quiet. Some people will hate any 3.0 because its not 2.0+.  Any brand new ships will only be backwards compatible to 2.0 if a member of the community decides to have a fiddle. That's not WCS prerogative. 

To be honest as long as the game retains a similar feel of "pew pew pew BOOM" I'll be happy, I don't mind a radical shift in mechanics/design. I think it needs to play faster and bigger to survive. There's no point making a million and 1 ships if you only ever take a handful of the same ones over and over.

When 3.0 comes out I'll make every effort to updater my scenario/ tournament pack to be 3.0 compatible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faster and more ships at the same time might not happen - but I very much agree on the more ships. More ships also works well for giving us more bigger ship variety. Even if we might only take one or two dreadnought class ships in any one game, having more ships means that smaller classes can bulk up the battle field; which makes those big ships really feel mighty. 

And who knows WC might even get the mythological leviathans into the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have the resources to burn on maintaining stats and rules on an old edition of the game. We are going to be focussing fully on our vision for the game and universe. Lots of things will be familiar of course.   We realize (through re launching WWX, and the Dystopian Wars work) that we will not be able to keep everyone happy but we need to create our version of the games and drive them forwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Warcradle Richard said:

We don't have the resources to burn on maintaining stats and rules on an old edition of the game. We are going to be focussing fully on our vision for the game and universe. Lots of things will be familiar of course.   We realize (through re launching WWX, and the Dystopian Wars work) that we will not be able to keep everyone happy but we need to create our version of the games and drive them forwards. 

can't say that this makes me happy would like to see  some old stats be revised ,BUT! I do understand . Also there is nothing to say you can not house rule stats for old models 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always proxy! I'd be disappointed if Warcradle didn't push their own Firestorm, from a perspective of rules, fluff, and aesthetic (which is personally the hardest for me to let go of). There are a lot of things that marry me to this game, but I've also been using homebrew rules off the forum for almost every game after my first, so I don't know if its the 2.0 ruleset. There is a strong point that the forums are an echo chamber, but there are definitely very passionate and intelligent players on here and their ideas can and should make an impact on the future of firestorm rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kaptyn Krys thanks I was asking the question on behalf of others, not necessarily myself.   I definitely fall into the camp of NOT feeling like 2.0 is/was a solid game (after many many plays of it) and think it needs major changes.  But I respect the beliefs of others.  We have our answer, nonetheless.  Thanks Warcradle Richard.     It's really good to know that the scale of the models won't change and our collections will be useful in the next game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Warcradle Richard knows. eyes always watching.

we could make them do it precious

no no its to risky

we leads them to it

it?

plastics my precious. and new rules.

yesyes! and then when they are dead from the fumes we takes it!

Gollum. Gollum!

*Krys hops back onto his rock*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone thought about formations?  A squadron of ships that synergize together, move and activate as a unit as well as gain a special ability.  Think of it as the logical growth of the accompaniment rules.

Example:

Dindrezni Hunter-Killer Flotilla:

1 Cataphract Battlecruiser

2-3 Velites Light Cruiser

2-3 Pugio Light Frigates (might be overkill)

Special Ability:  Alpha-strike: the lead unit targets one enemy model, every other unit that can draw line of sight can combine fire on the same model.  Once per game.

Secondary Ability:  Time-on-target: almost the same as above but units can only link fire.  Once per turn.

 

Thoughts?  Constructive criticism?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@northerndragons Age of Sigmar does something like this and on top of adding new abilities for everyone (always a plus) it seemed like it gave new players a clear template of 'Here are probablythe next boxes you should pick up'

You can certainly run into problems of fleetbuilding becoming completely standardized, and I think few fleets currently suffer for options in a 800-1200 point game. On the flip side maybe a relthozan force can have a very heavy shunt cruiser setups and an ability to burn that can help with the shunt entry table, or allow for a squad's precision use of a shunt matrix. A fleet built like this has a lot less overall choice for ships and would benefit greatly from a couple TAC like rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kaptyn Krys - If they can get hold of something like the plastic Hawk Wargames uses then by all means lets go plastic mad! That said if not then I'd say resin is best for detail. I can't see anything except Dystopian Wars being viable for plastic at this stage; even then it would be a huge risk. 

 

From what I've seen on the job advertisements WC is going for resins . Maybe plastics one day - but likely not for many more years and that assumes good growth of the core games to a point where demand makes the investment into plastics a sound financial choice. 

Share this post


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

I have signed off the budget for some plastics for both Dystopian Wars and Firestorm Armada. 

Now you have done it! Speculation for new plastic modular frigates anybody?

New bases that the rules can lean on in interesting ways? :D

Colour me excited!

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.