Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sky_Admiral

Commodore Jones

Recommended Posts

And a last minute rules question. Can I start with all my wings deployed on the board outside their carrier? I seem to recall reading here on the forums that you could that.

Yes you can; they can either be placed independently of the carrier anywhere within the normal deployment restrictions or they can be placed at the same time as the carrier either loaded on board or within four inches of it. Pg 34.

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played my first V2 game on Saturday, going off of the official downloads available, the errata and questions asked/answered here on the forums.

Some of my first impressions...

- The new 8 inch limit to the deployment area is B.S. My opponent agreed.

- I now officially hate beyond all hate the removal of Shield Modulation MAR. Sector Shielding is a sorry-@$$ replacement.

- The new way Ageis cruisers work is B.S.

- Star Admiral is a piss-poor substitute for Tactics Points.

- Was kind of impressed with how Wings work smoother with the unified-token, but wing combat still needs SERIOUSwork done.

- The new PD system might be workable, but it will either take me some time to get used to it, or I'll have a psychotic-anger break and just ret-con it all back to V1.

- Semi-related to the PD thing, I don't like how wings have become semi-mandatory.

- I really dislike the carrier-to-reload rule. Thanks to some incredibly shitty dice luck I lost my carrier in the first turn, and had a bunch of useless bombers. I'd rather have lower AD V1 style bombers I don't have to reload than this craptastic hassle.

- Orders is a cool idea, but it's too swingy/random to me. I don't like the chance I might wind up with a set of orders that might be nigh-impossible to complete. Like, Destroy All Large and Massive Models, and I'm facing a Dindrenzi fleet complete with dreadnought.

- It's official, I do not like the new Critical Hit table.

I'm planning on a few more V2 games but already I'm not all that impressed.

And a last minute rules question. Can I start with all my wings deployed on the board outside their carrier? I seem to recall reading here on the forums that you could that.

so tell us what you really think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Played a second V2 game last night. I shall try to put my observations in a more socially acceptable way in deference to the forum rules on language.

- Again, each player rolling on the Orders table is highly, horribly and seriously unfair. Keep the orders but the random rolling needs to be dropped, seriously. Gyrant and I both agreed it had to go.

- Still don't like the new 3-way Point Defense. Defensive strategic ship placement should mean something! While not as much as it was under V1 (with fleet clumping and all), V2 has went to far to the opposite extreme and put too much reliance on wings in the process. Now a basic cruiser squad can't even defend itself against a flight at all! I'm all in favor of the hybrid system DarkExcaliber42 proposed instead. V2 is too far in the extreme and ridiculously over-complicated. This works-in-3-different-ways thing isn't something new players should have to learn.

- Seriously, I WANT THE 30 POINTS OF LOOSE WINGS BACK!!! God in the Void, what are we supposed to do with those leftover points, ships just don't balance out to the total MFV like that! Quit taking away our options.

- I'd rather pay 20 points for a Tactics Point than have a free Star Admiral.

- Wings not activating on their launch needs to go back to DW and STAY THERE.

- Flights reforming on a carrier, needs brought back. Whoever removed it wasn't in their right mind at the time.

- This is just a personal preference, but I think Reloading is too much of a limitation, especially with the activation/launch delay mentioned above. At the very least give Fighters a break and make them the exception to reloading.

- Boarding actions are no fun anymore. It's now just a pointlessly boring alternative step towards destroying an enemy ship. Spartan, you've taken away the fun of having ones' marines at the portholes making faces at the enemy as you shunt out with their ship. Now nobody in our group wants to bother with boarding anymore.

- Fixed Fore Torpedoes on the Sorylian cruisers is just another unnecessary gimping of ship stats.

- Maneuverable does NOT fix the overpriced worthlessness that Sorylian Destroyers are.

- Give wings back their freedom! I want to sweep mines without risking the whole Flight again, I want to be able to sweep multiple mines with the same flight again, I want to be able to attack multiple ships and flights with a single flight again, I want my bombers and assaulters to be able to intercept again, I want all my wings types to be able to intercept ships again! FREEDOM!!

- Basically. Quit taking away our options!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It already does affect the popularity of the game somewhat. I've been asked locally to run demos of Firestorm again to drum up players and be able reinstate tournaments again. The problem is V2, I don't want to teach that to new players at all. It's got too many flaws that had to be rewritten, and Spartan took away nearly all the aspects of the game I liked so it's no longer fun for me to play or teach others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting - what is it about the game flow you find more fun compared to v1?

I personally prefer the general simplicity of the v2 rules.

Boarding.

While boarding is a big part of UCS, and maybe DW, you can be sure realistically, it wouldn't be a big part of space battles. Alien ships and all... I still can't figure out why Rodney could just "plug" his Ipad into any alien tech he saw and be able to mess around... Sure he was a genius mathematician, but that doesn't make his Ipad magical!

Anyway, it still is possible. You just have to wait till you take their PD down. Just like with Torps. It makes late game tactics just as important as early game tactics. You might see it as taking away early/early-mid gameplay fun, but it's not gone. It's just moved to mid-late/late game fun. ;)

It's all in how you think about it!

Ramming.

While I love the whole (new) Star Trek thing where the captain gets everyone off the ship, then rams the enemy dreadnought, etc. It's epicly-tragic. Poetic. Heroic, etc.

But, gameplay-wise, under the previous rules, it was very rarely used, and very ineffective. If they made it more effective, it would have been over powered.

One of the things I've been noticing in game design (Both video-gaming, and war-gaming) is that the developers must look, not only at the tactical impact of each rule, but on the total-game-impact.

For example, (Hypothetically) if the Aquan frigates had one less HP, and this had the unusual side effect of leaving a higher percentage of Aquan frigates with 1HP in game, the general advice would be: "Take a bunch of Frigates, then crash them into the enemy."

Now ya' say, "Then give them one more HP, and you don't have that problem." Yes, but the point of giving them one less HP is to make you rely on their medium-class ships, (and knowing the Aquans, that would make you rely on large-class ships).

In other words, while they would want to steer you towards Capital ships, you would spam frigates.

While that's a lot more than I wanted to say, I hope you get my point. There's a LOT more that goes into thinking these things through, and I think the better answer might be to ask SG "why?" nicely, and wait. One of the big addition to UCS was the troop carriers. They are viewed as the main boarding ships.... And SG just showed a Dindrenzi troop carrier... While they took boarding away from the main ships, they might have given that ability to other ships, not yet released.

Ship Design stuff:

While I, personally didn't use the ship building, I think you are right in stating that it was a big draw for a lot of people. I think the problem is that people got smart and started using it to measure up the "real" fleets.

People start complaining about ships being over priced, etc. They might not understand that future releases are taken into account when it comes to pricing. Again, we can't see what's down the road for F:A...

The key thing for player to remember is that the Stat Creation is more like guidelines for friendly games. They were, probably, never intended for Tournaments. So when you start treating them as THE standard and start bashing SG for not using them as THE standard for ALL F:A ships, they go against what the author intended. Players miss the fact that more goes into ship stats than mathematics. ;)

I think if SG knows that it is important for us players to have the Ship Design stuff, they let us have it. You might just have to asked nicely, and they might put a PDF up... Or it might be in the new campaign book. :)

(It's not like they said "Any ship stats build using the v1 Ship Designing rules are banished. Anyone caught with said ships will be shot on sight.") :lol:

Fighters & Assaulters:

While I like the new wing rules, I agree that the Fights are made obsolete. Granted, I thought they where obsolete in v1... ;)

Mines.

I've never played as, or against Aquans, which is where this mainly come into play, so I don't have an opinion here!

A lot of thought goes into these decisions... A lot of which we have no idea about, or can't see. Some of this might not make much sense now... But in a year, it would be totally practical! I would rather SG give the ships their intended stats, then keep changing them each time something is released to keep them playable over time. (I hope ya' get what I mean!)

SG would get flack for being wishy-washy, when all they really wanted was to make us happy by making the ships playable by tuning then over time!

Now that I've run out of time, I'll have to go! But I hope you get my drift. (See what I did there?) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do we know?

Well, I imagine chucking people at thousands of km's distances isn't very safe. I can understand boarding in space fantasy, but FSA at least suggests it takes place in the same universe as ours, so chucking people in suits, or even boarding shuttles, at fast-moving warships with point-defense SHOULD be almost impossible. FSA today is merciful to the boarders as it is.

Can you imagine that in other industries?

IT industry practically runs on it nowadays, at least the general OS and gaming sectors. it's not even in-built obsoleteness like majority of today's electrical appliances, it's in-built not giving a ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I see where your coming from, but I too disagree with you on many points!

I don't pretend to have the answers, and I don't!

I learned pretty quickly that actually when i thought something was stupid, it was because it was

No comment. :lol:

if you're saying that SG took a complete and balanced, holistic view of FSA then WT*Mushroom* was all the hiatus, errata and complete U-turns about post release?

There where a bunch of vocal people on the forums that REALLY didn't like some of the changes. I think that these forums are important to help SG developed their games, but sometimes I wonder if us forums have heads that are screwed on to tight!

As a digital animator, I've learned that the client is NOT always right. Seriously... I don't care how epic you want the voice over to sound, you can only do so much to get people excited about a technical conference. ;)

And it's important that the client understand that. (And in correlation to us, we as customers, do have to respect SG's decisions on stuff.)

Games companies should strive to release a finish product on launch date. I don't want a game that I have to simmer for several years before it's ready, I expect to pay my money and have a complete product.

While I would usually agree with you, I must point out that SG doesn't have the ability to do that, and have to say that SG games might not be for you. The company is only around five years old, and is still trying to grow. It has to be continuously marketing, and changing it's product to suite the customers, and compete in the Wargamming market.

If I remember correctly, the we-forumers where clambering for SG to redo the rules. There were a lot of people going on about it. SG heard the call, stop there entire production line (you should know how hard that decision was) and did what the players wanted. They gave us a new v2 rule book, pretty much re-released several races with MkII ships to satisfy the people wanting newer models, and gave us more fluff and a supplement book (the new campaign book).

If anything, SG has tried as hard as it could to satisfy us we-forumers while still making some profit. People where saying they couldn't demo with v1 rules, and now we have people saying they can't demo with v2 rules... When will it end? It'll end when we want it to.

We-forumers can make a difference! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just not be happy with boarding in v2. I know its faster this way but it really reminds me of a close in weapon system rather than people fighting it out in corridors, engine rooms and bridges. Matter of fact I find myself doing it if my Sorylian ships get close enough. I used to make it a plan to get close. Now its more satisfying to blast another ship with broadsides rather than board.

Boarding is now boring.

Out of all the changes this is the one I find the most bland.

I truly have no idea why the Ship Construction was taken away. Along with that was Spartan's policy of "use whatever models you want in our game". I think some of us may have missed that.

There has been a policy shift in Firestorm.

When I started it was: Look we have print out tokens for you to use. Try us out.

Now its: Don't mentions a competitors game on our forum. Use only our models.

I don't really like where this leads.

What I loved was Firestorm was THE game to come to if you were disenfranchised with other companies heavy handed policies.

I just hope that with the new Marauders of the Rift on the horizon that we will see a new invigorated, open and happy Spartan. Willing to let its great models pull in customers. I'd like to see our options come back, even if they are seldom used.

I guess my point is the streamlining is apparent. The game plays faster, there is less to keep track of. But the options are also less. I would suggest a group of optional rules to be included with the core set. Call them advanced rules. Ones that may be more messy but a lot more fun.

Make multi-turn boarding optional

Make some new optional ramming rules.

Add back the Ship Creator as an option.

Heck I would buy as an extra product an advanced rule book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would usually agree with you,I must point out that SG doesn't have the ability to do that, and have to say that SG games might not be for you. The company is only around five years old, and is still trying to grow. It has to be continuously marketing, and changing it's product to suite the customers, and compete in the Wargamming market.

Ok I have to disagree with you. Spartan Games doesn't have the ability to put or a clean, refined, play-tested rule set. They sure do! The things that were fix in the Errata and Clarification document could have been mostly avoided with simple proofreading and play-testing. And as a customer of war games I EXPECT play-testing and proofreading.

There are other much younger and smaller companies that put out a quality rule-set. I don't know what happened with the v2 release but I do know there was a major snafu and I suspect that Spartan has learned that lesson well.

I just don't understand why some people will except shoddy work as the norm. This is NOT a video game that can be released as a beta. We pay for a book that is printed. By the time it gets to the printer it better be perfect because from that point was you print CAN'T be changed. Its not like you can update a book with a patch. Now if the rules were a pdf that would be a different thing...

So I do and will expect Spartan to release quality, proofread and play tested rules. We know they can make stellar models. Heck I believe that they want to release a quality product.Marauders of the Rift will be the litmus test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just not be happy with boarding in v2. I know its faster this way but it really reminds me of a close in weapon system rather than people fighting it out in corridors, engine rooms and bridges. Matter of fact I find myself doing it if my Sorylian ships get close enough. I used to make it a plan to get close. Now its more satisfying to blast another ship with broadsides rather than board.

Boarding is now boring.

Out of all the changes this is the one I find the most bland.

I truly have no idea why the Ship Construction was taken away. Along with that was Spartan's policy of "use whatever models you want in our game". I think some of us may have missed that.

There has been a policy shift in Firestorm.

When I started it was: Look we have print out tokens for you to use. Try us out.

Now its: Don't mentions a competitors game on our forum. Use only our models.

I don't really like where this leads.

What I loved was Firestorm was THE game to come to if you were disenfranchised with other companies heavy handed policies.

I just hope that with the new Marauders of the Rift on the horizon that we will see a new invigorated, open and happy Spartan. Willing to let its great models pull in customers. I'd like to see our options come back, even if they are seldom used.

I guess my point is the streamlining is apparent. The game plays faster, there is less to keep track of. But the options are also less. I would suggest a group of optional rules to be included with the core set. Call them advanced rules. Ones that may be more messy but a lot more fun.

Make multi-turn boarding optional

Make some new optional ramming rules.

Add back the Ship Creator as an option.

Heck I would buy as an extra product an advanced rule book.

Be sure to include Tactics Points (as they were in V1! Not the Star Admiral cow-plop!), Escape Pods, Re-usable Assaulters in there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I loved was Firestorm was THE game to come to if you were disenfranchised with other companies heavy handed policies.

Frankly, if you pick a game up because of policies, not because of gameplay or even models, it's your fault for basing decision on technically wrong set of criteria. Their only obligation to the customer is to provide good product, not be nice. Being nice is optional.

Its not like you can update a book with a patch.

a certain NZ company producing bestselling game about WW2 did just that. A PDF and a sticker sheet to add to the book. BUt that's beside the point, I agree that PDF is the way to go, mostly because it allows for living rulebook.

So I do and will expect Spartan to release quality, proofread and play tested rules

A lot of the rulebook in V2 had bits that needed clarification. But some of the errata changes weren't based on that. They were based purely on "I don't like it cause I don't" of the vocal part of the small community. The decision to not make the fighter attacks torpedoes? it's pure pressure-caused change. The even-split Wing rule missing? same thing, there was nothing unclear about that in game terms. It didn't necessarily mean the game got worse (though I do think the first thing might lead to even more power for bombers), but it clearly wasn't a case of lack of playtesting leading to errata. If i managed to gather enough vocal players, I now think I might be even able to make them to nerf boarding to point of nonexistence. Which is very bad thing, because customer is only partially right. If he was always right, he'd do the damn thing himself instead of paying someone else to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make multi-turn boarding optional

Make some new optional ramming rules.

Add back the Ship Creator as an option.

Heck I would buy as an extra product an advanced rule book.

An advanced rulebook would be a fun product. I would also include a full campaign system in this book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, was never a fan of boarding in v1. On more than one occasion I've lost my Razorthorn to boarding from a group of Scythes followed up by a wing of assault boats from a Morning star. No damage to the BB, because it was a hell of a lot harder to damage it than it was to just land a bunch of marines on the ship. Even if the BB wasn't captured, the crew damage was enough to make it completely ineffective. I haven't read v2 yet, but I'd be very, very happy if boarding is now substantially less powerful.

As for mines, I'd agree they were always a little lackluster. I played a few games with a house rule where you could link mines in a squad as long as you moved your minimum move. It seemed to be a decent rule -- you'd leave a pretty powerful minefield behind, you, but the trade off was that you barely moved (and you weren't dropping huge fields in the middle of opposing fleets from 10" away)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, was never a fan of boarding in v1. On more than one occasion I've lost my Razorthorn to boarding from a group of Scythes followed up by a wing of assault boats from a Morning star. No damage to the BB, because it was a hell of a lot harder to damage it than it was to just land a bunch of marines on the ship. Even if the BB wasn't captured, the crew damage was enough to make it completely ineffective. I haven't read v2 yet, but I'd be very, very happy if boarding is now substantially less powerful.

As for mines, I'd agree they were always a little lackluster. I played a few games with a house rule where you could link mines in a squad as long as you moved your minimum move. It seemed to be a decent rule -- you'd leave a pretty powerful minefield behind, you, but the trade off was that you barely moved (and you weren't dropping huge fields in the middle of opposing fleets from 10" away)

Boarding isn't really less powerful just much faster with the result that if you loose a boarding assault your ship (defender) is destroyed. Not captured, destroyed and out of the game.

I did say make multi-turn boarding optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why some people will except shoddy work as the norm....

... So I do and will expect Spartan to release quality, proofread and play tested rules. We know they can make stellar models. Heck I believe that they want to release a quality product.Marauders of the Rift will be the litmus test.

Bingo.

To be fair, no rule set is ever "perfect" to everyone. It's reasonable to expect typo's, some grammar errors, and perhaps the odd bit of wording that needs to be tidied up. Other games I play have errata. It's usually for the army-lists, to clarify some wording, or fix a small omission.But there was much more than just that in the V2 book.

The proof is in the V2.1 (aka errata) pdf. Entire mechanical concepts were overidden or discarded. The whole boarding section was re-explained from the original wording. Fleet composition (re flights and battle carriers) was altered. Ship stats were rebalanced, altered and invented (see Oroshan dreadnought, firing solution, destroyers). "Missing" MARs were added, plus the retro-MARs. MARs were redefined to coincide with the rules wording ... the list goes on. What happened?

No, it's fairly evident to me I purchased a beta version of the V2 rules.

Which is sad. I would have happily volunteered to playtest V2 and report my observations for no cost. There would have been plenty of others volunteering too, I bet. It's pretty easy to set-up. Some NDA's are signed, a special section in the forum, and about 6 months of arguments supported by play-data.

For a decent rule set you need outside playtesting. A rules writer always has the handicap of knowing what the rules mean to say rather than what they really do say. I've seen it too many times with ancients games. You need to hand a rule-set to people and say "Okay, break this" and watch what they do and say. The outside minds seeks an advantage or a loophole that the writer has left out. You need outside minds to determine clarity.

It reminds me of a certain incident at a Warrior (WRG 8th) tournament, where I asked the ref (also the rules co-writer) for a ruling over two contradictory special rules. He rudely said, "No, I've been answering this question all day. Its perfectly clear here in the book, [this rule] overrides [that one]." So why have you had to answer the same question all day? :rolleyes: Because clarity is defined collectively by the users, not the creator.

I much rather liked to purchase the book after this was done.

Some people will buy this book and never look on the forum. They may never know about the V2.1 changes until they arrive at an event. :unsure:

Forum-pressure changed rules? Hmm. <_< That's kind of insulting to the Spartans I'd think.

I'm fairly certain they've taken the complaints and the questions and had a second look. Some have been ignored. Perhaps different people are involved. Remember that some of the early answers posted are contradicted and overridden in the V2.1 PDF? Some were not really big pressure issues either. Do we remember the lengthy debate on why the Xelocian Dread should have "Pride of the fleet"? I don't. I think somebody said something once, maybe. I think most of us had accepted that defensive fire reduces torpedo attacks from flights (to balance their power), and I think it was even answered as correct, but then --poof-- gone. I guess that was a mistake all along.

As far as actual V1-V2 changes go, most of them I'm really indifferent. Some things are better, some things I'll miss. Whatever. I can deal with it. I might house-rule some, I might not.

But it will be with a jaded eye that I examine the "Marauders" book.

Will the Oroshan Dreadnought have the proper stats ? Have the scenarios been tested for balance? What about the fleets? 6 new fleets to test against each other plus the 8+ existing ones is a lot of work. Was it done? Was any testing done outside the designer's circle?

Will we be seeing another PDF to balance this stuff?

If so, why would I buy the book?

I'd happily wait another 3-6 months if it makes a difference.

Anyway, sorry Jones. I guess this was supposed to be about you. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, if you pick a game up because of policies, not because of gameplay or even models, it's your fault for basing decision on technically wrong set of criteria. Their only obligation to the customer is to provide good product, not be nice. Being nice is optional.

At no point did I suggest that the only reason to play Firestorm was because of a policy difference. I said it was the game to come to after being raked over the coals from some off the other companies. A breath of fresh air into the gaming community. A company that listens to its customers. And they still are. I just can see some changes that I don't like. I hope those are temporary.

A lot of the rulebook in V2 had bits that needed clarification. But some of the errata changes weren't based on that. They were based purely on "I don't like it cause I don't" of the vocal part of the small community. The decision to not make the fighter attacks torpedoes? it's pure pressure-caused change. The even-split Wing rule missing? same thing, there was nothing unclear about that in game terms. It didn't necessarily mean the game got worse (though I do think the first thing might lead to even more power for bombers), but it clearly wasn't a case of lack of playtesting leading to errata. If i managed to gather enough vocal players, I now think I might be even able to make them to nerf boarding to point of nonexistence. Which is very bad thing, because customer is only partially right. If he was always right, he'd do the damn thing himself instead of paying someone else to do it.

We will always argue over this. Many people on the forum did not like the v2 changes for a variety of reasons. Obviously Spartan thought some of those reasons were valid and made changes, some they did not and made no changes. Lumping every v2 decenter into a group of "we don't like it because we don't" belittles everyone's opinion.

I have come to like some of the v2 changes. Some I still don't like. But I do respect everyone's opinion here and listen even more closely to those that have something to say that is opposite of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to avoid rehashing a lot of the arguements here but a couple I will touch on.

1. Boarding: I just think it wasn't balanced and I honestly can't imagine why people thought more dice rolling = plot or honestly = more fun. But I'm willing to accept you did (even if it just screwed large ships with even more penalties). It's gone, but perhaps will come back as an optional rule (where I can say to my opponent 'hells no') in a future suppliment.

(ps, and I'm serious here, can someone explain to me why two sets or three of die rolls made this into an 'epic cool fight' but one set makes it all bad?)

2. Ship creation rules. I CANNOT agree more on the idea that a pure stat system cannot accurately represent a ships true value. I'm willing to accept the Skyhammer as a racial bonus for a given faction. If, however, someone were to make the same thing for say the Aquans, I'd laugh them out of the room. If they then insisted 'no, the rules say it's balancd/legal' then we have serious problem A ships real value has to be playtested and then adjusted outside those boundries.

The rest of the arguements are what they are. On some things some of will never agree but that's good,imo, for a heathy game community. I respect all these, even if I think some of you are plain nuts. ;)

(ps - man I hate posting from a tablet)

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how I see it. The world isn't even close to perfect and your never going to please everyone. Does this mean I accept subpar items never but I realize that I don't get things my way. I started playing this game not because I believed in Spartan but because I believed in the universe they created. Because of this I'm not going to nitpick at everything. I do believe that V2 had problems. But so has Every version of Every game I have Ever played. I have found that its best to grit your teeth and ride out the storm untill the next version cause I love the Background. Rules are secondary cause you could have the most awesome and detailed and easy ruleset ever but with shoddy fluff no one wiuld play the game.

Now I think that we should always let a company know what we think and feel about the priducts we decide to spend our hard earned money and our precious free time on but always keep in mind that no one ever has pleased everyone.

I will keep playing this game through thick and thin cause I LOVE the universe not the rules of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some people think that we should "shut up and put up", or that if we complain we are "whiners", but (to be frank), that's just stupidity and ignorance speaking.

I think the argument was always "there's topic for that already, why are you voicing your displeasure about rules in a thread about Dindrenzi Ice Cream Trucks?" rather than "don't complain". But of course every side sees what they want to see (yes, including yours truly :P ), and if someone says he's objective about anything he's vested in, he's either lying or an alien ;)

Many people on the forum did not like the v2 changes for a variety of reasons.

Many being you, Axelmann, Commodore, Pez (to a large degree) and DEx42, plus maybe one or two more, off the top of my head. All very active, but also all "veteran" players if such a name can apply to young game like FA. Most of the newer members, despite obvious misgivings about plain poorly written rules, were at least negative if not positive of the changes. Now, a gaming forum is in no way representative of anything as it's incredibly self-selected group, but the trend is clearly the same as with every change ever...the people most strongly invested in old order protest, while the majority doesn't care as long as it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey at least 90% of us have come a long way towards having more calm and productive conversations about it. It's not like we just answer every question with inane ramblings or things like 'just go play V2' ;-) .

Ahem....

Seriously, I'm glad we've stepped up our conversations on this and hopefully some of our stuff will help Spartan in the longrun (not that they should listen to all of the jackals -myself included- on all our requests).

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to avoid rehashing a lot of the arguements here but a couple I will touch on.

1. Boarding: I just think it wasn't balanced and I honestly can't imagine why people thought more dice rolling = plot or honestly = more fun. But I'm willing to accept you did (even if it just screwed large ships with even more penalties). It's gone, but perhaps will come back as an optional rule (where I can say to my opponent 'hells no') in a future suppliment.

(ps, and I'm serious here, can someone explain to me why two sets or three of die rolls made this into an 'epic cool fight' but one set makes it all bad?)

2. Ship creation rules. I CANNOT agree more on the idea that a pure stat system cannot accurately represent a ships true value. I'm willing to accept the Skyhammer as a racial bonus for a given faction. If, however, someone were to make the same thing for say the Aquans, I'd laugh them out of the room. If they then insisted 'no, the rules say it's balancd/legal' then we have serious problem A ships real value has to be playtested and then adjusted outside those boundries.

The rest of the arguements are what they are. On some things some of will never agree but that's good,imo, for a heathy game community. I respect all these, even if I think some of you are plain nuts. ;)

(ps - man I hate posting from a tablet)

Zak

Zak, I have to say I think this post makes a lot of sense. For my part, when I read through the hardcover book a couple of months back, I was struck by the extent with which many of the mechanics (boarding and wing rules especially) had been aligned with the DW model. To me, that made a lot of sense, as I saw how much implementing those changes in DW made a big change (for the better, I feel) in the way the game plays. However, I also have to admit that it has been about 2 years since I played a game of FA, so I have largely missed out on the incremental changes that were introduced through the various PDFs. Thus, the loss of aspects like the ship designer or tactics points didn't immediately jump out at me as huge issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.