Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.
Spartan Derek

Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread

597 posts in this topic

Hi everyone!

Spartan Derek here.

 

This Thread is intended to allow Firestorm Armada Gamers to give me their feedback and thoughts on the new 3.0 ruleset.

Please remember as we all move forwards in the Firestorm Galaxy everyone has a duty to be clear and constructive both in their feedback and in their interactions with other forum members.

 

I will come back to the Thread each day and try to answer any questions folks may have to ensure that the flow of information remains constant. To save time I may have to lump lots of folk's questions into a single answer, so please don't be offended if I don't answer you directly. But where questions require it I will try to make my answers pertinent to individual posters.

 

Cheers, and I look forwards to chatting to you all!

Derek

MinscS2, Cannor, Warmaster and 10 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the blog post, cant wait, deadlines are very helpful:) and nice too see some of the upcoming changes too gloss over:) defiantly a step in the right direction.

As long as those deadlines are kept and communication is flowing on the forum all will be well:) 

Venter, azrael and Nuck Fewton like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of having a bonus corresponding to my fleet tactics value is very appealing to me. i often just throw the idea of having initiative out of the window and some extra jazz to compensate for that seems very cool. all the fleets i have only posses a Fleet tactic of 1 so appreciate the balance idea behind abilities. also i like the idea of tying those boni to the race (did i understand that right? @Spartan Derek) so the flavour of the individual race gets pushed into the the enemies face ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes in organisational structure and the Deadlines are all welcome, I hope we can Keep them, some seem unnessecary tight!

on the changes in the game:

1. C&C - sounds cool!

2. Range band Notation - if it is just the Name that changes OK, I hope the different weapons still have different range bands.

3.-5 sounds good

6. Degrading of weapons - why? it worked well! never Change a running System!

7. SRS - a nessecary Change, lets see how the Change interacts with the rest of the changes.

8. Boarding, Change in the mechanic is good, but  Capturing your oponents ships is just to cool, so I would Keep the Option. (could be an effect on the crit table)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I REALLY dislike the removing of degrading weapons. While it would be nice to see things like Grav brought down to normal, I can't help but feel it would be less thematic, and make tier 1s remain powerful even on low hp. 1 Weapon that fires 15 shots is still firing 15 shots.

hahnc77 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like to keep the option for capturing ships, even if it's not "realistic". Our local meta has everyone throwing boarding marines at each other and running away with captured tier 1's all the time. Bonus points to the ones who keep a tally of captured admirals

Chief Mutt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a lot to digest !

As long as the Sorylians are finally brought out of their 1.0 status  and up to speed with everyone else  [ so you don't have to hide, shunt in  or still have to use those ridiculous 8 inch range bands for  primary weapons ]  I'll give anything you put out a chance.  Anything to make it less carrier wars would be a big swing in the right direction.


As a group we'd probably still keep ship capturing. Heck we still use ramming and life pod rules from V1, so much flavor fun !  :):) :) 

Kaptyn Krys likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mutantpoo said:

That's a lot to digest !

As long as the Sorylians are finally brought out of their 1.0 status  and up to speed with everyone else  [ so you don't have to hide, shunt in  or still have to use those ridiculous 8 inch range bands for  primary weapons ]  I'll give anything you put out a chance.  Anything to make it less carrier wars would be a big swing in the right direction.


As a group we'd probably still keep ship capturing. Heck we still use ramming and life pod rules from V1, so much flavor fun !  :):) :) 

why is it carrier wars in your meta,

yes they are powerful, but one of the best things in FSA is that you can Play different styles, and there is bascially a Counter to every list,

My regular opponent learned how to defeat a 28 Wings list with 4 full bomber Tokens, it is possible.

 

Chief Mutt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a lot of information to digest. Normally, i am a proud member of the "never change a running system"-party and that announcement left me with quite some mixed feelings, especially as the game as it is now is -in my opinion- the best and balanced tabletop game on the market.

Some of the points you wrote in the blog do seem pretty fun and immersive like: dedicating energy to different systems, a broader range of models, the changes in weapontypes and the changes in boarding. Those i can get behind 100% (especially more models ^^)

On the other hand, things like the command and control, the removal of the degredation and the changes to SRS look a lot like changes made to either dumb down the game to get more customers, or to appeal to some whiny folks that flamed you on the forums without critical reflection. I just hope you keep the game in the fun and balanced state it is and keep it separated from the "beginners level rules".

Commodore Jones and hahnc77 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like 2.0, it just needs some tweaking.
I'm not a big fan of this massive (and unnecessary) overhaul that 3.0 seems to bring.

if you change the game too much, you *might* get new customers, but be sure that alot of current ones will leave in the process.
Take GW and Age of Sigmar as a warning example...

With that said, I'll await final judgement until 3.0 is official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The split into what are essentially development and design teams is a great step forward. Well done, Spartan.

I'm excited to see how 3.0 turns out, and also open-minded enough to realise that games have to progress. As long as that progress doesn't turn the game into something other than Firestorm Armada, then it's all good.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in Derek's article is the new player onboarding experience. Looking ahead, I really hope that the 3.0 starter set will include a "Learn to Play" booklet (that isn't just a bunch of scenarios) and a quick reference sheet. It's unlikely that the 3.0 rulebook will be just a few pages long, so make it as easy as possible for a new player to get started and get their head around the rules, instead of them staring at a 100+ page rulebook and thinking "Uhhh...??"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im wouldnt consider most of these massive changes. Simplify this, change that, add depth here. 

Ill just remind people that V1 to V2 was probably a similar order of magnitude in change. Star cards to TACs. Wings are totaly diferent to SRSs. Everything was in 8" rangebands with no variety in types. Cyber and Boarding got a complete overhaul. No grav... Percentage fleet builds instead of the Tier system. Introduced targeted strikes. We did have ramming though... ahh ramming. Wheres Commodore Jones? He remembers the good ol' days. Snake eye crit insta kills....

Lots of these we big changes but added depth and fun. At the time some of us even called "whyyyy?". . Did we need more weapon types? What was wrong with guns and torps? Very BFG having different types like lances! If you go back far enough you can find comments praising the new SRS mechanic, before PD mountain was first climbed. Its all happened before. It will all happen again.

I am cautiously optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Presidente said:

From reading the blog post, cant wait, deadlines are very helpful:) and nice too see some of the upcoming changes too gloss over:) defiantly a step in the right direction.

As long as those deadlines are kept and communication is flowing on the forum all will be well:) 

Did you just put something fairly positive?!

IT CAN BE DONE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it, but it would be cool when we could see with the 3.0 Edition of the Game new Starter Fleets & and a 2-Player Set (please Terran vs. Dindrenzi) with plastic Ships and Stat Cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Warmaster said:

I doubt it, but it would be cool when we could see with the 3.0 Edition of the Game new Starter Fleets with plastic Ships and Stat Cards.

Plastic isnt going to happen.Spartan are not set up for it at all. 

 

V1 had ship stat cards. Cant say I miss them. They are easy to mislay and arnt suitable for a living rules system. 

hahnc77 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. I have a lot of thoughts and not much time, so I'm gonna just vomit out thoughts.

 

The power core COULD be a good change- the big thing I'm concerned about is the two extremes possible- either a ship could have too much and just never degrade, or a ship could lose too much power at once. My concern is that in squads where right now the loss of a ship cripples the squad's firepower, could a ship merely taking a couple points of damage now do the same? 

 

I would posit that the solution would be that to stat ships such that mediums have just enough Core left to fire just their strongest weapon. I would also ask if Torpedos will be able to fire without Core as well, given the only role they consistently fill seems to be "this is the weapon you still have even after you've taken a beating."

 

I've also got concerns wherin it looks like you're saying that SRS tokens are going away. I don't know if that's a good or bad decision in terms of gameplay, but the tokens themselves were just added for 2.0. I dunno, seems an odd thing to remove.

Nuck Fewton likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good reason to uncloak.

Just one quick comment on the Command and Control aspect as described in the blog post: Will there also be a negative side to the command and control rules? The examples from the blog all focus on command points being used to boost the abilities of your own fleet. I, for one, am quite fond of such rules also modelling the (gradual) breakdown of plans and unit coherence. So, I would like to see there also being some negative effects - e.g., from crits or from failed disorder checks - which may then require the expenditure of command points to counter (not quite the same as using them to boost a repair).

Also, as an aside: Even if the 3.0 rules do not turn out to be much too my (or anyone else's) liking, it's not like the previous versions of the game are going away. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devil is in the details of course, but that never stops the Internet, so I'll throw my .02 in.

  1. Command and Control – I hope this doesn't replace TAC's, but there are definite possibilities here.  I just hope it doesn't become another major element to track and plan with (since it would slow things down).  A couple boosts a game is one thing, something you have to think about multiple times a turn is too much (IMHO), and a concern with the comment about command points and core weapon types.
  2. Range Band Notation – Cosmetic only
  3. Creation of Core Weapon Types – Don't quite understand this.  If the intent is that a "Primary" Broadside mechanically works differently than a "Tertiary" Broadside (as opposed to just changing AD, whether it's the to-hit value or C&C integration) then...I'm suspicious.  I guess I don't see how designating something as Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary allows different weapon types (torpedoes, "broadsides", beams, gravity, etc...), or why it would impact something like ranges or to hit #'s.
  4. New Ship Classifications and Sizes – Definitely agree with the problem diagnosis--there's only so much design space available at the moment (especially on DR with a min of 3 and max of 8).  Very curious to see what happens here.  As a totally personal plea, not every faction (even in the Core 6) needs to have a model of every designation--I hope this re-do is used as a way to differentiate factions a bit more.  For example, make the Isonade a "Light Cruiser" with 3 HP and you've made a change both subtle and significant, and if the Aquans don't have a standard "cruiser", well, that's part of their faction and view of the universe.
  5. New Crit Table(s) – Sounds straightforward enough, though personally I'd prefer a few more effects, not fewer (ie if "fewer tokens" means less going on I'd miss it).
  6. Removal of the AD-Degradation System – Glad the team is most excited about this, because it's the one that really scares me.  From a thematic point of view I question damage that basically hits "power"--it doesn't "feel" like the ship is getting damaged.  Mechanically, "as the ship takes damage their power output reduces at the same rate, meaning the player must decide which weapon they wish to fire on a heavily damaged ship " could be a speed of play destroying monster.  Factions like Terrans already have so many linking options to consider that it slows things down--add choosing what to power on top of what to link...
  7. Short Range Spacecraft (SRS) – I absolutely cannot tell what was actually even hinted at here :) but I don't have a problem with revising SRS.
  8. Boarding – This could be pretty controversial.  I don't mind at all, but I think some players really get into the "capturing" idea and would see it's removal as a major minus.

Curious that there is no mention of movement, which I would call the #1 general request for improving the game.  Holding that tidbit back, or making no change...? I'm actually fine either way (depending on the change, of course), but if it does stay the same PLEASE include better movement templates--stevew's are excellent, for example.

azrael, Kaptyn Krys and Warmaster like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post for sure. Thoughts:

1.) Sounds awesome and mixing up the racial abilities is sorely needed. Some of the current TACs never ever get played. Put some thought into this and I see it as great. Hopefully you don't add too much book keeping though

2.) fine, just sounds like a name change

3.) as long as "primary broadsides" don't work functionally the same as "primary torpedoes" this sounds fun and could help establish racial traits

4.)nice, sounds great

5.)double ones is funny, but not balanced. I think the crit table needs some shaking up. Less tokens but more effects

6.)Scary but I'll hold off panicking. Does this mean that a heavily damaged dindrenzi dred could still fire full power kinetics if it foregoes firing the torps? 

7.)Interceptors are flat broken, I look forward to mixing it up

8.)Sounds neat, I hope we don't have to keep track of floating AP though, I never liked that in Dystopian Wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to finally see some progress and timetable. Hope you can keep it. 

My thoughts to each point:

1) C&C - definitely needed a change to bring extra tactical options into the game. Not sure buying points as part of the Fleet list is the right way to go. I certainly hate it and I am not the only one. Our community hates it as only very rarely it is done properly and it's usually better to just field more models. I myself would prefer if each faction would generate these points in a different manner reflecting their planning and flexibility. 

2) - 4) No issue there. Mostly looks like different system of categories 

5) New tables were needed.

6) Current AD degradation is slowing the game a lot so a new system should be implemented. Power Core system sounds very interesting and promising. If I understand it right each ship (hope it's based mostly around ship type/class to keep things simple) has a certain PC stat and each weapon takes certain amount of PC points to be fired, like primary weapon 3, secondary 2 and tertiary 1 or something in this manner. When a ship is damaged it's PC stat degrades resulting less weapons being fired. If said vessel is heavily damaged it might not be able to fire its primary weapons or at a penalty (like HFB firepower rating). C&C might allow ship to ignore this etc. If it's something like this I like it a lot. 

7) SRS needs to change, period. 

8) Boarding also needs to change, but losing the option to capture ships is really sad. It might not be so realistic, but it's insanely cool and runs well with some factions. I also hope you are not going back to boarding with CP and counting how many were already used etc. It's unnecessary complicated. Much easier is to simply give a boarding value and allowed number of boarding attempts to each ship. Where some would have zero others could have 3 etc. Remember there is rarely time to launch more than two so it's easier to allow two attempts and count that than to say you have 8 AP and use it between several attempts. Where the first can be covered by a single token the other needs more than that. 

 

I also hope you are redoing movement a bit to streamline and speed it up a bit. It takes too much time and could be simplified a bit without losing anything really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another moment to vomit out more thoughts.

 

Naming the range bands makes writing rules "prettier." Short Range reads better than Range Band 2, yeah? 

 

2 minutes ago, Kurgan said:

 

1) C&C - definitely needed a change to bring extra tactical options into the game. Not sure buying points as part of the Fleet list is the right way to go. I certainly hate it and I am not the only one. Our community hates it as only very rarely it is done properly and it's usually better to just field more models. I myself would prefer if each faction would generate these points in a different manner reflecting their planning and flexibility. 

I think he's implying that there will be an inverse ratio of Command Points to FTB; ie., a faction with 1 FTB will get 3 points, a faction with 3 FTB will get a single one, or something. Hopefully this is accompanied by further uses for the base FTB to begin with, but we'll see.

 

I really want to ask if my favorite rules in the game, Corrosive, Stealth Systems, and Cloaking Fields, are going to change. I'm a little afraid of what I might hear, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're looking for player feedback, does that mean you're going to release enough details for us to try this stuff at home?

 

I particularly like the idea of quarterly reviews, and I hope that no aspect of the game will be exempted from that process.  

 

I like the idea of boarding becoming a more usable option, as long as it doesn't become too underpowered in the process.  Capturing a ship may be unrealistic, but scuttling one isn't.

 

Are you looking at the movement system at all? It would be nice to sea something a little less wet navy, but barring that a more user friendly movement template would be great.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the upcoming rules changes:

  1. Command and Control – Looks like a mash up of TACs and Planetfall Logistics points. Could be good if implemented correctly
  2. Range Band Notation – More elegant than RB 1 to 4, but functionally the same, so I’m fine with this
  3. Creation of Core Weapon Types – Will definitely need to see more, but I’m not panicking. Just make sure it doesn’t increase complexity of actually using the weapons
  4. New Ship Classifications and Sizes – Seems more like a solution in need of a problem. I just don’t see why you need a light/standard/heavy frigate designation. So what if you have three different Frigates of different ability. Then again, navies do love creating classes of ships for minor differences
  5. New Crit Table(s) – I’m down with less critical options. Too many of the current 10 are just not that consequential in many cases and lead to token bloat
  6. Removal of the AD-Degradation System – I fear this Power Core idea will be added complications that end up taking just as much time as the current system. Please prove me wrong because it is an intriguing idea
  7. Short Range Spacecraft (SRS) – I down with any change that keeps SRS from being overpowered on either offense or defense while still being useful
  8. Boarding – Interested to see where this is going. Hope it balances out the outrageous and the nearly useless nature of boarding

And the missing
Movement – What are you doing to speed this up? It is one of the two biggest time sinks in FSA

Share this post


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

</snip>

Movement – What are you doing to speed this up? It is one of the two biggest time sinks in FSA

Especially squadron movement is a large time sink. For large ships, and squadrons containing just a few, movement is ok IMHO. But with bigger squadrons it tends to get a bit messy, with the room needed to place the turning template as one of the biggest issues.

Additionally, personally I would like to do away with the rules regarding flight pegs. Why not use the bases for all measurement actions, and just put specific-sized ships on specific-sized bases? This also cleans up the whole issue with multiple flight pegs, peg heights, modelling on extra pegs for stability (looking at you here OmniDyne Foundry with metal rings), and it gives a nice and game-impacting meaning to the size comparison between vessels.

Stoobert likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a large redesign to me...so no reason to buy into FA now when everything seems so much in change. I hope it desn't become too much like the other games SG have, otherwise what's the point in getting into FA rather than DW or HFB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.