Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:

I've stopped feeding the troll.

Good call.

You can choose the wrong targets depending on what your fleet and the enemy fleet is made of, so you can have tactics in terms of target selection.

You have range bands and movement, so you have tactics in terms of model placement. Combine that with weapon arcs and you have even more tactics related to positioning.

You have terrain (I get the sense people aren't playing with enough) so you have tactics in terms of dealing with that.

You have variable victory points in terms of destroying vs capturing, so you have tactics in terms of dealing with that.

I just don't know what people mean when they say "it has no tactics." Whatever definition they're using for tactics, it's not the one that deals with the maneuvering of your ships and applications of force to accomplish your goals. Because the game has that. It must be some sort of made up definition that doesn't mean anything. The game is simple, but it's not mindless like is being suggested.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:

I've stopped feeding the troll.

Good call.

You can choose the wrong targets depending on what your fleet and the enemy fleet is made of, so you can have tactics in terms of target selection.

You have range bands and movement, so you have tactics in terms of model placement. Combine that with weapon arcs and you have even more tactics related to positioning.

You have terrain (I get the sense people aren't playing with enough) so you have tactics in terms of dealing with that.

You have variable victory points in terms of destroying vs capturing, so you have tactics in terms of dealing with that.

I just don't know what people mean when they say "it has no tactics." Whatever definition they're using for tactics, it's not the one that deals with the maneuvering of your ships and applications of force to accomplish your goals. Because the game has that. It must be some sort of made up definition that doesn't mean anything. The game is simple, but it's not mindless like is being suggested.

I just assume now that the trolls are being paid by a competitor to make the game look bad. I'll admit that the game has some bland spots, but to go as far as saying the rules are trash and that there are no tactics, and making up false situations where a battleship is taken out by a frigate 6 out of 6 times, well that's just absurd, I mean...I kinda want to do that math on that one. One frigate firing four shots...well, the probability is in the tens of thousands out of one.

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
and making up false situations where a battleship is taken out by a frigate 6 out of 6 times, well that's just absurd, I mean...I kinda want to do that math on that one. One frigate firing four shots...well, the probability is in the tens of thousands out of one.

That was an honest mistake, addressed upthread.

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:

I just assume now that the trolls are being paid by a competitor to make the game look bad.

Or by Spartan to viral market it, right?

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:

I've stopped feeding the troll.

Good call.

You can choose the wrong targets depending on what your fleet and the enemy fleet is made of, so you can have tactics in terms of target selection.

You have range bands and movement, so you have tactics in terms of model placement. Combine that with weapon arcs and you have even more tactics related to positioning.

You have terrain (I get the sense people aren't playing with enough) so you have tactics in terms of dealing with that.

You have variable victory points in terms of destroying vs capturing, so you have tactics in terms of dealing with that.

I just don't know what people mean when they say "it has no tactics." Whatever definition they're using for tactics, it's not the one that deals with the maneuvering of your ships and applications of force to accomplish your goals. Because the game has that. It must be some sort of made up definition that doesn't mean anything. The game is simple, but it's not mindless like is being suggested.

I just assume now that the trolls are being paid by a competitor to make the game look bad. I'll admit that the game has some bland spots, but to go as far as saying the rules are trash and that there are no tactics, and making up false situations where a battleship is taken out by a frigate 6 out of 6 times, well that's just absurd, I mean...I kinda want to do that math on that one. One frigate firing four shots...well, the probability is in the tens of thousands out of one.

Nothing I've posted has been factually incorrect. I've been talking about the game system, it's point costs, unit stats, and the flow of gameplay. If you feel like adding something meaningful to the conversation beyond repetitiously stating that "maneuvering!" is tactics without explaining how or why that form of decision making is actually tactical in game I would welcome it. As it is you're doing no better than the guy who had been playing hit points wrong.

This thread has a ton of hyperbolic statements in it. FSA has tactics. Flipping a coin has tactics. Sixth edition 40k has tactics. By it's definition anything that has at least one open ended choice (such as the choice between moving somewhere between four and eight inches) has infinite tactics. If a tactic has no efficacy (such as moving an inch less when the opponants force can hop from rb3 to 2 and overun it by 4 inches in some cases) than it's not a viable tactic and is thus not really a "tactic" worth considering. By the measure of tactics that have a meaningful choice input (meaning they aren't hugely inconsistent) and meaningful efficacy (meaning that they reasonably effect the outcome of the game in a positive fashion) FSA has far fewer tactical considerations than most competing games. It's basically Yahtzee in space.

Maybe in just a weirdo, but all this argument has actually made me want to try the game...quick check of the website shows no free trial/intro rules. Oh well, not curious enough to buy the rulebook.

 Mad4Minis wrote:
Maybe in just a weirdo, but all this argument has actually made me want to try the game...quick check of the website shows no free trial/intro rules. Oh well, not curious enough to buy the rulebook.

Sad, the book is only $10


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nothing I've posted has been factually incorrect. I've been talking about the game system, it's point costs, unit stats, and the flow of gameplay. If you feel like adding something meaningful to the conversation beyond repetitiously stating that "maneuvering!" is tactics without explaining how or why that form of decision making is actually tactical in game I would welcome it. As it is you're doing no better than the guy who had been playing hit points wrong.

This thread has a ton of hyperbolic statements in it. FSA has tactics. Flipping a coin has tactics. Sixth edition 40k has tactics. By it's definition anything that has at least one open ended choice (such as the choice between moving somewhere between four and eight inches) has infinite tactics. If a tactic has no efficacy (such as moving an inch less when the opponants force can hop from rb3 to 2 and overun it by 4 inches in some cases) than it's not a viable tactic and is thus not really a "tactic" worth considering. By the measure of tactics that have a meaningful choice input (meaning they aren't hugely inconsistent) and meaningful efficacy (meaning that they reasonably effect the outcome of the game in a positive fashion) FSA has far fewer tactical considerations than most competing games. It's basically Yahtzee in space.

I think the only thing I am upset about when it comes to the points you have been making is that you are comparing apples to oranges. As in, comparing warhammer 40k to a space ship battle game. I mean, just stop, take a second, and imagine a firefight going on between two waring alien factions with tons of cover and actual movements and weapon systems at their disposal. And then think of a space battle. Think of any space battle you've ever seen it's usually just pew pew pew at each other until some one explodes, where ground combat is movment, tactics and things on hand.

For making that point however, for the blandess that space combat has beyond it's flashy lights and explosions, I think FA does a great job being able to actually put forth a game with obviously seen tactics; may not be infantry tactics, but it most definantly is what you'd expect from a navel ship game.

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:

 Mad4Minis wrote:
Maybe in just a weirdo, but all this argument has actually made me want to try the game...quick check of the website shows no free trial/intro rules. Oh well, not curious enough to buy the rulebook.

Sad, the book is only $10

Now who's full of gak

http://spartangames.co.uk/shop/index.php?route=product/product&path=43_48&product_id=557

http://www.amazon.com/Spartan-Games-SPGFARB01-Rulebook-Firestorm/dp/B003KZ2AEG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346099641&sr=8-2&keywords=Firestorm+armada+book

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Spartan-Games-SPGFARB01-Rulebook-Firestorm/dp/B003KZ2AEG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346099641&sr=8-2&keywords=Firestorm+armada+book

List Price: $29.99
Price: $14.95

And that's the old rulebook.

I think the only thing I am upset about when it comes to the points you have been making is that you are comparing apples to oranges. As in, comparing warhammer 40k to a space ship battle game.

I haven't done that a single time. I wrote the two in a sentence at the same time, but that was to say that tactics exist in both. I don't think 40k is a particularly tactical game either.

I mean, just stop, take a second, and imagine a firefight going on between two waring alien factions with tons of cover and actual movements and weapon systems at their disposal. And then think of a space battle. Think of any space battle you've ever seen it's usually just pew pew pew at each other until some one explodes, where ground combat is movment, tactics and things on hand.

I know. I made that point twice already in this thread. Space sims are very infertile ground to base tactical games off of. Space battles logically are won by range advantage and first strike. There is no terrain to speak of (the meteor belt for instance has miles between its meteors) and at relativistic distances there is no real maneuvering to speak of.

For making that point however, for the blandess that space combat has beyond it's flashy lights and explosions, I think FA does a great job being able to actually put forth a game with obviously seen tactics; may not be infantry tactics, but it most definantly is what you'd expect from a navel ship game.

It's worse than any sea based naval ship game on the market (including spartans own). The game has virtually no traditional naval tactics to speak of. Ranging doesn't work due to the high speeds and equaled ranges. Screening doesn't work because it doesn't exist. Flanking or fighting with your opponent against the wind doesn't work because there is no benefit to hitting the side or rear of a ship and there's no wind. Every tactic that the game has that can meaningfully impact the game is in some way an unintended exploitation of the rules. Everything else is "run forward and shoot".

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Spartan-Games-SPGFARB01-Rulebook-Firestorm/dp/B003KZ2AEG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346099641&sr=8-2&keywords=Firestorm+armada+book

List Price: $29.99
Price: $14.95

And that's the old rulebook.

Even if it was a current edition, easily $20 or over with shipping. Either way, unless I find it insanely cheap its going to wait, Ive got a few other gaming related things going right now. Most importantly is the Dreamforge Games kickstarter, thats taking up pretty much any $$ I can spare for gaming. I love the FSA minis, so Ill likley revisit the idea of trying the rules eventually.

I've played Firestorm, and was totally unimpressed. The ships look pretty good, but there are a myriad of problems with the game. I don't have feelings of hatred towards Spartan, but they did design a game where both sides get into range band 2 and then hope to roll well. Maneuver is pretty meaningless. The balance of sides is poor. That wouldn't matter, if Firestorm was a ton of fun to play, but it's actually pretty bland. I am still waiting for an amazing capital ship space game.

The game is drastically helped by scenarios. It's sad that the fans have had to be the ones to step up and make them while Spartan has largely abandoned the game for Dystopian Wars.

There are tactics related to getting the right sort of targets into range band two at the right times, but it's a fairly easy thing to figure out since you can always just measure everything.

I've hit the point after playing for a month and a bit where I've figured out optimal movement and placement. My opponents haven't and now they're convinced it's my fleet choice that's unbalanced. I've tried to explain to them that flying straight at me until we're at range band two and then trading shots until someone blows up is not a great approach compared to baiting/holding and counter attacking, but they just keep doing it. It's like trading your queen to take out pawns in chess. Why they keep doing it, I don't know.