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.

Which do you guys prefer and why?

I like apples more than kittens.

Yeah... they're about that similar.

Asking the question on an X-wing (etc) dedicated subforum is in no way going to lead to sampling bias.

Well, the two games you mention are different on a fundamental level; one is a dog-fighting game and the other is a fleet-battle game.

Yep. Its not a like for like comparison. You might be able to make a choice between Firestorm Armada and Star Wars Armada, but seeing as the latter isn't available yet that's going to be difficult for the time being.

And then there will be Dropfleet by Hawk Wargames by the end of 2015 with rules written by Andy Chambers.

Being more tactical inclined I a leaning towards Armada and Dropfleet.

 Duncan_Idaho wrote:
with rules written by Andy Chambers.

Let's just hope then that it's got rules that are fun and interesting, unlike Hawk's current offering.

Says the guy that knows nothing about DZC... or he clearly would not have written such a nonsense.

Tastes may be different, but DZC rules are among the better ones.

FWIW, I was amongst the earliest adopters of DzC and have the entire Posthuman range (almost, no Menchits) painted. I was really excited for DzC for months before it came out, and still think the miniatures have raised the bar in what people expect from small-scale models, and I'm very glad that it's grown awareness and interest in non-28mm gaming.

Having said that, I've rarely had less fun than when actually playing the game.

The rules are a simple mechanical port of 2nd edition 40K (roll to hit, roll to wound, rolls saves in some cases), and what's original that has been added to that are some really awful rules for CQB and some pretty clunky rules for fast movers.

Throw in severe balance issues between some factions in some scenarios (it's actually impossible for PHR to win one scenario if they land to fire even a single shot).

So in rules terms, what's okay is just ripped off from old 40K, and what's original is really weirdly constructed and doesn't flow well with the rest of the game. "Among the better ones" is an easy claim to make, I'd love to know how anyone could come to that decision. Maybe if your comparison pool ran to only 1 or 2 other games, I guess.

So I think a game with Hawk's models, and a rules designer who knows what they're doing could really be brilliant. I'd love if the partnership was successful and Andy Chambers was hired to rewrite DzC itself.

Working in the games industry I do know how to tell good and bad games appart.

I don´t know what game you played, but from what you wrote you really had issues with the playing-style of your faction. We have quite some dozen games and even tournaments under our belt and had no such problems as described. From what you wrote you seem to have chosen the wrong faction. PHR is not that easy to play and you need to have a good plan from the beginning since you can`t move as fast around as the other factions, but if you cater to their strengths you can winn any mission if you are good.

The way you describe it nearly every second game is mechanical port of 40K 2nd. Well there are only so many ways to design a game. The game is actually a mixture of the good elements of Epic and AT-43 with some own ideas mixed in. In my book that´s not a bad background.

What is so awfull about CQB? That it is partially separate from the non-infantry-game? Well, the layout for the rules is a little bit clunky but that has already been tackled with the German translation and probably future english editions will have the improve layout, too. You need to act out the CQB-rules once but once step by step, but once you have seen the in action it will make click and they will be quite easy to act out.

What is clunky about the fast movers? They are quite realistic for a game with that scale and still playable.

There are some small balance issues with newer units, but since they are released with print-out beta-rules that is easily worked out by the time they are released in book-form. I consider this one of the better beta-tests in the industry.

What I realized quite eraly on was that some people want to play DZC the way they play 40K which does not compute well. You really need to think outside that old box. Dropships are not just transports but assets that need to beused during the whole game and not only as transports. Shaltari will use their gates to hopp araound the board and deny airspace to the enemy, Scourge will hunt down smaller units with the guns on their dropships, etc. Second you really need to focus on the mission and don´t just try to blast your enemy from the table. Some missions can only be won with heavy losses and you will probably will have way less units on the table at the end of the game than your opponent, but it is the mission that decides the game, not the kill-points (most of the time). DZC is a game that makes use of scenery heavily, so put it on the table and use it as often as possible.

I could go an and one, but I think you get the idea.

From what you wrote I only got that you did not like some stuff, but not exctly which rule caused you trouble, so could you please elaborate?

The only thing I don't like about the fast-movers is that, truth be told, you don't really need to buy any of the fast-mover models. They appear, they're gone. Could use a token for that.

Yeah, but tokens don´t look as nice. Nearly all somehow realisticly working TT have fast-movers that are only for a short time on the table (FoW anyone?). Actually even 40K fastmovers are only very shortly on the table.

Dropcash commander didn't last long in my little gaming community, X-wing is still going strong.

We found that while it was a good game, it turned into an arms race in a way that X-Wing doesn't.

Just make sure that you try both, you may find that your personal preferences differ from ours

 luky7dayz wrote:
Which do you guys prefer and why?

As others have mentioned, aside from the fact that they're set in space and releatively cheap to get into, they're pretty much two completely different games, so it's "both" for me.

FSA has nice models, a decent ruleset and it's something where I just build up one "army" that interests me, where I can be creative and make up my own paint schemes, and which I take to the store and club to play against other people's armies, just like I would with my 40k, Infinity, FoW, Bolt-Action, VaS etc... collections.

X-Wing, to me, feels more like a collectible board game. Something I can just take out of the shelf and play it with people who would never buy and play tabletop games by themselves. It's got an easy to learn basic ruleset, quick and dramatic gameplay, fast setup, doesn't need much in the way of terrain (black cloth and kitchen table will suffice) and the Star Wars background appeals even to the "non-geek" crowd. After my sister and niece watched the annual re-runs of Star Wars on TV a few weeks ago, they reckognized the x-wing, TIEs and the falcon on my shelf, got interested and half an hour later we were into a 2 v 1 game. Something that never would have happened with FSA.

From everything I could glean from DZC without playing it, the gameplay videos make it seem like it's hugely dependent on urban battles for buildings to break up line of sight.

I thought it would be something to get into as I wanted a different scale for something fresh and new in my gaming, but for me at least i found Epic: Armageddon to be more enjoyable than DZC seemed it would be if I played that instead.

DZC uses a lot of scenery since it is more geared to modern day combat where being out in the open is not the best idea. Infantry is used best for fighting inside buildings and transports that can be seen from afar and have no escort are a very endangered species.

The starter comes with all the scenery you need for a 1000 AP game and the add-on scenery kit allows you even battles up to 2500AP.

Btw. 4Ground has some really nice 10mm pre-painted scenery for DZC, which fits in perfectly with the cardboard buildings (which btw, can also be DL for free from Hawk and printed out at home)

DZC is Epic plus AT43 plus something own. As nice as Epic is if you want some less Fantasy-Sci-Fi from time to time I prefer DZC. Also, it is way cheaper to get the minis. Epic can be really expensive for some models.

The problem with FSA in 2.0 is that the factions don´t play that different from each other. If you have played DZC you will know that every faction has its unique playing style. Now with FSA there are some differences, but nothing that I would call different playing styles.

OP asked about Xwing vs Firestorm, not DZC.

Which is kinda like comparing apples and oranges, but in this case the orange is rotten so you should go for the apple even if normally you like oranges.

Well, since Dropfleet is a valid option a side-step might be allowed.

And having played Armada (though most of it understandably proxyed) and FSA and DZC I can tell where the different approaches of the games lie.

I would tend towards Armada since FFG has more stable rules and balance is often better. Having three huge DW-armies I sadly do know how Spartan sometimes rights the wrong and wrongs the right rules. At the moment FSA is quite stable, but as seen with Dystopian Legions which had nice rules and got really bad new rules this is not hewn in stone. I am also not a fan of the exploding six since it somtimes does bring too much luck into games. FSA has more factions of course, but some for my taste play too similar.

Deleted for incorrect info

Sorry, DZC is by the same company that does Dropfleet (Hawk). FSA ist by Spartan.