The bases had some sort of adhesive on bottom, that will not come off. The bases are just a perspex square, with a hole drilled in it, plus a pole.
Definitely the worst space bases I've used.
The main problem is the rules. Which are essentially a dumbed-down version of Battelfleet Gothic, with less depth and more randomness. Someone thought it would be a good idea to use these rules for four games - Uncharted Seas (a.k.a. Man O War), Firestorm Armada (a.k.a. BFG), Dystopian Wars (steampunk naval) - as well as Halo (Firestorm Armada copy). Since it's essentially the same game with different models, they have product lines competing directly against themselves. I never got into Dystopian Wars, for that very reason. I mean, I didn't think FA was that good, so why would I pay $100+ of models to play the exact same game, only with steampunk? (The sculpts also didn't impress as they tended to the cartoon-y) It would be understandable if the rules were good, but they aren't.
Some issues I have with the rules/minis:
-Buckets of dice, exploding dice that ensure skill is subservient to randomness
-Generic-looking ships, with generous mold lines (has improved lots since the horrifically bad v1 Dindrenzi sculpts, though) - I mean, the Terran, Aquan and Dindrezi stuff is very much lazy CAD work
-Ships are generic in game (think Chaos vs Imperial in BFG i.e. one side might get +5cm gun range or +2d6 broadside)
-100 pages of errata (I think the rules are only in their third incarnation, but they feel like they swap sculpts and rules more than GW); + poor rules layout (also a frantic/schizophrenic release schedule)
-Fighter rules about on par with BFG (i.e. lame)
-Big ships cannot even move their own length - visually feels like snail wars rather than space wars
-Bland, insipid fluff
My one word review of Firestorm Armada (and all associated games): "Meh."
It's not terrible - it's just not very good.
Actually, there is an upside - I often see them in the bargain bin section of online retailers (hence the fact I have 3 fleets) and the large size makes them suited to scale with Gundam-style games using 15mm GZG mecha with the rather good Lightning Strike rules (the original reason I purchased them).
I find it weird how slavishly people copy studio paint schemes. It's a good argument for pre-painted minis if they all end up the same! I do like the vaguely "Homeworld" vibe of the Relthoza but I think they still, like most FA minis, are a tad bland or "lacking" in some way.
Especially if the studio paints scheme isn't that crash hot. I wasn't ever a huge fan of the pastels....
...and camouflage, by it's nature, does not help your models look more striking - I avoid it except when strictly necessary....
So why the swipe at Spartan? Do you hate the company or something?
Not at all. I wish them all the best. I was very impressed by their customer service when I got one of the dreaded "dodgy" Dindrenzi boxes back in the early days of the company. However I'm not about to encourage mediocrity - like many blogs that seem to gush over rules and minis that are average at best. Whilst their Halo box set is very reasonable (models work out at ~$3ea rather than ~$40ea of FFG) their track record for rules means I won't be buying them to play the same indifferent game mechanics which they're recycled three times already.
Conclusion: Whilst the price point looks OK, I'm going to save my moolah for Dropfleet Commander which is looking better by the day - which combines sensor ranges, atmosphere and ground objectives to give what looks like our first genuinely interesting space game since... ...well, I can't remember.
I'm only a little scared to ask, but have you seen the Kickstarter for Fleet Commander? What are your thoughts on that so far?
ReplyDeleteIf it's the Capsicum Games(?) one I didn't pay much attention to it as I assumed it was a square based boardgame.
DeleteIt may have amazing gameplay, but I didn't see past that, or the fact all the ships all looked like prepainted USB flashdrive sticks with fins stuck on them.
The "Lexmark" fleet takes on the "Verbatim" and "SanDisk" alliance.
Shallow, but I didn't have any urge to buy or even investigate further.(I'm not a huge fan of Kickstarter)
The Fleet Commander stuff is a good example of what Spartan has (thankfully) moved on from - making frigates, cruisers and battleships simply different sizes of the same ship. It makes a bland generic faction look even blander.
DeleteIt's like they simply pressed resize on the 3D printer and called it a day....
I'm not sure what you mean when you say FFG price gouging.
ReplyDeleteI know you live in Australia where everything miniatures-wise is expensive, so fair enough on them being expensive.
But at least here in the states, looking comparatively $15 for a regular sized ship (Which is pre-painted compared to GW's unpainted figures) comes with a bunch of customization options) in a game (because of it's unique maneuvering rules) that is fun in a small scale, and so doesn't need a large number of units to be fun. It just seems apples to oranges to me to compare the two companies.
I admit, I'm not extremely aware of miniatures games outside of X-wing, so maybe there's one or more comparable miniatures games with pre-painted minis that's cheaper.
I admit, it seems like you're talking about Armada Specificly, and I'm talking about X-wing. Perhaps FFG is gouging with Armada, but that would surprise me considering I think X-wing's prices are pretty reasonable.
Delete"I know you live in Australia where everything miniatures-wise is expensive, so fair enough on them being expensive."
DeleteI think we've had this discussion before. This has nothing to do with Australian pricing, BUT what you get compared to other, similar space games which involve battles between big space battle ships.
I.e. red apples and green apples, if you will.
I think it is quite reasonable to compare two space games that deal with large warships.
BFG-Full Thrust-GZG-Firestorm Armada-B5 Wars-Star Wars Armada-Starfleet Battles etc etc etc
--CHANGING TOPIC--
If you want to make an X-Wing comparison, let's compare it to other fighter space games using half a dozen fighters per side. I submit Studio Bergstrom ($1.50 per metal X-Wing) and Silent Death (the grandaddy of space dogfight games) where metal models are $1.50 to $3.50, and a box set with 48 plastic ships + rules for $50. That's 48 ships, not 3.
--X Wing is PREPAINTED! 11111!---
Pre-painted has nothing to do with it.
By the way, Micromachines do similar prepainted X-Wings and sell them 5 for a $20 pack.
Pre-painted is not necessarily even "added value" - many (I'd say most) tabletop gamers prefer to paint their own. X-Wing is aimed more at the boardgame crowd - or rather the boardgame-tabletop hybrid which is a growing audience. (Filthy casuals, as we call them :-)
For example, a company called Rackham went bankrupt after switching from metals to prepainted plastic as the traditional audiences rejected it.
Prepainted is added value only to a specific (arguably minority) audience. Tabletop gamers tend to look at the quality of the sculpt. Also, metal is dearer to produce than plastic, painted or not.
I'd note Hot Wheels manages to sell prepainted cars (and has for years) at $2 a pop. So prepaint does not = value to customer. Neither does it cost that much to produce, if Matchbox and Hot Wheels can to it for 1/7th of the price.
--"But there are extras and cards and customisation"--
I'd argue some cards and bits of plastic do not enhance the value of a spaceship model from $1 to $15. I don't think they are worth paying 1400% more!
---"You only need a few models"----
That makes the GAME ITSELF cheaper to start/play.
It doesn't mean the MINIS are somehow cheap.
I.e. it only costs ~$70 for a complete Infinity army. But at $10-$15 a mini I'm not claiming they are cheap minis.
And a X-Wing starter is NOT a complete game for $50 for 3 ships.
So being cheap to start, does not mean it has cheap individual models (or even that the game is cheap, overall).
Warmachine is cheaper to "start" than Warhammer, but it doesn't mean individual minis are cheaper (they aren't). In fact, you might end up spending the same amount overall.
Also, saying a wargame or mini is cheap compared to Warhammer is not a great comparison.
DeleteIt's like saying a car is cheap compared to a Lamborghini or Ferrari. Well, duh!
Example: Perry Miniatures are THE SAME sculptors who did the LOTR for GW.
They have their own company. What do they charge?
Box of 36 plastic infantry - $40 (~$1 each)
Set of 6 metal infantry - $14 (~$2 each)
We can presume they make a profit from this, as their business has been around for ages, and continues to add new ranges.
Now, let's see what GW charges for the exact same sculptors' work:
$37 for 10 infantry plastics ($3.70ea, LOTR)
$70 for 10 infantry plastics ($7 each, Hobbit)
$66 for 4 infantry metals ($16 each, LOTR)
If they are heroes, it's $330 for 14 resin/plastic models ($23 ea)
So you see GW charges up to 3.7x to 7x more than the industry standard for plastics, and 8x more for metals...
....up to 23x if you count the controversial resin which is cheaper to produce than metal...
"I think we've had this discussion before."
DeleteMaybe. I think you mentioned X-wing being expensive and you mentioned being in Australia and it ended it there iirc. I tried to find the old conversation and couldn't find it.
"If you want to make an X-Wing comparison, let's compare it to other fighter space games using half a dozen fighters per side. I submit Studio Bergstrom ($1.50 per metal X-Wing) and Silent Death (the granddaddy of space dogfight games) where metal models are $1.50 to $3.50, and a box set with 48 plastic ships + rules for $50. That's 48 ships, not 3."
Fair enough, like I said, I'm not super familiar with other small-scale space battle games. It's true FFG could price much cheaper though I suspect that it's license is part of the big prices too.
"(Filthy casuals, as we call them :-)"
Guilty. :-) I am more a board gamer than miniatures gamer.
"I'd argue some cards and bits of plastic do not enhance the value of a spaceship model from $1 to $15. I don't think they are worth paying 1400% more! "
True, (See above about FFG could be lowering price), but I guess what I mean is it does add some value to game-play, and allows you do to quite a few different things strategically with a single ship. Maybe other minitures games work this way too, but it seems less frustrating building up a collection when you have units that can do different things from game to game depending on upgrades (especially if you proxy cards, which is common for casual/non-tournament games).
"And a X-Wing starter is NOT a complete game for $50 for 3 ships.
I disagree. While it's not as fun as having a few more ships, there's enough to play, and then change strategies and play again with something slightly different. The unique manuver mechanic also makes it much more playable with fewer ships since it's not just move-and-attack. Also, you're not going to have more than 4 ships on average in a fight for a 100 point game. (and 8 max I believe if you're feilding all naked weakest units).
"Also, saying a wargame or mini is cheap compared to Warhammer is not a great comparison."
Well, yeah. You compared FFG's business models to GW, and I guess that's what got me going.
I'd say the comparison is comparing a red apple (which is good, but overpriced) with a moldy green apple then in comparing the two companies.
FFG maybe charging a bit more than they should be (even considering licensing, though perhaps licensing is why they're so expensive, Star wars is a huge franchise and Disney could be conceivably be directing pricing), but they don't have anywhere near the same odious business practices of GW, which is I guess why I responded.
"Also, saying a wargame or mini is cheap compared to Warhammer is not a great comparison."
DeleteWell, yeah. You compared FFG's business models to GW, and I guess that's what got me going.
--Heh, true. What I meant was, "FFG, like Games Workshop, prices its miniatures exponentially more than rival models" (i.e. 3-5x more). I find it ironic that FFG (like Privateer Press) have similar pricing practices with almost none of the negative PR of GW.
--I notice a LOT of people buy particular X Wings etc for the "ace cards" so it's clever marketing by FFG - they buy a similar mini (perhaps an un-needed "double up") to get a gameplay advantage from its card - which could have been included in the rules etc. So that piece of cardboard IS worth $15 (to some people).
-While of course it is POSSIBLE to play X Wing with the starter, I'd say a majority of folk recommend two core sets at the minimum. Just so you have enough dice, for starters.
"I find it ironic that FFG (like Privateer Press) have similar pricing practices with almost none of the negative PR of GW."
DeleteWell, not doing the shitty other practices (that you mentioned in a post a litlte while back) helps a lot. I had thought PP's minis were at last a litle cheaper, but maybe not.
"While of course it is POSSIBLE to play X Wing with the starter, I'd say a majority of folk recommend two core sets at the minimum. Just so you have enough dice, for starters."
True about the dice, one thing that does kind of irritate me about the cores. It's a little annoying having to double up dice, but it's not too undoable and just makes a 2nd core more atractive as a 2nd purchase, since you get 3 ships @~$30 so $10/ship rather than the normal $15.
And I still kind of content that the flexibility of the game (manuvering skill-based mechanics and different upgrades) and excelent percise balance (no "power creep") has a sort of more tiding-over effect, so while the game is more expensive over all there's at no huge feeling of needing to get the next new ship to keep up. (Not sayng that PP does this, IDK much about WM/H, though this does seem a norm in a lot of collectible games, and GW seems to do this.)
A little late comment, I hope you will read it. I mostly agree with you with all your points, but want to mitigate some of them, it give the impression you have keep your impressions on SG some years ago (for good and bad...). I think this is mostly due to the way you like sci-fi : the hard way. But I think FSA attract a lot of people because of the way it is set up : ships design and look feels "connected" to what we can expect. I agree that it's look like WW2 in space, but not as much as BFG and sufficiently distant so that we can think this is truly scifi.
ReplyDelete"-Generic-looking ships, with generous mold lines (has improved lots since the horrifically bad v1 Dindrenzi sculpts, though) - I mean, the Terran, Aquan and Dindrezi stuff is very much lazy CAD work"
Since V2, design have greatly improve (looking and detail-wise), mostly about Aquan, terran and Directorate, as well as some other minor alien race. In fact this is sometime a disadvantage as ships from v1 have a really gap in looking with new designs.
"-Ships are generic in game (think Chaos vs Imperial in BFG i.e. one side might get +5cm gun range or +2d6 broadside)"
The game pretend to bring many (too many) races in play, so I guess it's better to have similar generic ship too avoid balnce issue, which is a major point of SG games I think.
"-Fighter rules about on par with BFG (i.e. lame)"
Would you mind give some example of rules where fighters have some flavour? I agree with you, but I can't remamber any rule where spacefighters where interesting and not a torpedo-like system (including FT, BFG, Starmada...)
"-Big ships cannot even move their own length - visually feels like snail wars rather than space wars."
Once again I think it's linked to a design choice between "anyone wanting to play a game within 2 hours" and "week end game for physicians wanting to plot orders and resolving vector equation".
One bad point is also that FSA ships are way bigger than other producer, severly limiting mixing with other space miniature sranges.
However, even if I disagree with you on some point, I'm currently looking for another game system which include a more interesting movement system. Still, looking at SG forum, FSA and Dystopian War mostly actract people from Games Workshop and seems to be a step in admiting that there is other miniature games than GW. It's an old addict who admit it!
Anyway, forgive me for my english writing. I read every post you make, your blog has really helped me to try to know what I want and don't want in a game, and know I'm trying to create my own spaceship game.
"I think this is mostly due to the way you like sci-fi : the hard way."
ReplyDelete--Not really. Most space games are WW2-in-space, and FSA does not compare to them particularly favourably. I liked BFG of which FSA was an inferior copy. Full Thrust is also better, and (this is going back) Starmada too. I just felt like a beta tester of a bland, watered down BFG clone.
"Would you mind give some example of rules where fighters have some flavour?"
--Lightning Strike. I do think even Full Thrust had better rules and THEY were pilloried. From memory, FSA fighters were bland and ineffective.
They aren't "terrible" rules. They just have no real good features either, and have been re-used four times without anyone realising how mediocore they are.
I completely disagree with the argument that Halo is Firestorm Armada copy, since this can only tell someone who has not played in these two systems. I was palyed in the Firestorm Armada play for two years, in Halo I play for from several months and systems are different.
ReplyDelete"They aren't "terrible" rules. They just have no real good features either, and have been re-used four times without anyone realising how mediocore they are"
ReplyDeleteTHIS. Is pure ignorance. Because you obviously haven't played or even looked at those games. Oh no - they share the exploding dice mechanic (which is probably what you are so vehemently against with it's "randomness") but hey don't let that stop you making these ridiculous comparisons...
Oh - and Dropfleet has been massively dumbed down lately due to them not wanting it to be super complex. Sensor ranges are just a fancy range band system, it ain't nothing special. It's extra hash to be honest.
What's wrong with simple space games anyway? I'm happy with not needing a degree to play a game. Myself and the regular 20 folks I get at my tournaments agree too.
Just check the QRS of Halo Fleet Battles to the that in NOT a FSA copy. By the way you use 6 uears old model, do you een know that FSA have 2.0 (and will soon have 3.0) version of rules?
ReplyDeletehttps://s24.postimg.org/fd1bwy8dx/1.jpg
https://s24.postimg.org/hvn0xmu45/2.jpg
https://s24.postimg.org/wsvhyn7cl/3.jpg
Wow your review is terrible - you're looking at Models designed in 2009 (when X-Wing didn't exist) and comparing them to modern-day stuff. Spartan has some of the best models and resin casting technology available anywhere, and the tightest ruleset in FA v2 out there. you're either massively behind, massively mistaken or a troll for another game system. I play many other game systems (including X-Wing), and Firestorm Armada is one of the best. I suggest you go back and review the FREE rules (available to download via Spartan's website), check out their new sculpts and try again.
ReplyDelete".....a troll for another game system."
ReplyDeleteI find this VERY ironic.
Given that this is an old post necro'd by 3 people who all post on the same day (17th) at the times of 4:30, 4:58 and 5:09....
One could just as justifiably suggest these 3 accounts are all shills or sockpuppets for a particular game system?
Remember folks, I like the company, but the rules get a solid "meh."
I'm not sure which of the points any of these replies are refuting?
Are you saying:
1. There is no longer exploding buckets of dice in the rules?
2.The Aquan/Dindrenzi/Terran ships no longer look generic?
3. That all the ships and weapons are interesting and unique (btw, re-rolling a '1' does not necessarily make a weapon unique)
4. The rules are and were always tight and errata free and really well laid out
5. Spartan has not got a weird release schedule/never swapped abruptly between projects/ever bitten off too many projects?
6. The fighter rules ARE deep and interesting?
7. Capital ships can move proportionately further now?
8. The fluff is original, exciting, gripping?
Yes, I've tried 2.0 and am aware casting/sculpts have improved(as per the OP). No, I do not think it has yet improved on BFG. Yes, I still think the new Dindrenzi/Aquan/Terran models are boring, bland and generic.
Feel free to link to a blog post where you explain how each game system is a revolutionary improvement on its predecessors and radically differs from each other - I'd be interested to read it.
So between a new version of each game there has to be revolutionary improvements and must be different? Sorry but what?
DeleteFSA plays nothing like Halo.
Dystopian doesn't play like FSA and is an incredible rules set.
Your views on the sculpts are obviously just that. That's not something to argue about. You either like them or don't.
Your biggest qualm is obviously the exploding dice mechanic. Enough said. You'll never like their rules whilst that exists. In my opinion it adds a lot of FUN and random twists. Just like you know... Dice do...
The Halo Fleet Battles in not simply using a exploding dice mechanics, in FSA you do not get the Firepower Rating Table. Check this https://meeples.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/halo-fleet-battles-a-brief-rules-overview/
DeleteI can agree only with that fighter rules in Halo Fleet Battles are weak, but in FSA they just works.
--"So between a new version of each game there has to be revolutionary improvements and must be different? Sorry but what?"
DeleteAs per the OP, I'm not a fan of a company remaking the same rules 100x with slight variations (like, say, Games Workshop) especially if they weren't that good to start with.
--"Your views on the sculpts are obviously just that."
Hmmm. Perhaps that is why this post is called a "rant" not a "review?"
No, I am not a fan of exploding dice. But as you can see, there are plenty of other factors that contribute to my opinion of "meh."
I think the comparison to GW is apples and oranges. All the rules for Spartan's games (bar Halo) are FREE to download. As are all the army lists and support material. They also make a special point of maintaining stats for every model they have made so that no-one is left with stuff on the shelf that has been replaced by newer shinier toys.
DeleteThe older version of FSA and 2.0 play quite differently, 2.0 is a much cleaner game imo.
I didn't mean the GW comparison in the sense of money-grabbing/codex creep, but that they have been re-using the same mechanics since the 90s. A bit like 2HW and Song of Blades and Heroes.
DeleteKeeping older models relevant is good. As I said in the OP, I was impressed with my dealings with the company.
I agree 2.0 is an improvement. But not enough to lure me to play it. I do think FSA missed a chance to rise to something good, and merely became average-generic, and has rehashed the same formula since.
Contrary to what the angry fans think (where are they coming from? the Spartan forums? a dead post suddenly gets 100s of hits in a day)I wish FSA et al had been better, as it is priced so much better than FFG stuff (what do they make their ships out of - is cocaine mixed in with the resin?)
That's a tough one. I agree to some extent with cycling the game through editions that improve the rules as x set of rules is exactly what the game is, what long standing fans of the game expect and so on. Look at the furor over Age of Sigmar!
DeleteI think Firestorm Taskforce is a great example of how to do it - it's a new set of spaceship combat rules (like FSA), designed to be used quickly, and smoothly with large fleets. That system is a significant departure from FSA - however, it is presented as a companion to FSA - so players will be able to use all their models for both games (rather than buy a new set of models). Some of the same mechanisms are in both (the exploding dice is one), but they are extremely different game experiences.
The FSA fans are coming from a Facebook link from a FSA group, which is how I found this post.
Yeah - I like X-Wing, but not enough to sell a kidney. :D
Ah - I was wondering why a dead post suddenly lit up with 100s of hits by rather feverent Spartan fans. If they're coming from a FSA appreciation site, no wonder they're unhappy. The trolling was completely unintentional though!
DeleteI also suspect they are skipping the "rant" title and treating it as deadly serious review.
Well, nice chatting with you. Feel free to comment elsewhere - I do other stuff besides diss rulesets.
If you like discussing dice probabilities, there's a lot of nerds(aka math experts) in the google group and in the game design section of the posts (right sidebar).
To get an idea of where my "usual" readers are coming from (and like in a space game), this (very very) old post might give you an idea.
http://deltavector.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/spaceship-game-design.html
(I tend to be tired of the sycophantic reviews by the paid-for-by-ads sites so I like to present a contrasting and more critical view)
I didn't know about FSA: Taskforce. That might be interesting as "fast play fleet scale" hasn't been done much lately besides Starmada:Fleet Ops.
Wow you really are not worth wasting the time on - you have obviously decided you are immovable in your opinion, and you clearly have no concept of statistical analysis (the exploding dice thing is just such an indication of your lack of knowledge). Have fun with your unsupported BFG rules with are "so much more tactical", and ignore the growing playerbase of Firestorm - quite frankly, who needs you?
ReplyDeleteSo we resort to personal attacks because you can't be bothered refute any points?
DeleteStay classy.
Buckets of dice - I read this complaint sometimes and shake my head. The more dice rolled the closer to the probability curve you get. The fewer dice you roll, the more likely you are to see statistically significant swings away from the probability curve. Rolling more dice and having ship statistics built around probabilities means that skill plays a more important role than luck. If you were rolling a couple of dice, then I could understand the complaint - you are more likely to see swing-y dice results impacting the game. More dice doesn't mean more randomness, it means less.
ReplyDeleteThe exploding dice mechanic is another - people tend to remember all the times they (or an opponent) get a run on with the successes they roll, but don't as easily remember the times they don't. Again - with large dice pools you are actually hitting the probability curve more often than if you had rolled just a couple. The probability curve for exploding dice is slightly different from just plain dice, but this is built into the ship stats so I don't see an issue.
Personally - and I'm biased - I like the exploding dice system, it means that anything has a chance to hit anything else, although statistically it is unlikely, the opportunity for a lucky shot is still there. I am not so much a fan of games where there is no point rolling the dice as mathematically there is no chance of achieving anything.
There are mechanical similarities between Firestorm and Dystopian Wars, but they play quite differently on the table for a range of reasons which a cursory glance at the free-to-download rules should make apparent.
Planetfall is a very different game experience, as is Halo (albeit there are some similar game mechanisms, the games themselves are very different to either Firestorm or Dystopian Wars).
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It makes a pleasant change.
DeleteI agree that more dice flattens the curve. Buckets of dice are a increasingly common solution to companies wedded to the d6. More reliable rolls (though exploding d6 do challenge this "reliability") may increase skill, but I didn't see much more depth to FSA (along with many other space games) besides "push ships into middle, chuck dice"
I notice in 2.0 and Halo the exploding dice/chance of a Death Star moment have been toned down a bit.
Whilst I decided against Dystopian Wars as the demo games did play too similarly to FSA, perhaps I missed the deep tactical differences and naunces in the games I attended. Again, I'd enjoy reading a blog explaining how they differ widely in tactics etc. (There's heaps of DW stuff in the bargain bin of many big retailers, and I did like the Antarctic saucers)
Funny you should mention Planetfall, I felt Halo had elements of Planetfall, aimed at handling somewhat more ships.
True that exploding dice change the curve, but if you regard a success on a 4+ (Black dice in DW), then you'll get 0.5 successes on average per die, with a success on a 4+ and a 6 garnering 2 successes it rises to 0.6 successes per die (roughly), and with the exploding mechanic added it increases to 0.8 successes per die.
DeleteNow it may feel that you occasionally get a very lucky result, but that is a product of perception as much as anything else - we notice them more and remember them better. With the number of dice rolls in a typical game, and the number of dice being rolled, you'll find that games pretty much hit the expected averages.
The tactical differences between DW and FSA may seem superficial, but they have a big impact on the game - movement, line of sight, blocking, height bands, detail in MARs and Generators, munition types, weapon classifications, boarding rules, defensive rolls, all these impact and make DW a different beast to FSA. I like both a lot, FSA has fewer complications than DW, but DW has more crunch to the rules system.
You said:
ReplyDelete"The main problem is the rules. Which are essentially a dumbed-down version of Battelfleet Gothic, with less depth and more randomness"
Really?
I think you have not played FSA 2.0. BFG and FSA are totally different games. All they have in common is that both use spaceships.
I love BFG, as well Full Thrust and FSA, they are all good games, but with very distinct mechanics.
I think BFG is a simpliest game with awesome backgroud and good rules for Imperial and Chaotic Fleets, but unbalanced (and unplayable) for the rest. FSA is a more complex game, more closer to high-technology warfare, and lots of ships and races very balanced.
I totally agree BFG is wildly unbalanced except for Chaos/Imperial, and it is far from a paragon of virtue. But I think FSA did not improve on it when it had the chance, and picked many of the worst things to copy.
DeleteWhilst I agree they are different games (duh) I do think FSA shows both BFG (small number of hitpoints, have to do z hits before they register, huge models, lumbering movement) and Full Thrust heritage (shooting mechanics) and I do think it was aimed, Mantic-style, to fill a BFG-size hole in the market - which they had to themselves until FFG turned up with their insanely priced alternatives. (I hazard a guess many FSA players are ex-GW)
Agree for FSA 1.x, but FSA 2.0 it is now a mature game with its own style. I never played de early edition of FSA, but de models and rules of 2.0 edition liked me a lot and started playing and collecting.
DeleteFill the BFG empty hole?. Perhaps. But GW abandon BFG in 2013, and FSA 1.0 was published in 2009.