New Firestorm Backgrounds

Warcradle is pushing out a fair amount of content on FSA of late (hey, it's what has got me to post again!), and a fair bit of it has been mixed concept art/background pieces. I'll cover the concept art on another post (I think it deserves it) but I'll go through the background pieces that have been put out so far as they foreshadow more than pretty pictures.

Terran Directorate

Yep, Warcradle led with this one out of the dock on their new Black Ocean Facebook page, and here's the first of the bigger departures from pre-existing fluff (let's call it "Spartan Lore"). The new Terran faction are a melding of the old Terran Alliance, Directorate, Works Raptor and Hawker. I kinda get why Warcradle did this, but as a former Directorate player, I can't say this fills me with joy. Now, without a Spartan Lore historical perspective, this is fine - it makes the Terrans a much wider faction with a LOT more ship options (as a core faction), and the Directorate were, at one time, part of the Alliance anyway, so you could almost view it as an "alternate timeline" evolution of the game. Again, as a former Directorate/Zenian player as my first choice, I'm unsure about how this will play out in terms of the game, so I will have to wait until we see some beta rules until I make further judgements.

Dindrenzi Federation

The Dindrenzi still mourn Dramos, they still use big electromagnetic rail guns and they still have big armour plates. There is some detail in here about their society and so on, but overall the flavour has not changed much as far as I can see.

Sorylian Congress

The Sorylians were always clever military tacticians, and this wasn't terribly well reflected in their gameplay on the board. Their ships were fast, in order to bring their scatter cannon into range as soon as possible, and their squadron sizes were larger due to their superior tactics. Sorylian small and medium ships were their strength, with their battleship seen as a bit of a lumberer. They weren't good at the more personal three-dimensional experience, so didn't use SRS as much as other races (consider they were waging war against the Aquans and Relthoza, who both were good at that - why confront an enemy on their strong fronts?). They were also the race that first set up a wormhole network (or at least, utilised an existing one and expanded on it), with this tech being integral to their society.

The recent fluff has them controlling drone fighters which are able to pivot about their axis and launching salvos of kinetic weapons, both as they drop from lightspeed. Their three subspecies are engineered, as they are now master geneticists (a slot previously held by the Aquans - but more on them later). They are still measured, superb scientists, and they still hail from Kerendar. Overall, I don't think the fluff changes so far for the Sorylians are much beyond trivial. Sorylians have always had long-range kinetics, though they were really something designed to harass the enemy either into closing or to strike whilst the fast frigates and cruisers closed with the enemy fleet.

Veydreth Authority

The Veydreth are now one of the eight factions of the new Warcradle FSA, and they now hail from Oroshan (which I guess means that particular faction are no more in their own right). Their ship aesthetic is VERY different from before, incorporation elements of the original Oroshan designs but they are really 100% Warcradle otherwise. Veydreth used to be fearsome centauroid creatures - now they are gangly bipedals, and the Terran moniker of "Star Dragons" comes from the look of their ships, not the creatures themselves. I think this is the only piece I am a bit disappointed with here, centauroid star dragons were interesting...gangly bipedals just seem a bit "meh" by comparison. The Veydreth fluff in Spartan Lore was "spartan", which is I suppose why Warcradle used them as the basis of creating another faction where they could run amok without annoying too many people! Much of the background is a fusion of SL Veydreth and SL Oroshan with Warcradle overlay and reimagining. Overall, I can't say that this version is particularly disruptive or upsetting to too many people.

Ryushi (part of the Storm Zone Coalition)

The Ryushi were always wanderers, and they remain so in Warcradle's iteration of FSA. Warcradle have built up the narrative in a bit more of a joined-up way (never a strong point of Spartan), and expanded it with some nice detail. The Ryushi are one of the races in the Storm Zone Coalition, which also includes the Xelocians, Sauran Guild, Rangers of Terquai, Jowrion Disciples, Illosi, Shevaka and Kedorians. I wonder if all these races will be represented by Warcradle, or we'll just get those races which already have ships....I personally would love to see the Illosians finally - the one last project at SG which was never realised before I ceased association with them.

A'quan Sebrutan

So you'll notice that the Aquans are now the A'quan, a change which I'm not really understanding - it almost seems like the GW penchant for making names they can trademark (like Orruks instead of Orks), and that may well be the case here - I don't know. Anyway, the fishy dudes are a BIG departure from prior fluff - essentially you can scrap all the fish jokes guys, because THEY'RE NO LONGER FISH. No, instead of hailing from a water world, A'quan are now sentient bi-mechanical space-dwellers, each one being located within - and one with - the ship around it.

A'quans have a very different "feel" in this new iteration - before they were somewhat benign, expert geneticists and a little "Tau" in their kind of philosophy. Now they are disruptive star-eating individuals that are kind of a galactic pain in the ass and pretty aggressive. They're space-hornets.

I'm a bit on the fence on this one. It's kind of cool, but I can imagine it's not going to sit well with a lot of existing Aquan (no " ' " intended) players. There are some other interesting snippets in the fluff here too which indicate departures in their gameplay too - gravity shears are mentioned, along with their "unique" ability to manipulate gravity...not sure what that means for you, Tarakian players... and you thought Aquans were too powerful before.... lol. another interesting thing is the mention of the "Vo'nar Holotype" - the Vo'nar being a long-mentioned but never realised Spartan race that was around Relthozan space....seems Warcradle have dusted that one off and incorporated it into A'quans now -which does make sense given their new directions.

Relthoza Unity

OK, my favourite faction, what I started Firestorm Armada out with, the spiders. Again, another BIG departure from SL here, and I must say, one I'm not really feeling. Essentially you can bin all of the Dindrenzi first contact, misunderstood cultural concepts and uneasy alliance of SL, the Relthoza never met another species before becoming the Unity. This AI cloud consciousness was once a way for the Relthoza to prevent internal wars, but became out of control, and subsumed the Relthoza into itself, becoming the Unity. It learned exponentially, and developed space travel fast etc etc - now it must bring peace to all life.

In effect, the Relthoza are now a kind of "Pathogen with a Purpose", and in fact it seems Pathogen are now merely unity ships seeking independence. Hmmm.

Now I know Stuart from Warcradle is a Rick & Morty fan, and Unity is exactly this in that series....does this make a good direction for the Relthoza? Well, for me, no. If I'd wanted to play that kind of consuming plague, I'd play Pathogen (and I have). The Relthoza, however, appealed to me both for the look of their ships, and their arachnid klingon-esque militarism. Whilst the new Warcradle concept art for the Relthoza looks fantastic, I'm just not excited by their fluff. The "Hive Mind" thing is a common, and a little tired, trope in Sci-Fi, and I think it makes the Relthoza much more bland than they were before.

Overall Takeaways

So I said before, Stuart has stated and the fluff released thus far emphasises it, Warcradle's FSA is a new game. It's NOT the SL FSA we knew, and it's probably best to come at it from that PoV. At the moment I will hold judgement until I see beta rules before I decide if it's a game that I want to learn...if it is then the fluff is not necessary, I can have whatever fluff I want for my universe, ignoring anything I don't like. Otherwise I will just use the new models to refresh and fill in gaps in my existing fleets, and play the game I already know - not the end of the world.

Firestorm Armada Core Race Expansion Sets

So now we have the blog Spartan should have put up before they started their Kickstarter, we can see some details of the planned Core Race Expansions, and it doesn't make for pretty reading for me. Why? Read on (Spoiler - contains jaded opinions about Spartan Games' current behaviour - do not ingest if sensitive to honest but scathing opinion).

Core Race Expansions - A Good Thing, right?

Well, possibly....

Expansions should be added for a reason, other than "the company needs to sell more models". Ultimately, this goes down to why a company exists, it's heart and soul. For me, a gaming company needs to be about gaming - it needs to have that at its core...if it doesn't, it comes through in everything they do, and what they do doesn't ring true. Of course companies exist to make money to continue doing what they do, but that shouldn't be an end point - it should be a means to it's end (which is growing its games). 

Take GW as a case in point. They used to be a games company - founded by gamers who didn't want to grow up. It was successful- enormously so, and grew to behemoth proportions. Still, in the late 90's-early noughties, it was still a games company - lots of hobby tips (for free) on its website, GW stores were places people went to congregate, paint and play. People inside and out were passionate about games.

Then it started being run by executives.

Sometimes, this can be a good thing - execs bring focus and timelines, spreadsheets and analysis that can really help companies improve, cut out waste, do more god stuff. Sometimes they end up controlling things and the bottom line becomes the important thing, and the rest is a mantle upon which it rests. Prices go up, free stuff starts being removed and replaced with chargeable extras, things are pushed out because they're low volume sellers, and the execs start directing company direction. People leave because "it just isn't the company it used to be". These things are picked up by the community, because things start to feel different in the game.

This behaviour really hurt GW for the past decade. Now they've a new CEO who seems to understand that the "Games" in GW means something to its customers, and is getting back towards the company it used to be. Hell, they even released a pack of skulls, which if isn't taking the piss out of themselves (in a profitable way" then I don't know what is. Not to say they still aren't having some crazy pricing decisions (that Primaris Captain and Librarian, for example), but it's early days.

So I'll come back to this point at the end of the blog when I've run through the Tiers and factions;

Tier 3 - Destroyers

"Wait a minute Alex, you said Tier 3, but you're talking about Destroyers..."

Yes, I know. Most factions get "Light Destroyers" (I'll come back to naming conventions later too), a couple get Torpedo Destroyers. So this is one of those "Oh god I hate them" general faction-wide releases that makes no background sense whatsoever. That's the first thing. The main issue I have with this release, however, is that where do these fit in the design space of Firestorm?

What do I mean by this?

Well, as a designer (and I did this for Firestorm for a long time, so I do know what I'm talking about here) there should be a reason for the ship you're designing. That's number one. So you have a role the ship should fit, and then you look at what already exists, and stat the ship according to its role and what has gone before. In general, it should fit with the existing theme of the fleet, with maybe a few differences based on its new role (otherwise why would the race design it?). Stats should be in-line with existing ships and the role, unless it's some ground-breaking new technology. So, in the FSA world, a Destroyer is generally a hard-hitting, but often difficult to spot/hit type of ship (more like a wet-navy submarine). Firepower wise they hit above their weight, especially at longer engagement ranges (with exceptions for those "Ambush" type iterations like the Venom).

Now the Firestorm design space is fairly "tight". DR ranges from 3 to 7, CR from 4 to 13. The lower end of the spectrum is more crowded, because the difference between 3/4 in game is not much and you can't really go above that for a small (as Cruisers start at DR4). So that means a "Light" Tier 3 Destroyer could be "Light" just by the virtue of having a Small hull, rather than difference in weapons, so you have a (for example) 3/5 hull with standard Destroyer weapons.

The problem then is why would you not take these awesome new Smalls over standard Frigates? That kind of Firepower is pretty good on a small ship. Well, you could price them higher, but now you're encroaching into standard destroyer territory - it's only 150 points for a pair of Venoms, whilst its usually around 100 points for a bunch of Frigates. Do you see what I mean by a crowded design space now?

This is why the FFG worked so well at designing ships, because we had twenty-odd players of the game each with a different meta putting in their opinion in the design stage, so we didn't end up with glaring oddities that ended up massively OP or vastly useless. What you really want is a ship design that half of the players think is OK, one-quarter think are OP and one-quarter think is useless. You've usually got it right then.

What should NOT happen is someone decides "you know what, all races need a new small, what should it be - I know, destroyers!" and then this is implemented. That fundamentally breaches Rule Number One - the ship should be derived from a need (perceived or real), not an arbitrary assignment. It's a bit like some god-like entity suddenly saying to all the nations of the world "and you must have Battleships in your navies". We don't need them - they're obsolete, and obsolete for a reason. Shoe-horning them in would be moronic.

Tier 2 - Medical & Repair Ships

Hmmmm. My gut feeling on this is....why? From a fluff point of view, this is madness - you don't repair ships or send in ambulances in the midst of a pitched battle. We already have SRS to cover these functions in v2, what do these add except for sucking out more points and making you buy more resin? If the repair function effectively acts as an add-on Self Repair MAR, then I foresee a lot of issues - it will tend to drag the game out, rather than make it smoother and faster.

This goes back to rationale as I mentioned above for the Tier 3s - what is the reason for introducing a ship type? Did anyone call for any of these ships in their games before (and by that I mean the function rather  than the name)? In other words, is there a gap to be filled? For me, the answer is no.

Tier 2 - The Terran Heavy Gunship

Wait, the Terrans - one of the CP-heaviest factions and one of the fleets most likely to see use of Medical Shuttles - does NOT get Medical ships? Nope, they get a Heavy Gunship. Not a gunship, which of course they don't have, but a Heavy Gunship.

Now a gunship for the Terrans is not a terrible idea, but its also not a great one. Sorting out the role of the Heavy Cruiser (which is essentially a gunship in all but name) would have achieved the same thing, but of course wouldn't have required you to buy more models.

Tier 1

Now here we start to see some apparent variety, so I'll go through them individually:

The Aquan Repair Battleship

Now there's an oxymoron for you - repair battleship. It's like a War Domain cleric....does it fire sticky glue that covers impact blasts? Does it have multiple cranes that attach to other ships and fix them? What? You think I'm being silly? Well it's because it's a fucking STUPID idea, thats why.

The associated fluff basically says its a Battleship which carries Repair Shuttles - or in other words, an Aquan Battleship. All this really indicates is that the normal battleship is restricted in the SRS it can carry (if any) and that this is a Battleship with limited usage. I'll come back to my stock question here - Why? If you're having to create new ship types because of changes you're making to the mechanics, then please, stop.

The Dindrenzi Battle Carrier

So here's a ship type that you can actually see the race developing. The Dindrenzi actually have a decent carrier option, but you can definitely imagine them creating a Battle Carrier, so this is actually one that seems quite rational.

The Sorylian Fleet Carrier

OK, so the fluff makes no sense whatsoever here - "The Sorylians do not make much use of SRS, but when they do it is normally ‘heavy’ in nature." - in fact I'm not sure that's even a proper sentence. Still, the idea of a Fleet carrier for the Sorylians is...meh. They already have a fleet carrier in the Morning Star/Xiphos - again a decent carrier. Surely the Sorylians would be best supported (both in game and in fluff) with an Assault Carrier? Or how about another Battleship to use, since their existing Battleship and Dreadnought are much maligned? No, we get another carrier. :-(

The Terran Battle Carrier

Well I suppose this one was inevitable, despite never being intended as a production model, when you show a render/artwork people are inevitably going to say "Ooh, shiny, when can I buy it?". That's not necessarily a good rationale to base a ship class on, and so we have the Terran battle Carrier, despite the Terrans having one of the two best Fleet Carriers in the game (the other going to the RSN Argus), and good battleships.

So why is a Battle Carrier a bad idea for Terrans? Well, it's either going to have sub-par weapons, in which case if you want SRS the carrier is probably a better idea, or it's going to compete with the battleships (why have a plain battleship when you can have a battleship+?). It also adds a third ship to the Battleship space for the Terrans, when they could really do with choices elsewhere. So whilst not a terrible decision, it is a ship in a crowded spot in a tight design space for the Terrans. It's not very interesting, and it's not very Terran.

The Relthoza Heavy Battleship

So a ship between the Brood and the Apex? Hmmm...I mean, it's possible, but as for the Sorylians, why not an Assault Carrier or Battle Carrier for the Relthoza? Ships that fit with their background and fluff? Why call it a Heavy Battleship? Is the Terran Tyrant a Heavy battleship? Did people have issues distinguishing the Apollo and the Tyrant? No, so what's the point? It's the Why? question again.

The Directorate Fleet Carrier

Oh dear. Not only do the Directorate nor care about their vat-buddies that they're prepared to spend vast amounts of capital to make specific ships that will help them out in the midst of battle, but they're so intent on SRS operations all of a sudden that they make a Fleet carrier, which sounds like a Battle Carrier if you believe the short fluff. It's quoted to be as tough as a Dreadnought, armed to the teeth with beams and cyberweapons (which are due to be bland AOE weapons in v3), and carry loads of bombers and stuff. 

The problem is once again that the Directorate already have a pretty bitching Battleship that does a lot of this in the Anarchist, and they also have the Overseer - a carrier that never needs to decloak. I've seen double-Overseer lists run by Directorate players, and they can be pretty savage. So this ship promises to do all of the Anarchist and Overseer jobs in one, which makes it either too powerful, overcosted or one of the two sides at least partially redundant.

The main issue I have with it though, is it just seems unimaginative. Maybe it'll be ok, but I already have big issues with how the Directorate flavour is being massively diluted with v3 rules. Why would I add another shade of grey to those already available?

Naming Conventions

OK, so this is a personal bugbear. and I know it doesn't bother some people at all, but I hate these arbitrary namings of "Heavy" and "Light". It smacks of a small child trying to win a war of words;

"I've got a gunship"

"Yeah? well I've got a HEAVY gunship"

"That's nothing, I got a Battleship"

"So? I got a HEAVY battleship"

And so on. It smacks of Trump's lack of vocabulary ("It's gonna be really, really great - really"), a lack (once again) of IMAGINATION. Why does that matter? Well, this is meant to be an immersive universe. Why would all factions suddenly create "Light Destroyers"? What's the rationale behind calling a Battleship "Heavy"? The answer to this is - there is no reason - and that (for me) makes the whole announcement sound hollow, a clanging tin bell. I don't think "Cool, a Heavy Battleship", because I'm not 6. I want some meat to my sci-fi, even in a game with plastic spaceships. I may behave like a 12 year old when I'm playing games, but I don't expect to be treated as one mentally.

Verdict - Hit or Miss?

Once again, I don't need to tell you my verdict on this. It only adds to the Kickstarter cash grab feel that SG is developing lately. These announcements in the right environment with the right thought process and rationale behind them would be exciting, and investment and expansion to the universe. What they do instead is highlight the poor planning and lack of creativity that seems to be beleaguering the FA universe (and maybe the whole of SGs portfolio) at the moment.

If I were a potential Kickstarter backer reading this blog, it would not sway me to part with money. Most Kickstarters offering this as part of the campaign or as stretch goals will actually show you what they're doing or planning - here you just have to hope. Even if you think all of these are fantastic ideas, you have no idea what the stats are or what the ships look like - you have to take it on faith. Unfortunately (or rather, Fortunately, for me), I'm an evidence-based guy, and without a shred of it ,being asked to rely on Spartan's word (which is increasingly worth nothing, if it ever were) is purely ludicrous.

I mentioned earlier I'd come back to the point of a company's heart and soul. It seems Spartan is increasingly a model company, rather than a games company. The other pieces - it's rules, it's fluff, it's community support (such as it is) - seem to be "stuck on", after-thoughts  to sell more models, rather than being part of it's DNA. They laughably tout the Kickstarter as being "what you told us you wanted" but they should KNOW what people want, they should be able to sense it intuitively. If they were really customer-focussed gamers at heart, they would (or should, at least). That's a change no-one can force on SG, and it's the reason I've not bought into their products for some time now - why I have a Halo Ground Command box which is still unopened in my gaming room. It's the same reason I got out of 40k and decried GW for what they did to themselves, because no-one wants to feel like a bred-for-its-milk cash cow.

The Firestorm Galaxy Expansion Kickstarter

Well I guess it was inevitable, SG release a KS for FA and I'm going to blog about it. Before you read on, this will contain various complaints about SGs current behaviour, so if you're still shackled to Spartan like a ball and chain, then this is probably not the post for you. I will, however, attempt to be as fair as I can regarding this, so people who don't know SG can make up their own minds without just the "Oooh, shiney" aspect, but also the "Oh, I wasn't aware of that" side. So, disclaimer over, let's begin.

Kickstarter Provenance

Firstly, let's talk about Spartan's Kickstarter history. This is the third KS they've launched - the first was for modular terrain, was horrible and absolutely bombed - they pulled it before it closed woefully short of its target. Their second was for Dystopian Wars, which I've talked about before at the start of the year (Here) which funded £136k of a £50k target, but only 858 backers - not a large number, well below comparable niche games. Is this important? Well, I'd argue yes, it is, because that directly affects the active player-base and how likely you are to be able to get a game - this is a miniature wargame, not a board game.

Compare this number of backers to a game like Maelstrom's Edge, a brand new niche wargame released in 2015, and it's about the same - they got 813 backers for a completely unheard of skirmish game from a new developer, rather than for an established game from an established company. Now there are obvious differences in the two, but it starts to give you a feeling of how the KS was primarily backed by a hard core of existing players, rather than attractive a much wider audience.

Again, I'm going to compare this with Hawk's Drop Fleet Commander. Here we have a similar game from a similar sized manufacturer, with an existing install base (albeit in a different game). Their KS bagged just over 4.5 times as many backers as Spartans DW Kickstarter, and should be directly comparable to the FA expansion just launched. Numbers of backers is always a better indicator of Kickstarter success than just money, because there are so many variables in the latter.

As I type, there are 217 backers for the FAv3 Kickstarter, about half of what it needs to fund. I'm pretty sure it will fund, but I'm doubtful they'll get as many backers as their DW project. Why? Well, firstly some DW players are also FA players, and not all DW Kickstarter backers have their pledges yet.

This is probably the Number 1 No-No of ANY Kickstarter - don't release another Kickstarter when the first one hasn't fulfilled yet. It just isn't on - it leaves a bad taste and the feeling that the company is struggling with cash flow. It doesn't build confidence, and it just isn't cricket.

The v3 Ruleset

So followers of my blog and podcast will probably be aware what I think here. Spartan Neil specifically promised the community that v3 would really be v2.5 - the existing solid ruleset with tweaks to address a couple of pretty minor flow issues and make games easier to play, the intent being that you could play existing games in a shorter time or larger games in existing timeframes. Here is the actual quote from his own forums that proves I'm not just making this up:

So to quote "This isn't about rebooting v2.0". This year, he's rebooting v2 because he didn't like how certain bits played - again, his words - and so essentially he's rebooting the universe on a whim. Players did NOT ask for this (or those that did were definitely in the minority). This grates with the continuous references to "This is what you wanted" messages throughout the Kickstarter, which sounds like they're trying to convince themselves rather than the players.

So, SG (or Neil) has decided to produce v3, and have released various "sneak peeks" of these on their community, which have had a VERY mixed set of reactions. They are still talking about re-statting everything (in future tense, which is worrying given the timescale), which means testing must be difficult and it sounds like the rules are all over the place. They are also reacting to announcements - there is a Command Order that gives Terrans +2 Shields (which is plain dumb), which on reaction of "jeez that's stupid" they're saying "oh, yeah, we'll address that". Now I know some of you will be like "c'mon Alex, that means they're listening to their customers". Yes, you could say that, but to me it highlights fundamental issues with the developers understanding of the core game mechanics when they're missing such obvious faux-pas at such a later stage.

So how does this affect the KS? Well, I sure as hell wouldn't want to back a miniatures game KS that has rules so far from being finished. Just what am I buying into? The rules COULD be excellent, or they could be pure BS. We just don't know (though I'd say there's pretty compelling evidence at this stage which way it's heading, and the whiff of excellence is decidedly missing...). So Spartan are asking you to back this project regardless of what it's rules are...that's...well...bold would be one word for it.

The Background

One thing I constantly went on at Neil about during my tenure as Spartan Alex was filling out the background - people want a consistent, deep and detailed universe. I fleshed out a huge amount of this, and no interest was shown. Now it's great that SG are addressing this (at last), BUT....wait, what's this? "a revamped and improved narrative"...uh-oh, that sounds suspiciously like ret-con...and here's the killer line:

"...our major rewrite of past and present events truly sets the scene for the continued evolution of the Firestorm Galaxy."

Ugh - this is one of my personal hates of ANY games company...and the major question it raises in my mind is...why? Was there a fundamental flaw in the prior law (such as it was?). No. So why do it? Just to shoehorn in some more races for people ti buy? Firestorm already has one of the most diverse sets of races for ANY wargame, with over 20 individual races you can buy fleets for. Do we NEED any more? So why do it? Well, one thing is models - more races = more models, and Spartan are banking on people buying new shiny. We'll some to that in a minute.

First, back to fluff. Pathogen are being re-invented (unnecessary), Saurians are being introduced (also unnecessary, but I'll put this one as a "fair enough, some people want that" item), but worst of all, they're being introduced in a 2-player boxed set TOGETHER. Why is that a problem? Look at the Firestorm map - the Saurians are in the galactic Northwest, the Pathogen are across the other side, between the Sorylians and the Relthoza in the Rift. So somehow the Pathogen have travelled across the entire width of the Sorylian Collective, through a massive piece of Terran space and attacked the Saurians? How does that make any sense at all?

"But no, Alex, you've got it wrong - there are new galactic maps"....Oh god, so now they're literally changing the shape of their 8-year old universe to fit with a new retconned fluff? This just burns any background credibility of the universe for me. The problem is that Neil has layered his new narrative on top of a prior background which is wholly incompatible with it - like trying to paint watercolour on acrylic, it just doesn't stick - it feels flaky.

I've always maintained you need to build a universe from the ground up - what are the limitations of the drives used, how does communication work, what do people use for power etc - all of this gives a universe a centralised feel and theme, and frames future story writing. Without that, there are no bounds and it becomes an amorphous entity which feels completely ad-hoc. That doesn't mean you don't have flexibility or have to nail down every plank of wood, but you build the boxes that people can play within.

I'll reserve judgement until I see a copy (which I won't buy, obviously). but this part really turns me off as an existing player of the game.

Models

Let's talk about models. There are two factions touted in this expansion, the Saurians and Pathogen. Looking at the Saurians, Spartan have managed to create an aesthetic that is different to most of their existing fleets, which is a good thing.

The centrepiece of this is the Heavy Battleship, which is the main image shown on the Kickstarter page. There are no additional images of this on the page, though there is one of the BattleCarrier which is available as an add-on in the force pack for an extra £75 (which seems on the high side).

Whilst the aesthetic is not one I particularly like, it is distinctive and I'm sure there will be those out there that love them and we know the models will be nice, that's one thing Spartan are still able to do well. They're also introducing something that I (and many other players) introduced to their games years ago - dice trackers for HP & CP:

Not exactly innovation, but at least they've done this now - will be interesting to see if they have double ones for Large ships with >6 Hull Points and Crew Points. So far not, if their KS page is accurate.

They also show renders for the other side of the Saurians:

These are a more Battlefleet Gothic version of the fleet, and do nothing for me at all, though this is something Neil and I discussed a couple of years back - it would have been funny if they'd have done this before the BFG video game was released - and they may have gotten some uptake from BFG fans, but the timing for this just makes this an in-joke which goes nowhere.

We also see a border station for the Saurians:

Whilst this looks initially OK, I know that all those grey pieces are going to be acrylic, which Spartan does not do well and is pretty horrible for these sorts of models, Its got a bit of a Star Trek Deep Space vibe, but overall it's just going to be a big white elephant of a piece IMO - the thing is huge and I'm 99% sure there will be no decent rules for it on release - we've seen this a lot from SG.

OK, so moving onto Pathogen, let's see if Spartan have been listening since those uninspiring models they previewed at Adepticon:

Ugh! Yes, they listened...and produced Tyranid Turds. Oh dear. These have gone too far in the organic direction for me - first they were just Relthoza ships with some droopy bits, now they're pure organic chompy, which is a shame since Pathogen had such potential. Again, there will be players who like these models, and if I were a BFG player they would probably serve as better Tyranid ships than what I had, but these are once again quite disappointing. I'm not sure whether the tentacled turd Large or the Sperm Smalls are my least favourite, but I'm definitely not a fan of these. I think Spartan could have made some really unique models here - techno-hexagon surfaces with tentacles and angles - a fusion of organic and machine, more Geiger-esque than Mr Crapper.

We get a Battleship in the add-on expansion pack here too, which is less turd-like than the Assault Carrier but still too organic sea-life for me.

We also have some other models:

Hang on -these are the same transport ships that SG have been giving away for free with orders in their regular weekend fire-sales over the past few months! They're ok, nothing revolutionary or innovative here, they look like decent transport models which you can use in any game, but their inclusion in their KS is a bit odd, especially when the tagline is; "Often overlooked by gamers, scenery can be used to enhance not only the aesthetic of gameplay but can also vastly improve the overall gameplay."

Excuse me but "Often overlooked by Gamers..."? Do we, as gamers, overlook terrain? I don't think so, especially in Firestorm where terrain is a vital piece of the game - what are SG trying to tell us? "Hey, you idiots that forget scenery, we're making some so you don't in future". The dialogue is just baffling.

Also, the models are going to be delivered pre-coloured for those of us who don't what to paint. Eh? Tournaments in almost any game usually REQUIRE painting beofre play, and though most of us will admit to not painting enough, I don't know many mini wargamers that don't think this is part of the hobby. This isn't a board game. This isn't X-Wing. If I'm not painitng something, I want it pre-painted so it still looks good on the board, not just a purple-brown of baby-poo khaki lump of plastic. I kinda get the sentiment, but does SG really think its appeal is that broad? If they do, they're kidding themselves - do they really understand what their players want?

It's all what we asked for...

Well, apparently they do. Based on their Survey (that extensive one that lasted for slightly more than a single weekend), this is all what we wanted. Hmm, I'm calling BS on that one. Their survey was (as surveys go) massively flawed and very blinkered. They released a survey that would essentially tick one or more boxes on a couple of pathways they had pre-ordained, it wasn't a properly open survey asking for what players wanted in a way that was ever going to change their direction. 

What do I mean?

Well, I design a survey for a specific purpose - if I ask a question like "Would you like more models?" to an audience of gamers, I know the answer will be "Yes", because we all like models. That doesn't mean that Firestorm players wanted new factions. "Players want more background material" does NOT mean re-write the history of the universe. This underlies my big problem with SG at the moment, because they're STILL NOT LISTENING. Yes, they say they are, yes, people on the forums might be trying to engage people (like Spartan FA Mike), but at the end of the day these people are fans, not Spartan Games, and the core of SG have already made their decision, and then they bend the facts and survey results to support their pre-ordained decisions.

Spartan Neil has told us this already, if you read his blogs. Essentially there he said that he changed elements of the game because he didn't like them. Now that's fine - it's his company, his game, he can do what he likes - but that is NOT doing something "because players wanted it". We didn't. We wanted kins ironing out of what was one of the best minis games on the market, not it porting into a Halo/Planetfall/Firestorm/Dystopian Wars hybrid.

Kickstarter Campaign

The final issue I have here is that even as the most ardent Spartan Fanboy, this KS campaign is a bit of a fuck-up. I mean, they're only releasing the Illosians if they hit a KS goal. You only get a Pathogen Dreadnought as a KS exclusive. The add-ons for the Core races are renders of blank boxes, with a message telling you to go to the blog to find out more, when the blog is empty. That money still burning a hole in your pocket for this project?

For me, this feels like a money-grab, It feels like SG are trying to fund bad business decisions by using Kickstarter to shore up their day-to-day business. It feels like we're being lied to.

Now maybe that is the case, and all is shiny in Spartan's future, but I'm not seeing it. If I were an investor and looking for good growth shares, I'd be looking to GW and not SG right now. I mean, I know if I buy some GW stuff I can find a game nearby, and if I get bored I can shelve my stuff and bring it out in a couple of years and not much will have changed. Not sure I feel that way about my Spartan stuff.

So should I back the Kickstarter?

You're asking me? You know the answer. I'm going to wait a year or so and pick up the models I want in a show bargain bin. But hey, if you're that much of a fanboy and you believe SGs hype, sure, go ahead. While you're there, I've got a great time-share property proposal for you - you can't lose....

Overview of changes from v2 in Fanstorm

After the last post there were a certain portion of the Facebook fraternity (yes, they're all guys) who started trolling me and my post/blog. Now I don't mind healthy discussion, but when things start to get nasty, personal or just dull with people asking the same thing that you really don't have to justify, it's trolling. These ranged from people arguing that v1.5 was the best version ever and saying v2 was awful (yeah, really!), to unrelenting demands for evidence to be shown on my claims.

I guess this is inevitable, and I've set myself up for it by putting supposedly "controversial" statements into the public domain, but it still feels unpleasant. It made me think whether I should continue, or whether just to leave FA to v3 and walk away.

But guess what? This is a personal blog, it's my opinions, thoughts and feelings, and I don't HAVE to substantiate my claims beyond getting people to look at things themselves. Do I have evidence to support my claims? Yes. Is all of it in a format I could share? No - because some of it is in personal emails from Neil, some of it is from my former privileged access within Spartan which is not publicly available, and despite my lack of faith in Neil and his company's direction - and my vocal opposition to the things he's doing - I'm not Julian Assange!

So if my writings make you angry, if you don't believe my claims - that's fine. Don't read my blog, don't read my Facebook posts, just carry on - if all is good and I'm an annoying fly buzzing around, you have nothing to worry about, do you? If you think I've got "sour grapes" or am just grinding a personal grudge, then leave me to it - how can it affect you? When TheoryMachine release Fanstorm, don't even look at it - how can it be of interest? Here's a thought - you're probably not the demographic I want to support anyway.

In any case, I am going to continue, so like it or lump it!

The people I DO want to support are those I've always wanted to support, those invested in the Firestorm universe as it developed from v2 release. Those who have bought into that (sometimes in a large way) and have felt let down and disappointed by unfulfilled promises. Those who crave more depth and background in their FA universe that works with the prior background and timelines (such as they are) and flesh out the technologies and structures therein. People who like the structure and playstyle of FA in v2, but want those tweaks made to make the game flow better than it did before, without losing the complexity of the game.

FA is a relatively "chunky" wargame - it's got lots of stuff in it. It's like 40k in that regard, rather than X-Wing. It SHOULD be a 90-120 (maybe 180) minute game, not a 30-60 minute game. That's what Fanstorm is aiming to do - preserve (or actually increase) the tactical depth of the game, whilst making elements identified by the bulk of the community and metas faster or flowing more easily.

So what does this mean? What changes were the FFG looking at and how does that affect Fanstorm - in short, what is due to change in Fanstorm, what will it give you? 

1. Making movement faster/easier. I've already described this in prior blogs.Someone has commented that "Firestorm doesn't need templates" - well, true, it doesn't NEED them. So why did we look at this as a solution? Well, they have been playtested worldwide with a number of groups, and most like them....there's a couple of reasons for that I believe. 
1. It makes predicting movement easier, because a template shows where you'll end up (roughly) before you move the model, and "rewinding" ship movement is a time-killer. This means you can see where movement will leave you touching other stuff before starting - this is really important in the later stages of the game (or "the knife fight"). 
2. It makes movement easier whilst preserving the "feel" of existing FA movement (since you're still describing a polygon of the same radius. In fact, I'd argue that the movement feels more like space combat movement than v2.0, because it's more fluid on the tabletop.
2. Adjusting SRS. This is a hugely controversial topic, and one solution is unlikely to satisfy everyone's personal likes in this regard. The route we talked about most was to remove PD from bombers entirely, keeping their potency but making them very vulnerable to Interceptor cover. Interceptors are "attached" to squadrons for PD support, preventing wholesale PD wall spamming. They can also be "attached" to large tokens to provide protection on attack runs. Fighters now become more useful because they do a little of both roles, a bit less well. So you can run in two squadrons of Bombers on a target, but if the opposing player can get Fighters or Interceptors there, they're going to get mauled. This makes SRS collaborative, and not just a plain binary choice between Bombers or Interceptors. There are reasons for taking the other SRS types too (more below)
3. Firing Options. Linking is a bugbear of some (not all) players of FA. It can get a bit complex at times with squadrons of partly damaged ships with multiple linking weapons...what dice do you roll? We tossed this around a lot, and the best way seemed to be to have a second stat for every weapon showing their linking values, and then just subtract all damage from the linked pool before rolling. This makes calculation faster, and also opens up some design space where some weapons are better than others at linking. We also looked at other options, like Targeted Strikes, which are hardly used in FA v2.0. Moving to a Heavy Dice mechanic for them, together with a redesign of the TS table increases their potency without making them indispensable. Overwatch was also introduced to add another tactical option without any real increase in complexity - we determined it would probably be little used, but situationally it would be important to have, so why not?
4. Fleet Building. This was one of the highlight innovation successes of v2, but it was restrictive in some ways - releasing new ship types for a race caused issues if it didn't already have it in there, and it was possible to build some effective spam lists. Fanstorm approaches this by using a more fluid definition of Tier level based on a ships value. This provides much more design flexibility and actually allows much more balanced but creative list building, with no extensive calculations.
5. The Aquans. This is really about points balancing and adjustment. Because SRS can be spammed easily by the Aquans (and the Relthoza), and the Aquans have lots of arcs of fire, and are quite forgiving to play they're often seen as "easy mode", especially by new players. This is an issue because perception is reality, but actually is addressed a lot by a variable threshold fleet building tool and some overall recosting. The Aquans should be a highly efficient, highly technological race but without the reserves to field masses of top-tier stuff, which the current rules allow. What they have is very points-efficient, but they have to grow their ship hulls, meaning they should be (from a fluff perspective), a bottom-heavy race. What plays at the moment is the exact opposite. These unintended effects occur in a few races, but its actually very simple to rebalance that without nerfing the hell out of anyone.
6. Command & Control. We saw an opportunity to have a more structured C&C function than the FTB/TAC card/Admiral interaction in existing FA, to add some tactical depth to this and other elements. As such, we introduced Command Allocation Dice - a pool generated at the start of a turn and used for various effects - re-rolls of disorder and repair checks, overwatch fire, TAC cards, Admiral special abilities and Cyberdefence. As they're dice it's easy to track, since when you roll it it's gone - and everyone has lots of dice in FA to use in this regard. It also adds flavour to races such as the Directorate, who wear down the CAD pool, but also allows the opposing player to be more tactical with their cyberdefence, rather than the "Dindrenzi are immune, Sorylians are very vulnerable" result that using FTB had in v2
7. Terrain. Some Terrain needed tweaks, and interactions with terrain clarified in some areas (e.g. the ghost ship/station). The main issue with terrain was how much to put down and how - a more structured way to build your gaming tables is presented.
8. Cyberwarfare. You either love it or hate it, and it feels either OP or worthless - in effect down to a table where 33% of the time you generated a Hazard marker. These are now tweaked to make them more appealing and consistent, without making them direct weapons
9. Mines. Although I never really had an issue with v2 mines, some people did - especially in where they come in the order of play, specifically making "drive by" minings that are indefensible a thing. Making Mines regular indirect weapons solves this to a large extent...drive by minings put the mining ship equally at risk....
10. Damage, Degradation & Repair. The double degradation method with HP and CP affecting AD was complex for new players, and didn't add much to the game. We got rid of CP affecting AD, and instead had it affect repair instead, which seems much more logical and interesting.
11. Streamlining MARs. There are a lot of MARs in FA, and not all of them are extensively used or particularly useful, so an examination or those and making them either more useful or getting rid of them entirely seemed like a good idea. Also, MARs that required iterative dice rolls (like Torpedo Spook - which force re-rolls) were looked at to see if the feel/effect of the MAR could be preserved whilst reducing the time to resolve it. So in the case of Torpedo Spook, halving the defensive PD successes of a target is a faster (and more consistent) way of reducing the effectiveness of PD than re-rolling those same dice. Additional dice-rolling steps where they don't add much to the overall experience is always a preferable route.

Now is this going to be universally loved? Probably not - but the beauty of Fanstorm is that if people adopt it and think things should be changed, we can look at them and do what the community wants - or provide solid reasons why we think that would alter other aspects of the game.

Anyway, let me know if you think this sounds interesting, and it's worth TheoryMachine finishing the ruleset - we don't want to just waste our time on something no one wants, after all.

2017 - What will it bring for us gamers? Part 1: Spartan Games

Whatever your opinion of 2016 in other ways, it was a pretty good year in gaming. The hobby as a whole is growing at around 30% where most industries can hope for about 10% of that. We saw the arrival of some major new franchises like Dropfleet Commander and GW seem to be organising themselves in a slightly better way in many areas, despite still carrying on with Age of Sigmar (!). The rise of the board game strengthened more than ever, and there were a lot of great Kickstarter projects that were announced/launched and sometimes fulfilled. Not a bad time at all to be a gamer.

After looking over the Man Battlestations Blog, I thought it might be fun to do a similar predictive series of posts here over the coming days. So, what do I think is on the horizon for 2017?

Spartan Games

Let's start off with my once favourite games company. Unfortunately, after seeing behind the curtain for several years, I don't see great things ahead for SG. Why? Well, let me give you something of a parallel story from history.

I'm old enough to have been a kid during the personal gaming computer invention and rise. Back when the Sinclair ZX Spectrum was created in the '80s, I was at school and rode that crest of early computing brought to the masses. The market exploded from nothing to millions almost overnight, as everyone wanted this new stuff. There were many possibilities for a kid to convince their parents to buy, but the old Spectrum was the market leader, instantly recognisable with its rubber keyboard and coloured flash. Following it were the Commodore 64 for those with a bit more cash, and the high-end BBC Model B, which you could even get a floppy drive for.

The good old "Speccy" with its weird rubber keys

My parents were not high earners - not in itself a bad thing - but when coupled with their shocking lack of knowledge and gullibility, they became prime targets for the high street salesguy in the electronics store wanting to shift non-moving stock. Enter the Oric-1. 

Despite having hard keys, it was still pretty horrible to type on

"WTF is an Oric-1?", I hear you say as you frantically google it in another tab....well, let me tell you, in principle it was a better machine that the Spectrum - it had a non-rubber keyboard, a better BASIC (Spectrum BASIC was non-standard), a great music chip and it was competitively priced. Unfortunately it had some QC issues, meaning the machine I got on Christmas day didn't work properly. It was returned and I got another, which also had issues. Eventually this all got resolved by me getting an Oric Atmos, an even better machine with a keyboard of actual proper keys.

Oooh - sexy...proper keys that were nice to type on!

Of course, the Oric's market lifespan was limited - the Oric-1's initial QC problems in a marketplace where Sinclair machines were churned out in their thousands and with increasing memory meant that developers largely left it alone, meaning the range of games you could get for the Oric machine was much smaller than the Spectrum, Commodore 64 or even the BBC. In short, it failed to keep up with market demands and expectations, and though it was a great machine, its users enthusiastic and passionate, it fell into the dustbin of history long before its rivals.

If that story felt familiar, then it should. I feel Spartan - once ahead of the curve in this space - have been equalled and now (arguably) overtaken by their competitors. I don't believe Kickstarter funded projects will save them. They will continue with a (slowly shrinking) core of supporters, until the point their various games go mail-order only and/or become unsupportable, and go the way of Uncharted Seas.

The reasons behind this are twofold - resource and leadership. Spartan are located in a beautiful, but relatively remote and rural part of the UK. This provides relatively cheap building rent costs, but restricts the appeal of the location for up-and-coming developers. As we've all seen, staffing at Spartan is limited, and restricts their ability to keep up with customer demands, both in terms of information and product. In terms of leadership, Spartan Neil has a distinctive dictatorial style which makes him difficult to work with, which enhances the resourcing issue further. It also leads to some bizarre decisions being made that are not good for his business, but as the owner, who would stand up to those decisions?

This is something I am very familiar with, and there is a concept known as "The Healthy Organisation" - the works of Patrick Lencioni are great in this regard. Basically it talks about not only making SMART-led, KPI-monitored decisions in an organisation, but also making sure you take care of people, have an environment where decisions can be challenged and communicated fully and transparently etc. Companies that do this tend to do very well, because people are engaged, driven to succeed and feel supported in their endeavours.  For me, SG doesn't look like a SMART nor a Healthy Organisation.

Now this is OK if you're not fighting against the tide or want only a small piece of the pie, but less so when your market is very competitive or is fast-moving. Ten years ago this was probably true, and as SG entered into a background of a GW-dominated industry as a disruptive influence, it did well and developed quickly as a minor league player. The problem is, other companies did too. Mantic, for instance, which led by an ex-GW director, was much more business minded than SG.

So, specific predictions? I guess SG will fail to hit their DW Kickstarter fulfilment dates - it finished at around 270% of their goal with 858 backers (around 30-40% of other roughly comparable niche KS projects in terms of backer numbers) - though interestingly they had just THREE retail backers, which shows that they've either used up the goodwill of retailers out there or that shops are just going to wait and see if this has an effect on demand before getting stock - I suspect a little of both. Out of the pledges, 20 of them were their highest level "design a model" pledge, providing almost 12% of the total funding....which is a lot of promised design time, given SG committed to a couple of days with the designer each - that's 40 days or 2 full work months. Either they were not 100% honest about this or that's a LOT of design time not being spent on FA, PF & Halo...or they will horribly over-run. Or both, possibly all three!

Will FA v2.5/v3 come out in 2017? That's a toughie....I know "Spartan Linde" is working on this (he was a member of the FFG), but given I know his input, style and local meta, plus the increased centralisation of design to SG, I kind of hope it doesn't, because either the changes will be minimal and somewhat arbitrarily pointless, or they're going to screw it up. It would be a dangerous time to screw up, because Hawk will have fulfilled all their KS pledges, smoothed over any burns and got other stuff out by then. Plus they'll have had 6-9 months of real world play and feedback to hone their game and grow their userbase. If you like FA more than DFC, but can only get a game of DFC, guess what's going to happen in time? So overall I'm going to say they will, and it will have little impact on saving the system, primarily because Neil fails to grasp what people really want/need from a games company beyond shiny resin models.

What I hope SG do is release PF v2, which is really needed, though once again I think they'll screw it up for exactly the same reasons as above. I really feel for dedicated Planetfall players because the models are great, just the rules and fluff don't do them or the universe justice, nor has Spartan shown players any respect with the shockingly poor lack of support they've had - essentially being abandoned for most of 2016, and "supported" in the most haphazard and poorly executed way I've ever seen from a supplier.

I also expect Dystopian Legions will go the way of Uncharted Seas, and disappear completely. I also expect they'll do some batshit-crazy stupid project like their 1/300th scale 1946 WWII game they showed at Salute 2016, though god only knows what shape that will actually take. After some small hiatus they'll then abandon it.

Halo is the other difficult one. HFB has been little supported of late, and though HGC had an introductory splash, I've been underwhelmed with their releases post launch and their fulfilment hasn't been great. I can't imagine 343 are wildly enthusiastic about revenue numbers, and I expect further pressure from them on SG, impacting other ranges releases, or that relationship to become rather soured. It could go wither way from where I'm sitting.

So what I expect from SG is a set of releases which are not wholly thought through nor tie in with prior canon or background, because they don't see that as especially important. I expect them to try to lean more heavily on non-compensated fan support and Kickstarters to sustain themselves, and the "fickle gamers" as some have called them (or those with common sense and self respect as I would refer to us) gradually adopt other things to do with our time. 

I don't expect SG to explode, implode or revive their business, but to gradually become less and less significant in the gaming world as other companies get it more consistently right, and have their fingers on the pulse of what gamers want. I'd love SG to prove me completely wrong, but they've never failed so far to fulfil my jaded expectations of them. As T.S.Elliot wrote;

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Dropfleet Commander & Firestorm Armada side-by-side - Part 2: Game Mechanics

In the second of my side-by-side looks at DFC vs FA, I'm going to look at how the actual games stack up against each other. This post is really a comparison of the mechanics nuts and bolts, and not how the games actually play, which I'll do for the next in this series. So let's plunge straight in....

Basic Stats

Firestorm Armada

Designation - What type of ship this is - e.g. Battleship or Frigate

Size Class - Small, medium or Large - also designates whether the ship is a Capital ship or not

Squadron Size - the number of ships present to make up a legal squadron (e.g. 2-4)

DR - damage Rating - the value that must be reached to damage the ship

CR - Critical rating - the value that must be reached to critically damage a ship

Mv - Movement - How far in inches the ship can move each activation

HP - Hull Points - the amount of damage the ship can take before it is destroyed

CP - Crew Points - the value of the non-combatant crew running the ship

AP - Assault Points - the value of the marine contingent aboard the ship for boarding

PD - Point Defence - the value of systems used to defend against torpedoes, SRS and boarding

MN - Mine value - the strength of mines laid by the ship

Points Cost - self explanatory

Shield rating - the value of any shield systems the ship has (including Cloaking fields)

Wings - the value of SRS (Short-range spacecraft) the ship can accommodate

Turn Limit - how far the ship must move before it turns 45degrees

Dropfleet Commander

Scan - the range of the ships active search systems in inches

Sig - Signature - how "visible" a ship is, in inches added to an enemy's scan range

Thrust - How far in inches the ship can move each activation

Hull - the amount of damage the ship can take before it is destroyed

A - Armour - effectively a "saving throw" per damage point, expressed as a dice value (eg 4+)

PD - Point Defence - the value of systems used to defend against Close Action and Launch Assets

G - Group - The normal operating range for the ship, similar to Squadron Size in FA

T - Tonnage - What size class the vessel is for fleet building

Special - Lists any special rules such as Launch and Atmospheric

Points - self explanatory

Force Size and Building

Firestorm Armada

Firestorm Armada has three main levels of play - Patrol Fleet (up to 800 points), Battle Fleet (801-1500) and Grand Fleet (>1501). It has to be said that the vast majority of games are played at the first two levels, since people find the Grand fleet level takes too long.

Within the various game sizes you have three Tiers of ships - Tier 3s, which are generally small Frigates and Corvettes, Tier 2s, which are Cruisers, Gunships and the like and Tier 1s, which are everything from a carrier up to dreadnoughts. Depending on what points level you play will determine the minimum and maximum number of the different squadrons you have in your various Tiers. There are various other restrictions and possibilities layered on this, plus it is possible to customise individual squadrons of ships, so you can build an extremely diverse set of fleets for any race at any points level.

Cost of ships range from 15points for an escort or corvette, around 20-30 points for frigates, 40-90 points for medium ships such as cruisers and the like, around 170-220 points for Battleships and around 280-350 for dreadnoughts (the largest ships currently in the game)

Dropfleet Commander

Dropfleet also has three levels of play - Skirmish (up to 1000 points), Clash (1000-1999) and Battle (2000-3000). As the game is new I can't really comment as to practicality at the higher levels compared to FA.

Fleet organisation is a bit different to FA, as you assemble your forces from "Battlegroups", each Battlegroup being made up of various ships (not restricted to the same type). There are four types of Battlegroup (Pathfinder, Line, Vanguard and Flag), and four categories of ship that can go into a battlegroup (Light, Medium, Heavy and Super-Heavy). Battleships are Super-Heavy, and only come into Clashes and Battles - this is an interesting setup, and as each Battlegroup has variable composition, you get a wide range of options...If I got it right at Skirmish level you can have 0-2 Heavy, 1-8 Mediums and 0-10 Light Ships present.

Cost of ships range from around 22-50 points for Light, 79-140 points for Medium , around 155-210 points for Heavy and around 220-285 points for Super-Heavy (the largest ships currently in the game)

Game Size, Scenarios & Setup

Firestorm Armada

Games tend to use a 4'x6' table regardless of game size due to the long weapon ranges and design heritage. There are 6 core scenarios in the core rulebook, which was expanded to 10 with the System Wars booklet (you don't necessarily need the supplement ships to play these, though its recommended). Setup of the game can be done in several ways, and recommendations for placement of terrain (asteroid fields, gas clouds, planetoids, debris fields, gravity wells and comets) together with their effects are all provided. Setup is a pretty painless procedure, though agreement on what an "average" table looks like varies depending on local meta.

Dropfleet Commander

The recommended table size is 4'x4' - an obvious and immediate difference to Firestorm. There are 8 scenarios in the core book, and it has to be said these are a lot more objective-driven than Firestorm's, partially because of the nature of the game (orbital deployment and defence rather than deep-space combat). The DFC rulebook also goes on to talk about Ways to Play, Tournaments and integrating DZC, as well as running Campaigns and days - this shows Hawk's approach to its games, which is very much about building the community and building its games towards this - something it definitely wins out on here in DFC and generally as a company.

Gameplay - General

Firestorm Armada

FA is an alternate activation game, and was quite early on the scene in this regard. Players can use a tactical card (TAC) before rolling initiative each turn, bring in reserve forces (if applicable), then activate a squadron of their choice from those left to activate. In the Squadron's activation it can move, shoot and perform other actions like laying mines, launching fighters and bombers, and attempt boarding actions. Once an individual squadron has finished all of its actions, play passes over to the other player, who then chooses one of his squadrons to activate and so on.

Dropfleet Commander

DFC is also an alternate activation game, but this is done by Battlegroup rather than by ship squadron or group. The order of these groups activation is defined at the beginning of the turn by use of Battlegroup cards, the order of which is set by the player in the Planning Phase of the turn. This is the first major departure in gameplay which gives a slightly different feel to the game. During a Battlegroups activation, each group within the battlegroup can activate in any order the player wishes. this means you have a strategic choice to make at fleet building - more Battlegroups with lower numbers of Groups, or more Groups in less Battlegroups. There is also the option to use a Special Order before a ship activates, which is something similar to the TACs used in Firestorm, but applied at a more individual tactical level, since each ship in a Battlegroup can choose whether or not to use the Special Order. These "Ships Orders" are an important part of the flavour of the game, since they determine how the ship behaves and also affect its Signature value, making it more vulnerable to attack.

Gameplay - Movement

Firestorm Armada

Ships in FA move like wet navy ships, having a minimum move and a turn limit. Movement can be ponderous - 6" with 45 degree turns every 3" - or rapid - 14" with the ability to turn a 360 in 8" - depending on the individual ship (smalls generally being faster and easier to turn). 

Dropfleet Commander

Movement depends on the Orders given to a ship, rather than by the type of size of a vessel;

• Standard Orders - Turn at the start of activation, and move from half to all of its Thrust value. 
• Station Keeping - Uses 0-half of its thrust movement with a turn at the start or end of its move
• Course Change - two turns at any point during its movement
• Max Thrust - Turn at the start and use up to double movement

Any of these orders other than "standard", however, inflict a "Minor Spike, which adds 6" to its Signature value. there are some other Orders which affect movement too;

• Weapons Free, Silent Running & Active Scan - All prevent ANY turning that activation

Gameplay - Weapons and Firing

Firestorm Armada

Ships in Firestorm have variable numbers of weapons systems, which are broken down into "Direct" and "Indirect" types - both of which have general rules around them, such as Indirect weapons not requiring LOS and not degrading from combat damage. The Direct weapons come in different flavours - Kinetic, Beam, Nuclear, Scatter and Primary - each of these having different properties associated with them. Indirect weapons also come in different types such as torpedoes, cyberwarfare and gravity. Weapon Systems all have 4 range "bands" (1-4), but the size of each of these depends on the weapon class - a Primary weapon has 8" bands, a kinetic weapon has 12" bands.

Arcs in FA are Fore, S/P (as in the example above), Aft and Fixed Fore - the latter being a channel the width of the ship's base. There are also turrets which have a full 360 range and gunracks which are P/S weapons that can only fire into one of the side arcs at a time.

Each weapon has a profile like this;

This shows the weapon type (in this case a Beam, which has 10" range bands), an Arc (in this case Port/Starboard broadsides) and a number of dice to be rolled depending on where the target is located. So up to 10" we would be rolling 12 dice, between 10 and 20 we'd roll 16 etc.

We then roll these dice, with a 4+ being a hit (unless other rules come into play, like difficult target etc), and using the exploding 6 mechanic that is present in most SG systems (every 6 counts as 2 successes and allows another dice to be rolled). 

Small and Medium ships have lower AD values, but can link their attacks as a squadron. in this way smaller ships can "gang up" to damage larger ships.

Overall the feeling in Firestorm is rolling big handfuls of dice to overwhelm the defences of your opponent - you can be rolling up to the low 20s in terms of number of dice. Having said that, you are still at the mercy of dice, though the number rolled have a statistical evening effect.

Dropfleet Commander

Firing in DFC is a bit different from FA. Firstly, weapons don't have ranges, ships do - the range is the Scan range of the ship you're firing with, plus the Signature of the Target....now all those "Spike" values start to make sense...you can turn hard, but you're increasing the range that the enemy can shoot you at!

Now weapons in DFC also have a stat line, and heres an example;

• Type - Descriptive text of the weapon
• Lock - what the weapon scores hits on
• Attack - the number of dice you roll
• Damage - the hull points removed for each successful hit
• Arc - as for Firestorm, you have similar arcs, though named S (L) and S (R) for Port/Starboard. also unlike firestorm, a weapon might be F,S(L) for example, meaning it can fire in either front or side arcs. this will be familiar to DZC or Planetfall players

Overall DFC feels a lot more like a developed GW mechanic, which is unsurprising given Andy Chambers involvement in the project (though this may also be very familiar to DZC players too!). Numbers of attack dice are much smaller - topping out at 6AD for some battleship systems (around a quarter of what FA tops out at!).

Damage and Attrition

Firestorm Armada

If the total equals or exceeds the DR, a HP is lost - if it exceeds the CR rating, it receives 2 HP and the attacker can roll on the Critical Hit table, which has effects from losing crew to detonating the ships reactor. Attacks which reach the CR threshold a number of times inflict 2HP for every multiple, with a corresponding table roll if the ship is still alive.

Shields may be rolled to remove hits, and these use exploding dice as well, though typically these are only 1 or 2 dice )3 or 4 being the high upsides). PD is used against Torpedo attacks in addition, and PD values can range from 1-9 depending on ship class and size.

Once damaged, ships begin to degrade in effectiveness - every HP of damage reduces the AD of the ships DIRECT attacks by 1, and also the PD. This makes Indirect weapons like Torpedoes - which don't degrade in this manner - much more effective, so the balance of weapon's effectiveness changes across the course of the game.

Dropfleet Commander

Critical hits are handled differently in DFC too - if your dice hit with 2 or more than you needed (so a 5+ in the example with a 3+ Lock above), they score a critical hit, which means you don't get to use your Armour value to attempt to prevent the damage.

After rolling attack dice and determining hits and final hull points of damage, the receiving player can roll dice for their Armour for any non-critical hits to attempt to reduce damage. Critical hits may not be defeated by Armour, but may be reduced with Passive Countermeasures if the ship has them active. Some weapons have the Close Action Special rule, which means you get to use PD against them, which can take out critical hits at a 2:1 rate.

If a ship takes more than half its hull in damage, it must roll for "Crippling Damage". this is a one-off check, unlike the Critical table in FA which is rolled on every time a critical hit is scored. Essentially this helps to kill damaged ships, shortening the life of vessels and helping to prevent "Zombie Ship" syndrome, which can occur in FA. Also when a ship loses all its Hull, you roll for Catastrophic damage, which determines the ships fate and effects - which again helps kill stuff around it.

SRS & Launch Assets

These are the fighters, bombers, interceptors and other small craft that both games have.

Firestorm Armada

Firestorm refers to these craft as SRS (Short Range Spacecraft), and they come in several flavours - Fighters, Interceptors, Bombers, Assault Shuttles and Support Shuttles. They are handled in the movement phase of their parent carrier, and may be launched and perform an attack run on a target within range in the same turn, or they may stay within range of their carrier to perform an attack run in future. SRS may also combine their PD values to prevent torpedo attacks in the vicinity. 

Dropfleet Commander

Launch Assets (as DFC calls them) can be launched against a target within twice the thrust range of the type of LA, except Dropships and Bulk Landers, which can only launch against targets within Thrust range. These are all launched in the Roundup Phase, which occurs after the activation phase of a turn. Dropfleet also classes Torpedoes as Launch Assets, whereas FA has Torpedoes much more like missiles in DFC. Once again, PD systems may be used to help ward off the attacks on a ship from Launch Assets - except for torpedoes. A ship may attempt to outmanoeuvre Launch Assets as well (including torpedoes) by using Course Change or Max Thrust orders. 

Special Rules

Firestorm Armada

Firestorm handles special rules with MARs - Model Assigned Rules, of which there are over 60 of at the moment. These provide all kinds of effects, and individual ships can have anything from zero to half a dozen, often with the option of gaining more.

Dropfleet Commander

DFC has around half of the special rules FA does, and these are separated into Ship special rules and weapon system special rules, with a ratio of about 1:2. They have some important key concepts however, like the Burnthrough rule on some weapon systems, which uses a type of capped exploding system.

Unique Elements

Firestorm and Dropfleet are both games designed for slightly different purposes, so a very direct comparison is somewhat difficult. This section talks about some of the things that are largely unique about each system.

Firestorm Armada

Boarding

Ships in Firestorm may attempt to capture each other during play, and although quite a variable tactic in terms of success, used well it can be decisive. As far as I can see DFC has no similar mechanism within the game. Rules for boarding are pretty simple and it's possible to build a boarding-heavy fleet, though in general it's a risky strategy.

Mines

Mines are a minor mechanic in Firestorm, but one that can have pivotal effects in games. Again, from what I've see so far there are no similar mechanics within DFC. This is understandable, since mining your own planet's atmosphere is probably unwise!

Dropfleet Commander

Orbital Combat

The main thing that is obviously different about DFC is that it occurs around a planet, including it's outer atmosphere. This is represented in game and has various affects on gameplay. The rationale behind Dropfleet is often to deposit assets to capture ground targets, which requires ships to enter the atmosphere. You have mechanics to traverse the orbital layers, and also one for "Orbital decay" (yes, it sounds bad, and it is bad - well, if you like keeping your ships intact and not as a firework display for your ground troops, anyway!)

Ground Combat

Although a space game, as you are landing assets on a planet, the ground combat element of this is also rendered in game as part of each turns Roundup Phase. You also have the extreme option of "nuking a site from orbit" - I can't wait!!!

Roundup & Conclusions

Well, it's difficult to make any conclusions from a simple comparison of mechanics, especially as I've not yet properly played DFC yet. However, just on initial impressions there are clear differences in the approach and rendering of game elements. Ironically perhaps, I can see tweaking both games to fit with each other, representing deep space and orbital combat respectively, which would be pretty cool.

Interestingly, there are some elements of both games that seem somewhat old-fashioned when compared to each other. The main differences do go back, however, to what each game is trying to achieve, and the approach of the two companies - Firestorm is much more about a straight-up fight with no real eye to tournament play, whereas DFC is all about objectives and the planet, with a definite nod to narrative campaigns and tournaments.

In some ways I'm not sure a direct comparison is possible or desirable here, I can see playing both games without too much difficulty or overlap, to be honest - I think they're scratching different itches. I can see someone who enjoys DFC enjoying FA and vice-versa, and certainly the models are compatible in terms of size, scale and number.

So I'm afraid, perhaps somewhat unsatisfactorily, I'm going to defer any proper judgement on the games until I've played them side-by-side with Oscar, and get our distilled wisdom down on the virtual page. Until then, enjoy the space ships!