FAP breakdowns in the new edition

[Triggy]

There just seems to be a slant in the core group that you don't have to protect against extreme uses of the rules. I was only able to throw a few verbal comments into the Chicago groups review of 2nd ed...damn a bad tooth and a trip to Aussie...but many of our comments seem to have been met with a 'your over-reacting' type response.

That may be entirely right in some ins tances but in the case of the great heaps of initiative sinks it most definately is not. And vs some races its virtual instant death. How can the Drazi compete vs races that can buy two for one initiative sinks at patrol? Buy the super breaching pod? Maybe stock up heavily on darkhawks?

The lack of acknowledgement that swarms are an issue (both Triggy and Davesaint have ridden swarms to victory in competetive tourneys) was one of the big disappointments in 2 ed for me.

Ripple

The problem was we were using different breakdowns and with only 3 Patrol choices per Raid FAP, it wasn't as much of a problem. (even then I still raised it as a problem though)

I think it's some vocal playtesters always react immediately and obviously against any suggested change. It's different people different times but the initial and/or most vocal response isn't even necessarily the majority opinion.

However, I think most of the playtesters actually agreed that initiative sinking is a major issue and although there was no consensus on the exact way to deal with it, there were several options that we would have each settled for. This FAP breakdown then came almost out of nowhere and seems to have surprised everyone. The simple 1/2/3/6/12 breakdown (or similar) seen in 1st ed. pre-Armageddon with a "buy back" (e.g. get 3 Patrol ships and 2 are used to buy back a Skirmish ship) worked reasonably enough to be what I thought was going to be used.

 

[katadder]

I think it's some vocal playtesters always react immediately and obviously against any suggested change. It's different people different times but the initial and/or most vocal response isn't even necessarily the majority opinion.

the change is more towards the swarm
the Gaim you mentioned earlier can have probably 80 fighters launched by end of turn 1 so thats not a problem either.

the only way to ever beat a swarm was through range and weapons or other swarms.

fly a g'quan or something else with big all round weapons through a swarm and see how man ships are left after. people go 40 ships ooh thats real bad, however try it. its really not a bad as others are making out to be. espcially when compared to some of the other ships that somehow made it past playtesting.

 

[Burger]

espcially when compared to some of the other ships that somehow made it past playtesting.

Huh? Example?

 

[Greg Smith]

The playtesters' consensus certainly seemed to be against swarms. The FAP breakdown of 1/2/3... certainly seemed to be the desired one. And the possibility of 40 Tethys was not a popular one.

I will admit to being one of the most vocal and reactionary playtesters. But after my initial reaction, I usually calm down.

Do we need to protect against abuses? To some degree. Keeping the fleets as balanced as possible is part of that. But equally finding a powerful combination of ships is part of the game. So is finding ships to beat that combination.

 

[CZuschlag]

I do have a couple of philosophical differences here.

Yes, we DO need to protect against abuses. That's the whole point of playbalancing -- and the whole point of rules. If a special situation breaks a fleet, you write a rule about it. Gamers are competitive. They will go for the biggest/best/cheesiest that they think they can field without being called "cheesy" to their face. And for some, that doesn't matter either; the only thing that does is the win. People like that kill gaming clubs. Rules like the above save them.

And as far as succeeding by buying combinations of ships? I disagree here, too. If the result is forecast by the fleet purchases I made, and we both build our fleets in secret, we have a problem. I want to play A Call to Arms. Not Rock-Paper-Scissors, and certainly not at $100.00 per fleet box. At least basic RPS is free and is done in 20 seconds.

 

[Burger]

Worse than 40 Tethys, is 39 Missile Tethys with an Admiral (lucky, revered leader and linked targetting for example)!!!

Yes, finding good fleets is part of the tactics of the game and should be a part of it. But there should be rules to prevent "I win" fleets like this.

 

[B_Steele]

The best protection against abusive fleets like this is a good tournament organiser that can come up with scenarios that require good, all around balanced fleets instead of the so-called "I win" fleets.

Also, I am a huge proponent of army composition points being part of your tournament score in my tournaments.

Super cheese fleets are going to win games but not the hearts of the judges.

But, then again, that's just me.

Cheers,
Bry

 

[Burger]

The best protection against abusive fleets like this is a good tournament organiser that can come up with scenarios that require good, all around balanced fleets instead of the so-called "I win" fleets.

For example?
Example of a scenario I mean, not example of a good tournament organizer!

 

[katadder]

i did prefer the buy 3 of 2 lower and buy up option myself. it solved all the problems with swarms although it meant you would never see ships used that were smaller than 1 level below the game level as it just wasnt worth it.

but even with that you can get 30 tethys/havens/etc but like i said its not that hard a fleet to play against, limited firepower, limited range and after every opponents firing phase you will be down a big chunk of ships.

also wouldnt do so well in campaigns as your ships would always need replacing.

 

[LaranosTZ]

This is also why I always include sportsmanship scores in any tournaments I run. I also make this sportsmanship score nearly as important, if not equally as important as the points you can accumulate during the battles you play. People with beardy fleets in that case very rarely end up winning, as their sportsmanship scores end up in the toilet.

 

[CZuschlag]

They'll overrun campaigns, however. No sportsmanship votes there!

All these other solutions smack of Deus Ex Machina. Why don't we just fix the original problem and be done with it?

 

[Lone Gunman]

I would have rather liked mongoose going away from the priority system to a standard army points system. that would have made balancing easier, as simply the points costs could be adjusted instead of total new stats.

 

[katadder]

the thing is everyone went on about 10 saggi fleets back in armageddon. how many have you seen? I havent seen a single 10 saggi fleet at a tourney, and i dont expect to see a 40 tethys fleet either.

 

[CZuschlag]

If I remember, a slightly superior version, the 9 Saggi+1 Oracle fleet, won GenCon last year, and its only serious opposition was (also renowned) The 2 Shadow Hunter+Shadow Scout fleet. As I hear secondhand, it wrecked the entire event.

My memory could be wrong, though. Was it Origins instead?

Shortly thereafter, we got the Armageddon Saggitarius, which created an outraged howl; shortly thereafter came the bugfixed Saggitarius we know today.

 

[Arcadia]

I recall a myth buster tread of the 10 saggi fleet. The report called it a big boring game.

I believe that a 40 patrol game will take for ever to play and the opponent will lose the game out of boredom and will refuse to ever play.

Paco.

 

[katadder]

so ok apart from our cheesed out friends in the US has anyone else seen a 10 saggi fleet?
and BTW that still wasnt a 10 saggi fleet anyway, was only 9 so no one has seen one used.

 

[JayRaider]

I thought 2E was gonna counter Swarming cheesy play?

 

[katadder]

it does, the rules are in a hardback not softback so you can smack the person who comes with 40 tethys on both sides of the head at the same time without needing expansions.

 

[Triggy]

so ok apart from our cheesed out friends in the US has anyone else seen a 10 saggi fleet?
and BTW that still wasnt a 10 saggi fleet anyway, was only 9 so no one has seen one used.

Yep, there was one in the Vassal tournament too and the final was 10 Sagittariuses vs 2 Shadow Hunters as well :roll: (at least I played the Hunters as Hull 5 for many of the games, except the final!)

This is also why I always include sportsmanship scores in any tournaments I run. I also make this sportsmanship score nearly as important, if not equally as important as the points you can accumulate during the battles you play. People with beardy fleets in that case very rarely end up winning, as their sportsmanship scores end up in the toilet.

And the trouble with subjective sportsmanship based upon fleet selections is that many players don't have problems with the same things. You end up in a situation with people bitching and giving low scores and doesn't actually improve the situation. Far better to sort out the problem in the first place.

I still would Implore Mongoose to print the 1/2/3/"buy up" FAP breakdowns (in S&P/online) and call them standard. It almost certainly won't happen but it would solve by far the biggest problem out there (and solve the boxed set values problem too).

I think it's some vocal playtesters always react immediately and obviously against any suggested change. It's different people different times but the initial and/or most vocal response isn't even necessarily the majority opinion.

the change is more towards the swarm
the Gaim you mentioned earlier can have probably 80 fighters launched by end of turn 1 so thats not a problem either.

the only way to ever beat a swarm was through range and weapons or other swarms.

fly a g'quan or something else with big all round weapons through a swarm and see how man ships are left after. people go 40 ships ooh thats real bad, however try it. its really not a bad as others are making out to be. espcially when compared to some of the other ships that somehow made it past playtesting.

Swarms of this scale really are that bad, even against fleets like 5 Novas/5 T'Loths/5 Centurions/10 Sagittariuses/any Gaim fighter swarm. It's only other swarms like the Abbai or Blue Star swarms that really come close. It was a few playtest games that really raised my fears when no matter what foe we tried, they all got utterly annihilated. We just couldn't find a way to beat them without using a swarm.

 

[Greg Smith]

There was one tourney at Wargames Workshop which had two players with 6 Sagis each, plus additional missile ships. One of them won. The other found out how effective hull 6 Centauri ships with interceptors were against a missile fleet.