My return draws nigh!

[SylvrDragon]

Hey, I've been waayyy too busy to play in months and I've decided to swing back around to my old EA fleet. I noticed that there's a new edition in town and I was wondering what the thoughts of my fellow players were on this topic?

 

[Target]

2 ed is pretty good.

 

[SylvrDragon]

2 ed is pretty good.

Not sounding too convincing. I heard that Mongoose pulled the usual and just fixed the stuff that was already ok and ignored the stuff that was way out of wack; no real surprise if you ask me. Too few are the full blown corporations that listen to the masses...though I couldn't tell you why that is.

 

[Hans Olo]

In my opinion you are absolutely right, what I think is rather disappointing.
2nd ed has not changed much, especially not the things that would have needed a change.

 

[SylvrDragon]

In my opinion you are absolutely right, what I think is rather disappointing.
2nd ed has not changed much, especially not the things that would have needed a change.

I'll assume that means things such as the fleets lists, the lack of effectiveness of War & Armageddon level vessels versus Skirmish level vessels, as well as things such as the awkwardness of interceptors being ignored subjects?

 

[Hans Olo]

Well the fleet list had a slight review, with most impact on the Centaurie (lost their DD Beams in exchange fore lots of DD AP or Twin linked AD) and overall the big four seem to bee a bit more balanced then in 1st ed. But not much improvement there I think.
War and Armageddon ships got a bit up gunned so they are temping now, but skirmish ships got bigger and better guns too so no change here the small ones are still better.
One point to mention is the new Beam rule (Hits always on 4+ on the firs roll and the second, third and so on) which only strengthens the low priority ships against the high priority ships.(They are now getting more hits from beams then before, but Hull 4 and 5 get less hits)

 

[Target]

I really like the new beam rules.
Some ships are still out of balance but not as bad as 1st ed apart from the giam.
If you want your big ships survive i'd house rule a redundancy system into your games. We have it & it's sorted the swarm issue.
I reckon it's quite a bit better than 1st ed.

 

[Banichi]

It might be personal preferance, but the rules governing auxillary craft, and the weapons that counter them seem a lot better now.

 

[Greg Smith]

Things that changed:

The speed 0 crit is gone, replaced with adrift.
Certain crits no longer include no special actions as part of their effects.
There is no longer any 'no wepaons' crits.
You can lose traits through crits.
Crits are easier to repair with 'All Hands to Deck'.
Anti-fighter is now a reactive trait.
Escorts add a new wrinkle to the game.
Admirals for every fleet.
There are two new fleets (three if you count the pak)
There is new stuff for every race.
The Centauri fit what we see in the show better.
The fleets and ships are generally more balanced across the board.
Armageddon ships that were lacking have been given a big boost.

I heard that Mongoose pulled the usual and just fixed the stuff that was already ok and ignored the stuff that was way out of wack; no real surprise if you ask me. Too few are the full blown corporations that listen to the masses...though I couldn't tell you why that is.

Don't believe everything you hear. Mongoose hardly fits the description of 'full-blown corporation' and a lot of the things that got changed in 2e got changed because they were asked for.

 

[SylvrDragon]

Don't believe everything you hear. Mongoose hardly fits the description of 'full-blown corporation' and a lot of the things that got changed in 2e got changed because they were asked for.

I've seen enough from Mongoose to completely discredit that statement. No offense. They still screw up just as much as the other 'full blown corporations' so their status as one is simple semantics. Seriously, Armageddons needed a MAJOR, like catastrophically MAJOR upgrade. They were utterly worthless before. You could buy a pair of War level vessels and get more maneuverability, fire power, flexibility and durability for the same cost; and likewise you could buy a pair of Raid for a Battle and get the same effect. Lower end vessels needed nerfing and now they'd made beams even nastier and they were already fairly broken as it was. Seriously, I've neither seen or heard anything for me to think any better of Mongoose. They're as bad as Games Workshop. They cater to the popular items and ignore balance. I personally like fleets composed of larger craft, but it's just not wise to attempt such; that is unless you don't mind shelling out money for a fleet of retarded second hand ships. This game may have better core rules than Battle Fleet Gothic, but BFG is TEN timere balanced. So far, in my experience, Federation Commander is the best overall balanced starship based table top strategy game hands down.

 

[stryve]

So why, exactly, are you here again?

 

[eldiablito]

This game may have better core rules than Battle Fleet Gothic, but BFG is TEN timere balanced. So far, in my experience, Federation Commander is the best overall balanced starship based table top strategy game hands down.

Are you sure? I've had my share of BFG games and I found that system even worse off for fleet balance. Eldar versus Necron games, for example, were a forgone conclusion as every special rule and defence that the Eldar had, was ignored or trumped by the Necrons. I will admit, the Imperial fleet and Chaos were pretty decent, but that was only 2 fleets in the game.

I have no exposure with Federation Commander but I have seen the models and game system; that game is WAY MORE expensive than anything I could pay for B5. The initial box price was over double that of the B5 rules. I'll give it a chance, but I will not pay for it until I'm certain that the game is good.


Edit: I just went online to the official Federation Commander website. I'm going to talk to the LGS owner because their price was obviously more expensive than the online SRP. Who knows, I might even give it a try...

 

[SylvrDragon]

To Stryve: I'm here because I'm an avid fan of B5 and the basic system in a Call to Arms is a good. If you're not sure as to why someone would be on forums such as these I recommend you check the description of the forum before posting.

To Eldiablito: I quit playing BFG before the Necrons so I can't comment on them or any balancing issues concerning them. As for Federation Command, I said it was more balanced, not les expensive. Though, now that you mention it, Federation Command is MUCH less expensive than A Call to Arms. ACTA costs $35 for the two core rule books where Federation Commander costs $60, but Federation Commander is not a miniatures based game and includes everything needed to play up to 3 different fleets; sure it has minis, but the game has alternate rules for their use which means there is nothing resembling any kind of obligation to use them and that means that, unless you use old counters for ACTA or if you buy all of the unnecessary expansions for Federation Commander, ACTA is the more expensive game to play between the two. Unfortunately for Federation Commander, however, ACTA has a much cooler story base, in my opinion, and ACTA also has some good basis for running a campaign.

 

[Greg Smith]

Don't believe everything you hear. Mongoose hardly fits the description of 'full-blown corporation' and a lot of the things that got changed in 2e got changed because they were asked for.

I've seen enough from Mongoose to completely discredit that statement. No offense.

None taken, however that statement is true. A lot of things that were changed, got changed because they were asked for.

They still screw up...

Yes they do.

You asked, in your first post:

I was wondering what the thoughts of my fellow players were on this topic?

and then you pretty much went on to vehemently disagree with everyone who who posted something positive. Why did you bother to ask, if you had already made up your mind? No offense.

 

[Triggy]

Bang on Greg!

Almost every change was made because of player feedback. Sure, not every change has been perfect but the attempt to make things better holds true.

On the "Armageddon PL ships are still worthless" comment: The gap between every PL in every fleet (near enough) is now consistant. For most fleets this meant slight improving Patrol and Battle PL choices and making large improvements to War and Armageddon PL choices (not all ships were changed equally as we tried to get every ship as balanced as we could). The underperforming Skirmish and Raid PL ships were improved but the "decent" Skirmish/Raid PL ships were used as the baseline to stat everything else.

Sure there is an advantage to taking more ships but beyond a certain point, the advantage starts to lessen and larger ships become better value. This is particularly the case in high PL/high FAP games (not for every race though).

Either way, the game was changed to try and improve it from the gamers' point of view and feedback is still being listened to. If you have any constructive comments then we would actually love to hear them!

 

[SylvrDragon]

Greg, I didn't vehemently disagree with everything. I wouldn't even say I vehemently disagreed with everything. This is a discussion topic.

dis·cus·sion

–noun

an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

I asked a question, answers were given and I disputed a few of them. This is how discussion is formed and how progress is made. If I just asked an opinion and then let it go there would be no point in even asking. I am not pleased with what Mongoose has done and I want them to know that; that stands more true for the Armageddon expansion for 1st edition than anything. I have yet to purchase 2nd edition and so far I have seen no reason to give them anymore of my money. I've seen fan based adaptations of this game that have much more flavor and balance than the standard version of ACtA. If you don't want to discuss the inherent problems, either to not caring, being too lazy, or if you are just simply content with accepting things as being balance simply because you are told they're balanced than fine by me. I want to help improve the game. Also, I want to know more about the changes so that I can decide if 2nd edition is a worthwhile or simply a waste of money. So far it seems to be a waste, but then I've also gotten very little useful feedback. I've heard they balanced the Wars and Armageddons against each other, and I've heard they made beams always hit on a 4+. Form the sounds of it these sound to be a continuance of retardation. The changing beams to hit on a 4+ only further makes Wars to eb more useless since it makes Skirmishes more durable than before. As for the balancing, I would like more information. Before you couldn't pay me to take a Nemesis and I only took Warlocks in small numbers and largely because I wanted to and not because I thought it was an asset to my fleet. I want to play Armageddon level battles and I want to do so with Armageddon and War level vessels, but that just seems to be impractical. I know that winning isn't everything, but there's no fun in having half your fleet ruined in one turn because you decided you wanted to use ships that were supposed to be designed for large scale battles. Am I wrong in assuming that Skirmish vessels should excel in Skirmish PL's and should be at some form of disadvantage against Wars since War PL vessels are designed to be the dominant vessel in War PL conflicts and are alleged "kings of the battlefield"? In 1st edition Wars were the squires of War level vessels, Skirmishes were the Lords and Armageddons were the Court Jesters. If this statement is incorrect when being used against 2nd edition then tell me I'm wrong and tell me how I"m wrong. Don't come here and bitch about me taking a shot at your precious game. Either discuss the topic with me or leave me alone. I don't have time for trolls.

Now, I'll ask again. What do people think of 2nd edition? And I don't ask this with the desire of people bitching at me because I have an opinion, nor do I want people to ask me why I'm posting on a forum dedicated to the topic that I devoted this post to. I want answers. Either convince me that 2nd edition is worthwhile, or confirm my expectations that it is not, or find somewhere else to post.

 

[Ripple]

I'll be honest here, Silverdragon's tone gets under my skin. That said he does have some valid points and dismissing them because they aren't said nicely is not a valid response.

The PL system does now have a fairly consistent change in power levels per ship, but in no way compensates for the gain in initiative (sinks and squadrons make the gain in firepower per activation irrelevant). It can be argued that more ships are not actually more effective based on the losing ships loses AD unlike loss of damage/crew but critical accumulation often offsets that with loss of AD and/or options. Add in the dramatic beam roll ups that allow skirmish (or even lucky patrol) ships to destroy much larger vessels and you taking larger ships really becomes hard to argue for.

GEG is the closest we've seen to making a larger ship really viable against multiple smaller ones. As the number of opponents increase the value of your defense does not decrease, and the value of your defense is not related to a lucky die roll or two.

There are major debates ongoing over the mechanic of stealth, aux craft, criticals. We do see some changes made, but those changes are tweaks rather than major overhauls in some cases, or overhauls in what feels like the wrong direction in others. That can be very frustrating for someone who is trying to be involved in the development of the game. I know I've felt that the company doesn't care about outside voices a lot, and the that the best way to become involved is do what our Ohio friend just did at the last tourney. Go win one by stomping the crap out of everyone else's fun and proving your point. Hardly an endearing moment but also what was felt had to be done at a previous GenCon. If your not part of the 'in crowd' the only way to be heard is at the expense of others.

Anyway, I'm drifting into rant mode rather than discussion....

Ripple I

 

[ShopKeepJon]

Now, I'll ask again. What do people think of 2nd edition? And I don't ask this with the desire of people bitching at me because I have an opinion, nor do I want people to ask me why I'm posting on a forum dedicated to the topic that I devoted this post to. I want answers. Either convince me that 2nd edition is worthwhile, or confirm my expectations that it is not, or find somewhere else to post.

I think that people should play this game because it's fun to play. That is my main criteria for any game.

If you want specific reasons:
1. the game is balanced between fleets giving everyone a chance to win
2. the game requires actual thinking to win
3. the game doesn't take an entire day to play
4. the subject matter is just cool
5. though I couldn't tell you why, the game seems to attract people who want to have fun more than those that just want to win.

(There are, of course, exceptions to the above. It's just that I've found fewer of them than in other games I've played.)

By your own admission, you're predisposed to dislike this game. Nothing we say will probably change your mind. What I recommend is that you go out, find someone who owns a copy of the 2nd edition rules, and play a few games. If you like the game, play it. If you don't like the game, don't play it. Until you do, this forum won't help you at all.

ShopKeepJon

 

[Taran]

Now, I'll ask again. What do people think of 2nd edition? And I don't ask this with the desire of people bitching at me because I have an opinion, nor do I want people to ask me why I'm posting on a forum dedicated to the topic that I devoted this post to. I want answers. Either convince me that 2nd edition is worthwhile, or confirm my expectations that it is not, or find somewhere else to post.[/color]

You know, based on your tone and the "discussion" you have engaged in thus far, you are, as SKJ suggested, predisposed to dislike the game. Regardless of your position of the series.
How about you give Us a reason to Want to convince you it's a good game and worth playing?
Oh, and this is a public forum which you don't own, so keep your suggestions of where people who actually Play this game should post to yourself.

 

[Ripple]

He did play the game, he was asking what changed in second edition that made it better/worse than first edition revised with SFoS and Arm. It was not uncommon after Arm. came out for folks to take a break from the game. It was not uncommon after SFoS for folks to refuse fights with the Minbari. There were some issues with both and he is wondering if second edition is likely to have a similar history.

Ripple