My return draws nigh!

[Davesaint]

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!

Matt indicates that he feels that the swarm fleets get reduced the hight the FAP and level of the battle go. I am not sure I agree with that. At 10 armageddon, I don't break my fleet list down to skirmish, but 8 raid level ships for 1 armageddon point is nasty.

There are some good things about 2nd edition and some pretty bad things in my opinion.

The Good:
Love the Agile trait
I like the changes to CAF - Can't CAF Beams. CQ check of 8, and you can turn and CAF
Like the Anti-Fighter rule
Love the Escort trait
Like Adrift over speed 0
Like that you cant lose more than 1 arc on a single weapon crit

The Bad:
The Plasma Web Rules. If you can get more than 1 ship in the e-mine explosion radius, then it's pretty broken.
The Gaim
Closed Blast Doors - Too powerful now
The Demos
Several of the fleets had holes patched in them to fix weaknesses.
The Xeel - 4 Tzymms make this ship too good.
E-mines - Are too prevelant in too many fleets.
Lumbering - cant move after you turn. cant get the benefit of the turn from gravity well movement if you have already turned.
FAP Breakdown List - rewards buying down too much.
Boarding Rules

This is just my list. Do I think that 2nd Edition was a step back, No. Do I think there needs to be some changes, you bet.


I don't think the book is a waste of money, but I do have my concerns.

Dave

 

[Hans Olo]

1. the game is balanced between fleets giving everyone a chance to win
ShopKeepJon

I would say it is maybe better balanced then before.
There are still fleets that are virtually impossible to overcome (especially if you compare certain fleets to each other.

What I like about 2nd ed is:
The change to CAF
The Agile trait
Better to understand description of how interceptors work.



What I dislike:
The new Beam rule (unnecessary change in my opinion, makes Battle and above weaker)

Lumbering (big disadvantage, a huge one if you have a Boresideweapon)

The new Crit table got even harder in my opinion.

It is still better to slit your points down instead of buying big ships (Iconic ships)

CAB changes ( nearly to good , definitely to good if combined with a Dodge, or a Skirmish Ship)

I dislike that there is no redundancy rule. (could have helped the high priority vessels)

Balance between the fleets is still not satisfying.

No actual balance between the priority levels of all fleets.

No brainer choices are still obviuous. (G`Vran, Bin'Tak, Vorchan Demos etc..)




Is 2nd ed an improvement to 1st ed?
I would rather call it another version of ACTA, not a improvement.

It's true that some things were changed where people asked fore (most of the time it was not changed to it's best (Hull 4 against Beams etc.)
But in my opinion the major issues where not touched at all.
- Balance of priority levels, lots of small ships against a few big ones, crits etc.

 

[SylvrDragon]

First, I love this game. I think you get my directness confused with anger. I don't mean to sound so negative, I just don't see the point in beating around the bush. If I don't like something I'm going to say so and I won't necessarily be nice about it. I'm not politically correct and I don't sugar up what I have to say. Sorry if this seems rude, but in the end trying to be nice when stating a problem gets you no where really. If you want someone to see that something upsets you then you should show them that you feel upset. My statements, or opinions, are observations based on what I've seen. Also, I state my opinions because I love this game and because I want to see it improved. If I didn't like this game I wouldn't waste my time on it. You do have to admit this, my topic has gotten your attention. if I had tried to be nice and soft would you have taken as much notice? By being a bit rough I displayed the fact that I was serious and that I wanted to get down to business, and in doing so I was successful in getting the much needed attention to the matters that I found needed such attention. Also, once again, I'll state that if you don't like me, or what I have to say, or how I say it then read someone else's posts. It saves us both time.

Second, thank you Ripple. I do apologize for getting under you skin, as I said it was not my intention. But I am grateful that you took the time to read my post and actually took what I had to say to heart. I just want things fixed, and if Mongoose won't do it then we should. I'm not the type to play a game the way the writers say to simply because they say that's how it should be done. I think we should work together to make balanced house rules and we should be very vocal in doing so. Mongoose needs to know that we're serious in our thoughts and our approach. They also need to see the problems in their game. The only way to do it is to prove what we have to say is valid and it would also help if we could show them how it can be fixed. As I've said, I've seen some player adaptations to the game that are most excellent and that are more flavorful and balanced than the what Mongoose has put forth.

Here's a link to one of such adaptations. This was put out by one of our fellow posters on this very forum and, in my opinion, is an excellent display of proper balance and flavor. The various fleets are well balanced and each one feels truly unique; a pair of accomplishments that I feel Mongoose has fell short with. To quote a friend of mine "...most of the fleets either have loads of flavor, or are well balanced..." and I agree. There are fleets, such as the Vree, that are very flavorful and truly feel like they should, but they're not exactly the best fleet our there.

http://www.geocities.com/stephan1313/B5/B5.htm

I'd like to say that I'm glad this topic is finally heading more the direction I want it to go. There have been some very valid points in by several individuals since my last reply, not say that there weren't any prior to my last post, and I feel that we can accomplish something here if this continues. We really should stick together on this. Mongoose won't listen to me, nor will listen to any one of you. But they may just listen to us.

Davesaint, thanks for that statement. Now is precisely what I want to hear about. What are the real changes made and what do you think of them. Now, if someone could give a little explanation to some of them. Like, what are the Agile, Escort, Plasma Web and Lumbering traits? Also, what wrong with the nre Closed Blast Doors, FAP and Boarding rules?
I have to admit I like the sounds of the no CAF on beams. I ALWAYS HATED the fact that you could do that, especially since I play EA and it was pretty much impossible to do with my fleet; as if it wasn't bad enough having boresite, they had to go and allow the others the ability to re-roll their accursed beams. God, I have so many questions. Oh, and what's with the new beam trait? I head it always hits on a 4+? Sounds pretty dumb to me. Oh, and, if it does always hit on a 4+, is the hitting on a +4 always, or just on the initial strike after which it increases like it used to and so the second round of hits is a 5+ and the third and beyond 6+?

I'm just concerned that I'm going to dish out the money for a new edition and not like it.

 

[Hans Olo]

Beam Hits on 4+ on the initial strike and all further rolls. So the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. all will hit on a 4+. Means more hits on large vessels then in 1st ed (what means more crits) and less hits on Hull 4 or 5.
The skirmish ships get a boost, Battle and above a downgrade.

Agile:
If your ship has the Agile trait it can turn after 1/4 its movement not after 1/2.

Escort:
A ship with the escort trait can give its anti fighter dice to another friendly ship in 4"

Plasma web:
Plasma web is like a E mine

Lumbering:
A ship with lumbering can turn only once (and only once) per turn, even if it is in a gravity well. After the turn it may not move any further.

CAB:
Damage (Hull and crew) is ignored one a roll of 5+. However you may only fire one weapon system per arc while using this SA.
That's very nasty if your opponent is a White Star ( 5+ CAB and 4+ Dodge) or a Demos (has to weapons one of them slow loading so there is no drawback every other turn)
If a big ship uses this SA it forfeits lots of firepower for some survivability. Smaller ships with only two weapon systems don't loose much , so they benefit more from that SA.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

You do have to admit this, my topic has gotten your attention. if I had tried to be nice and soft would you have taken as much notice?

Actually, you would have gotten just as many useful responses. If you look at the other threads on this forum, you will see that many people are more than happy to discuss any aspect of this game at length and they do it in a surprisingly polite way.

I've gotten very good and often very in depth responses to most of my inquiries. I really appreciate this aspect of this forum. Friendly, helpful people who are willing to listen and respond to civilized comments.

I do admit that you've gotten a lot more negative notice by approaching us this way. If that is what you wanted, then, yes, you've succeeded.

Next time, try polite first. If that doesn't work, then you could try something else. It costs you very little and might give you a surprisingly good return on your investment.

ShopKeepJon

 

[OnlyTheShadowKnows]

You know every game I have ever played always yielded one constant. There was always someone who would come by and throw his or her weight around telling people how it is and asking for opinions and shooting down anything that anyone would say. Better yet, think they know it all.

Also I don't need a definition on what a "discussion" is. I know. That is a bit rude.

I am making this a general statement all across the board to everyone.

THIS IS A @#)U@)&U GAME!!! A GAME.......

Please to everyone who have issues and take it to a nth degree. Freakin chill out or move on to something else. There is no room for you here. I am not trying to start things with Silver Dragon but seriously folks. Can't we just play the game and if you have issues with it, well post questions and offer suggestions to change the problems with the game. Don't rip it apart and then ask for advice and then shoot those people down and don't harass people for having opinions about how a game is played.

Long story short.....just enjoy it and have fun. If you have issues, offer a set of house rules and ask if people wouldn't mind playing it.

Now lets start blowing stuff up!

-OTSK

 

[SylvrDragon]

Hans, thanks man. That clears a lot up for me. I have to admit that some of that sounds pretty good, but some of that, such as the beam, are serious bullshit. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, and that's what seriously pisses me off. It's real easy to say shrug it off and enjoy the game when you like playing the cheap fleets or if you like playing with skirmish craft, but issues like these hit player like myself that believe in large combats between large vessels. When I sit down to settle into a war I want Battle, War and oh yea, Armageddon level vessels on my side, however, changes such as these really make that hard. Yea, the game is about fun, but is there any fun in having the prize of your fleet decimated in a single turn by piss ant skirmish vessels in a single turn? I still can't agree that Mongoose listens like they should and the changes to beam are proof of it. And the new CAB further cements it. Most Skirmish and even some Raid level vessels can make use of that SA and lose little to no firepower, especially when you consider how many of them you can have on the table, but Battle and higher vessels on the other hand...I say we should rename the the game "A Call to Small Arms". lol

 

[SylvrDragon]

...Silver Dragon...

Dude, I didn't "misspell" my name by accident when I chose it. I don't mean to seem like an ass, but I get this a lot and it does get old.

Also, it may be just a game, but when I pay for something I expect to get my monies worth. I don't want to spend my spare cash on something that was thrown together. Sure this may be their product, but at the end of the day we pay them to make games and I don't like throwing my money away to people that don't care what I think. So yea, I may seem rude, but I feel that Mongoose slapped myself, and other players like myself, in the face with Armageddon and again with 2nd edition. I think I have some good reasons to be irritated. I ceased playing GW games because they went down the path that Mongoose is leaning towards and I'd like to think that mongoose is a better company than that.

Oh, and I believe I stated in my last post that house rules were one of the goals of this post...

 

[locarno24]

I have to admit that some of that sounds pretty good, but some of that, such as the beam, are serious bullshit. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, and that's what seriously pisses me off. It's real easy to say shrug it off and enjoy the game when you like playing the cheap fleets or if you like playing with skirmish craft, but issues like these hit player like myself that believe in large combats between large vessels. When I sit down to settle into a war I want Battle, War and oh yea, Armageddon level vessels on my side, however, changes such as these really make that hard.

To be fair, simply switching to the new beam mechanic doesn't make that much difference by itself - it stops everyone scrabbling around only for hull 6 ships "because everything else gets slaughtered by lasers", but simply having the beam trait on a weapon doesn't mean you have precise, double damage, triple damage or (if you're packing ancient weapons) quad damage ( 8) ). Also, not that many smaller ships actually pack beam weapons anyway.


Big ships have got a boost of their own; removing the 'all weapons out' critical hit was one big change, and making All Hands On Deck! automatic (to massively boost the ability to repair critical hits) is another.

Most big ships also have a decent fighter wing; and there are some nasty assault fighters in the new edition, whilst a lot of small ships lack any of the Anti-Fighter trait.[/i]

 

[Hans Olo]

Of course it does not mean that all Beams have DD Precise etc. but most Beams do!
Beams working that way are a clear advantage for smaller ships.

All hands to deck is not much help here. You still have to wait one turn to use it, during this time you easily get as much crits as in the turn before. So your always sitting on the same amount of crits + you are only able to use this SA if non of the crits was a no sec action crit or a no repairs crit, what is more likely to happen with the new crit table.

 

[Target]

I have to disagree with Hans about the the beam mechanic. I think it's great.
Most small ships don't have beam. Sure sometimes a 2AD weapon scores lots of hits but for everytime they do they have missed or done bugger all. Biggest hit i've seen is 18 hits off 6AD & we play a lot of games. The way it was before meant you only took hull 5-6 ships never anything hull 4. Now hull 4 is a viable option.
Sure 2 ed has issues but then everyone has different ideas on what is good for the game.
I like most what they have done for 2 ed.

 

[Hans Olo]

Yea but most of the Hull 4 ships got an upgrade to Hull 5 so where is the point of giving more survivability to the small ones?
I'm not concerned of the freak hits (although they are fairly common in my group) but that Hull 6 ships (that's in most cases the Iconic ones) get more hits now in average.

As for Skirmish and Beams the Olympus gunship springs into mind, as well as Ka'Toc etc.

 

[Tolwyn]

Actually my largest concern is the imbalance between ships like Vorchan, Demos, Xeel, Cronos and Ochlavita. The first 3 are too powerfull, the last 2 are too weak.

 

[Ripple]

Have to admit that the new beam rules have put a serious damper on larger ships locally.

Ripple

 

[SylvrDragon]

So, in general, they made it harder to kill smaller ships and helped big ships remove crits quicker. This could be viewed at the very best as a very marginal improvement, one not even worth putting a new book out for in my opinion. The biggest problem with ACtA is big ships not being worth their points and Mongoose continues to ignore this issue and it's not one that's been quiet, nor is it new. I personally think they like the sales from people purchasing larger fleets. lol
Anyway, I think the new beam should be tossed out the window. With the crit repairs, the changes to the crit table and, if you ignore the new beam rules, there is some progress. With out taking a peek at the fleet lists I can't comment there, but the core rule changes are...well, they're in need of errata. I think if Mongoose needs to work on adding auxiliary system rules and it should drop the new beam rule; doing just these two oh so very simple things would make some big progress in my opinion. I know I've seen some auxiliary rules around here before, I'll have to see about digging some up...