Shadow Queen
Mongoose
Im not saying a word..........
US ACTA Tourney
- Thread starter B_Steele
- Start date
Im not saying a word..........
Mongoose Steele said:Okay...time for me to add in here.
You all know me, many of you have played at tournaments with me or may have seen when I've brought a crazy Raider fleet to your store to "compete" or whatever. Some of you are in my local gaming crew and have helped me work the bugs out of whatever I was designing - if you knew it or not. Whatever the case, I am a very big supporter of ACTA from a gamer's stance as well as a corporate one. Hell, Matthew has called me a Mongoose Cheerleader on more than one occasion.
Anyway, I was at this tournament. The guys from Indiana drove over with me (as they are all from my local crew). And I did have the opportunity/misfortune of playing against Enalut's fleet. You will note that I did not say the misfortune of playing against Enalut.
Here are my opinions on the tournament.
1. Krystal Keep is the best damn game store I've ever seen. Hands down.
2. Rob was just as frustrated at the local guys not showing up as those of us who drove 3 hours to play, but it was not his fault and he did well with the hand he was dealt.
3. The Gaim fleet in question was indeed a cheese-induced nightmare, both in rules and playability, but it was made even more so by the imposed tournament pack. The counters were all over his side of the table in little piles that honestly only he could understand (although he would explain what is what when asked), they were also nigh-unreadable unless you paused, walked around the table, and looked from about 12 inches away. Again, this problem would not likely occur with models (even unpainted ones). The lack of ship limitations, composition scoring, model reliance, pre-posted scenario type, and adjustments to asteroid field rules made it too easy to make a one-trick pony and turn it into the prizewinner.
4. I personally abhor paper counters in tournaments, although I do not count someone off for their painting skill. It does not take skill to glue them together (okay, a little bit), and they look 1000% better and more concise on the board than paper chits. Not to mention, they are infinitely more recogniseable from four feet away than black-and-white photocopies. (I'm also against the use of Fleet Action minis, but that is solely from a corporate standpoint...playing a game without supporting the miniature line sales is bad for our business; the money is in the metal I'm afraid).
5. As someone who played against the fleet, I felt it was not much fun to play against due to the formulaic and monotonous "tactic" being used. Although I would not have scored Enalut low on sportsmanship because of his game play (I enjoyed the challenge to a certain degree), I would have scored the fleet's composition nearly as low as possible if that was being judged (which is wasn't, btw). All in all, I just wanted the match to end; but that was not necessarily Enalut's fault as a player - it was solely his fleet selection's.
I agree with Eurotia that I feel that a tournament should be just as much fun as pick-up games, which is why I am a big supporter of Composition scoring BEFORE a tournament begins, I agree that sometimes we at Mongoose can have our opinions tailored by our local players when it comes to such things. I would not have thought the Gaim were that bad - as I have a sizeable Gaim fleet as part of my League - and would NEVER dream of building something so overpowered and cheesy because I would not want another player to have no fun playing me. Thus, I never saw it coming...and I think my local players might have felt the same way. Blindsided by it, as it were.
Anyway, I think the real problem in this situation is only partially the fleet list (as I have fielded "fair" Gaim fleets in the past and no one has faulted me for it). I think with a more restrictive Tournament Pack that penalises fleets for lack of variety and an inability to adapt to different scenarios is the real solution...not the banishment of the Gaim.
In fact, I think that is going to be my new free time taker-upper, the design of a possible new tournament format. I know what I liked about the tournament, but I also know what I must change to try and make things even more fair across the board.
In closing, all in all I had a great road trip to Kettering, OH to play and see Rob. I enjoyed meeting Enalaut, but perhaps not his fleet selection. But I do not hold it against him. I do hope that he will look to his models for a fleet instead of his printer for next time, but that is my own personal opinion.
Anyway, I hope that I haven't ruffled too many feathers, as that I did have a good day. I just know that I would do things dramatically differently, and Rob and I have talked about this since. If anything, Enalut did what he set out to do; I saw the faultiness in that tournament fleet's rules, and am looking to adjust things to make things "fairer".
Cheers all, and happy holidays,
Bry
Bryan,
Regarding your points:
1) Counters and Fleet Action Minis - I agree, if someone is using counters, they must be legible and identifiable from across the table top. the example I used was the SFOS counter pack, which is a purchased mongoose product, that has nice color counters that allow you to notice what ship is what. In regards to the FA scale minis, until Mongoose decides that they are not tournament legal, people can use them. Frankly speaking, I really don't understand why Mongoose didn't go with this scale originally. The FA scale figures, IMO, look better on the table as the models are in scale with each other, unlike the old B5W and Current MGP scale figures. See the original scale Olympus and compare it to a Hyperion.
2) Fleet Composition - I agree, something needs to be done about fleet composition, however I don't think this will ever fix the Gaim without a serious re-write. One of the major problems with fleet composition is the FAP chart itself. You are rewarded for buying down and penalized for buying up. In the case of the Gaim, his fleet could have been much worse if he wasn't forced to buy the 2 battle level hulls. Imagine what the fleet would have been like with 4 Stuteeka War Carriers instead of the 2 Shrutaa battle level hulls. He would have gained 64 extra fighters and 4 extra breaching pods, with the fleet carrier trait. Unless you are going to place serious restrictions on fleet choices, I really don't see how to fix this. Plus the second you make an abritory limit on number of ships, the drazi players are going to scream bloody murder.
Just my 2 cents
Dave
Lots of interesting points:
re counters - I use only the new size MGP ships which in the main I like, but I find anything bigger than the Octurion / Victory not to my taste - too large. However I don't use fighter models - I find it easier to use counters for fighters. I can just about paint (badly) the ships - the fighters - no chance.............
re the Gaim - they are probably OK in a balanced fleet but some combiantions are a not fun - I ran headlong unprepared into a 48AD energy mine fleet at last tournament. Not the players fault in any way shape or form. However It is a worry if it is felt that restrictions need to be made to make certain fleets playable for tournaments? It almost certainly does not help that the Asterioids were see through at the S tournament..................
It is a source of discussion at my club that at the next "fun" tournament for Mongoose there will be a Gaim fleet (probably again counters only) and its impact on how "fun" the games will be.................
seasons best wishes
re counters - I use only the new size MGP ships which in the main I like, but I find anything bigger than the Octurion / Victory not to my taste - too large. However I don't use fighter models - I find it easier to use counters for fighters. I can just about paint (badly) the ships - the fighters - no chance.............
re the Gaim - they are probably OK in a balanced fleet but some combiantions are a not fun - I ran headlong unprepared into a 48AD energy mine fleet at last tournament. Not the players fault in any way shape or form. However It is a worry if it is felt that restrictions need to be made to make certain fleets playable for tournaments? It almost certainly does not help that the Asterioids were see through at the S tournament..................
It is a source of discussion at my club that at the next "fun" tournament for Mongoose there will be a Gaim fleet (probably again counters only) and its impact on how "fun" the games will be.................
seasons best wishes
For the record, what any one person will call a 'balanced fleet' may not meet other folks definitions. Do you have to have different roles (ie carrier, bombardment, capitol ship, flanker, scout?), different pl (how many, and does that change based of level of the fight and number of fap?), different models (can i use 10 sunhawks if they are five pairs of different variants?). That more than anything is why I don't like composition scores.
I can easily see a Drazi fleet that is almost all warbirds, or a stack of Vorchans for the centauri. Why, because we see these in the show, but they way folks are talking they'd be penalized. What about the Abbai, they have a total of 3 hulls above skirmish, and really only three battle worthy ones at or below. How do they do 'balanced'?
ripple
I can easily see a Drazi fleet that is almost all warbirds, or a stack of Vorchans for the centauri. Why, because we see these in the show, but they way folks are talking they'd be penalized. What about the Abbai, they have a total of 3 hulls above skirmish, and really only three battle worthy ones at or below. How do they do 'balanced'?
ripple
Ripple, I see your point, some fleets have limits on variety, and PL to boot. For the cases you list, I wouldn't mind the drazi haveing a bunch of sunhawks. I'd mind an EA player having nothing but Tethys Laser boats.
Fleet "flavor" for lack of a better word, plays into composition in my mind. a boresight fleet like the drazi need lots of small ships for init sinks.
and as you say we see them used that way in the show.
but fleets like the old 10 sagg fleet, where you're playing down to a broken low-PL ship, would score low on the composition for me.
Something I may do is limit the number of PL points you spend below the engagement level, say, 2 points of a 5 point match.
Chern
Fleet "flavor" for lack of a better word, plays into composition in my mind. a boresight fleet like the drazi need lots of small ships for init sinks.
and as you say we see them used that way in the show.
but fleets like the old 10 sagg fleet, where you're playing down to a broken low-PL ship, would score low on the composition for me.
Something I may do is limit the number of PL points you spend below the engagement level, say, 2 points of a 5 point match.
Chern
We're trying to agree on a local tourney pack for late winter here ourselves, and that was one of my suggestions. The issue became the Drazi again (and to a degree the other boresighters) and lists with limited choices.
5 raid tourney with only 2 buy downs... just not sure it works. Maybe with a limit on the 2 for 1 buys, otherwise Drazi are dead (why didn't they get a cheap buy down....there was race that needed it).
We're trying to come up with some idea of what fleets we'd like to see now, and then trying to find a fit. I tend to agree with you that the Sag fleet was bad, but for many folks it was bad due to fluff as much as stats. Sag was supposed to be a 'test bed' not a fleet element. I know I don't want to see all Solarhawks from the drazi (sprinkle with Darkhawks for targetting).
Just saying composition scores basically let someone say I don't like you, so your gonna lose, and I can justify it by saying your composition doesn't match my idea of how that fleet should fly. Their is no objective standard to go by.
One suggestion I had for limits was you can only buy down as much as you buy up. So 5 raid, I buy up to a battle. That's two points that went up one level. I can now buy two points down one level, or one point down two levels. That or maybe I can now buy two points down freely. Issue here again was races that can't buy up or stay at the fight.
I think I just liked it better when you had the 1 for 3 step in the mix buying down. It helped force you to buy closer to the pl of the fight to stay competitive. Frankly I would also have loved to see a 1 for 5 step.
Ripple
5 raid tourney with only 2 buy downs... just not sure it works. Maybe with a limit on the 2 for 1 buys, otherwise Drazi are dead (why didn't they get a cheap buy down....there was race that needed it).
We're trying to come up with some idea of what fleets we'd like to see now, and then trying to find a fit. I tend to agree with you that the Sag fleet was bad, but for many folks it was bad due to fluff as much as stats. Sag was supposed to be a 'test bed' not a fleet element. I know I don't want to see all Solarhawks from the drazi (sprinkle with Darkhawks for targetting).
Just saying composition scores basically let someone say I don't like you, so your gonna lose, and I can justify it by saying your composition doesn't match my idea of how that fleet should fly. Their is no objective standard to go by.
One suggestion I had for limits was you can only buy down as much as you buy up. So 5 raid, I buy up to a battle. That's two points that went up one level. I can now buy two points down one level, or one point down two levels. That or maybe I can now buy two points down freely. Issue here again was races that can't buy up or stay at the fight.
I think I just liked it better when you had the 1 for 3 step in the mix buying down. It helped force you to buy closer to the pl of the fight to stay competitive. Frankly I would also have loved to see a 1 for 5 step.
Ripple
Chernobyl said:
Well, at the Kettering tourney, since you had to field a war or two battles, only 3 of 7 Raids could be used on smaller ships. And Enalut's fleet was considered "obnoxious".
How about this? Give a min/max on all ships, per War allocation. So, you could say that a Drazi player could take 0-6 Sunhawks. Or a Centauri player could take 1-4 Vorchans. Or a Gaim player could only take 0-3 Shuuka Skirmish Queens. (These numbers are arbitrary, but whomever is instituting this rule, would have to think pretty hard on it, I would think).This could be an official Mongoose rule, or optional, or just in a scenario pack. You wouldn't have to limit every ship, of course. Just an idea.
Did anyone see validity in the Gaim fix I mentioned earlier? Just making their Photon Bombs slow loading? I don't think the rest of the fleet is all that broken. They sure have lots of fighters. But lots of fleets (EA, Narn, Drahk, Centauri...) can deal with that, if they use tactics.
-Carlos
EDFDarkAngel1
Mongoose
You know, I thought Minbari was broken because of their stealth. Ends up that the explode within two hits if you do break stealth.
Dark Angel
Dark Angel
Not sure if this is the right place to bring up ship discussions. But I would like to compare two RAID level ships... The Shuuka Skirmish Queen and the Centauri Altarian Destroyer (a good ship!).
Speed
Shuuka = 6
Altarian = 8
Turn
Shuuka = 2/45
Altarian = 1/45
Hull
Shuuka = 6
Altarian = 6
Dmg
Shuuka = 19/4
Altarian = 29/6
Crew
Shuuka = 28/6
Altarian = 32/7
Troops
Shuuka = 6
Altarian = 3
Craft
Shuuka = 10
Altarian = 0
The Shuuka is approximately 25% smaller and slower, but more maneuverable with more troops and LOTS more craft. I would say that the Shuuka and Altarian are approximately equally matched in these stats. If anything, the fighters and breaching pods would give the Shuuka a slight adavantage is stats.
Traits:
Shuuka - Advanced Anti-Figher 6, Jump Engine, Carrier 4, Flight Computer, Interceptors 2.
Altarian - Anti-Fighter 2, Jump Engine.
No contest. Shuuka's traits are MUCH better than the Altarian.
Weapons :
Shuuka - Photon Bombs - 8 AD (T), 40" - AP Emine
Altarian - Matter Cannon - 6 AD (F) - 15" - AP, Double Damage
- Ion Cannons - 8 AD (F), 4 AD (A,P,S) - 12" - Twin, Double Damage
Obviously, the Altarian has MUCH better short range firepower. But the Shuuka has ridiculous long range firepower that it can combine to attack all arcs. To the broadside, aft or beyond 12", the Shuuka just has better firepower. To add to this, because the range is so long, with turrets, they can combine with other Shuukas anywhere on the table to combine fire. This is a devastating tactic against ships of any size. I would say that the Shuuka has BETTER firepower than the Altarian.
So, in summary: The two ships have approximately equal stats, but I think the Shuuka's fighters push it over the top. The Shuuka has better firepower in all arcs (except at forward point blank range) and better traits. I would say that the Shuuka is a better ship, and if points were assigned to these two ships, the Shuuka would be 10-20% more points than the Altarian.
But wait! The Altarian is a RAID level ship and the Shuuka is a SKIRMISH!
Yikes!
-Carlos
Speed
Shuuka = 6
Altarian = 8
Turn
Shuuka = 2/45
Altarian = 1/45
Hull
Shuuka = 6
Altarian = 6
Dmg
Shuuka = 19/4
Altarian = 29/6
Crew
Shuuka = 28/6
Altarian = 32/7
Troops
Shuuka = 6
Altarian = 3
Craft
Shuuka = 10
Altarian = 0
The Shuuka is approximately 25% smaller and slower, but more maneuverable with more troops and LOTS more craft. I would say that the Shuuka and Altarian are approximately equally matched in these stats. If anything, the fighters and breaching pods would give the Shuuka a slight adavantage is stats.
Traits:
Shuuka - Advanced Anti-Figher 6, Jump Engine, Carrier 4, Flight Computer, Interceptors 2.
Altarian - Anti-Fighter 2, Jump Engine.
No contest. Shuuka's traits are MUCH better than the Altarian.
Weapons :
Shuuka - Photon Bombs - 8 AD (T), 40" - AP Emine
Altarian - Matter Cannon - 6 AD (F) - 15" - AP, Double Damage
- Ion Cannons - 8 AD (F), 4 AD (A,P,S) - 12" - Twin, Double Damage
Obviously, the Altarian has MUCH better short range firepower. But the Shuuka has ridiculous long range firepower that it can combine to attack all arcs. To the broadside, aft or beyond 12", the Shuuka just has better firepower. To add to this, because the range is so long, with turrets, they can combine with other Shuukas anywhere on the table to combine fire. This is a devastating tactic against ships of any size. I would say that the Shuuka has BETTER firepower than the Altarian.
So, in summary: The two ships have approximately equal stats, but I think the Shuuka's fighters push it over the top. The Shuuka has better firepower in all arcs (except at forward point blank range) and better traits. I would say that the Shuuka is a better ship, and if points were assigned to these two ships, the Shuuka would be 10-20% more points than the Altarian.
But wait! The Altarian is a RAID level ship and the Shuuka is a SKIRMISH!
Yikes!
-Carlos
One thing I think just got very overlooked this time through was the ability to combine fire and looking at things from the wrong base hull. We see it with the Vree locally. Very few folks can beat them due to no AD EVER being wasted. Sure other ships have more firepower, but the Vree's is so much better organized that they in effect have much more impact.
Similar issue came up with a friend of mine who was doing some math earlier. He was using hull 6 as the based to make comparrisons, which ended up sckewing the results. Looked at from hull 5 base and the 'dfference in firepower' between ships was big.
Ripple
Similar issue came up with a friend of mine who was doing some math earlier. He was using hull 6 as the based to make comparrisons, which ended up sckewing the results. Looked at from hull 5 base and the 'dfference in firepower' between ships was big.
Ripple
Harry Lonsdale
Mongoose
Without playing several games to test this, it does seem like a simple solution to most complaints about the Gaim. You'd need to make allowances for War and Armageddon level fights though.Chernobyl said:
Interesting to read how this tournament went - I've been frustrated with 2e for not "fixing" the swarm fleet bias in the game (but rather adding to it) especially with made for cheese fleets like the Gaim.
It's all very well relying on good sportsmanship from your opponent to select a "fun to play against" fleet but I've found that in tourneys there is usually at least someone there who isn't there to play nice
I've been noting with interest the slight tweaks that have crept into tourneys (limits on the number of ships) to combat this - but fundamentally I think it's just a flaw in how the PL split works...as far as I'm concerned the higher PL you play, with the less FAP the better. 1pt Armageddon FTW!
It's all very well relying on good sportsmanship from your opponent to select a "fun to play against" fleet but I've found that in tourneys there is usually at least someone there who isn't there to play nice
I've been noting with interest the slight tweaks that have crept into tourneys (limits on the number of ships) to combat this - but fundamentally I think it's just a flaw in how the PL split works...as far as I'm concerned the higher PL you play, with the less FAP the better. 1pt Armageddon FTW!
Hash said:Interesting to read how this tournament went - I've been frustrated with 2e for not "fixing" the swarm fleet bias in the game (but rather adding to it) especially with made for cheese fleets like the Gaim.
It's all very well relying on good sportsmanship from your opponent to select a "fun to play against" fleet but I've found that in tourneys there is usually at least someone there who isn't there to play nice
I've been noting with interest the slight tweaks that have crept into tourneys (limits on the number of ships) to combat this - but fundamentally I think it's just a flaw in how the PL split works...as far as I'm concerned the higher PL you play, with the less FAP the better. 1pt Armageddon FTW!
Hash,
Fundementally I agree with you regarding the FAP split, however, I was playing a 1 Armageddon game against a buddy of mine. He took 4 Whitestar 2's and 4 Whitestars. I took a warlock, omega, hyperion, and 2 artemis. He crushed me. The benefit of buying down is just too good.
Dave
1pt Armegdeon is OK but the breakdown does also restrict fleets like the Shadows / Vorlons due to their incomplete fleet list.
ie I would want to field a Young Ship and 4 scouts rather than a Young ship, a Stalker and 2 Scouts but I can't and as nothing is worth taking below Raid...........
ie I would want to field a Young Ship and 4 scouts rather than a Young ship, a Stalker and 2 Scouts but I can't and as nothing is worth taking below Raid...........
They made a mistake with the 'only down one step at a time' part due to the fleet lists. They could easily fix it with a couple of new hulls (only two fleets have internal gaps) but it's still slapping spackle on a hull breach. They just made it way to efficient to buy down.
In effect they lowered the 'cost' of ships the farther they are from the level of the fight, thinking they get more fragile compared to the big ships. (Evidence here would be how the play testers consistently talk about the 'pop' rate of such small ships making them a non-issue.) The reality is they are far more effective just being on the table and controlling the activations and wasting what would otherwise be game changing crits.
Ripple
In effect they lowered the 'cost' of ships the farther they are from the level of the fight, thinking they get more fragile compared to the big ships. (Evidence here would be how the play testers consistently talk about the 'pop' rate of such small ships making them a non-issue.) The reality is they are far more effective just being on the table and controlling the activations and wasting what would otherwise be game changing crits.
Ripple
patton4014
Mongoose
One, I hope all of this discussion doesn't put people off of having another tourny. I would love to go it a second one is set up.
Two, the simple solution to this is a revised hull set up. Expand hull ratings to 1-10 and keep the smaller/lower priority ships under a certain level. Make it harder to hit the ships that should truely be hard to hit.
Two, the simple solution to this is a revised hull set up. Expand hull ratings to 1-10 and keep the smaller/lower priority ships under a certain level. Make it harder to hit the ships that should truely be hard to hit.
B_Steele
Mongoose
I have finished my new ideal tournament pack, and am currently having some people take a look at it before I turn it into a pdf and submit it to Matt.
I've looked at several things complained about/discussed here and on other threads/forums. I believe I have the fairest set up I can come up with that is also aligned to promote the game's sales and enjoyment for all.
I know it won't be "perfect" for everyone here, and that more than a few players might raise their eyebrows at it, but I plan on giving it an official try in the general Indianapolis Area (likely in Lafayette, as I live here) sometime in February (I think).
When I have it all nice and neat, I will post what I can about it. Thanks for your input - even if you didn't know you were giving any.
-Bry
I've looked at several things complained about/discussed here and on other threads/forums. I believe I have the fairest set up I can come up with that is also aligned to promote the game's sales and enjoyment for all.
I know it won't be "perfect" for everyone here, and that more than a few players might raise their eyebrows at it, but I plan on giving it an official try in the general Indianapolis Area (likely in Lafayette, as I live here) sometime in February (I think).
When I have it all nice and neat, I will post what I can about it. Thanks for your input - even if you didn't know you were giving any.
-Bry
