BFG vs. Firestorm Armada

[Inquisitor Templar]

I just finished reading through the rule book for Firestorm Armada and wrote up a compare/contrast as well as my thoughts on some of the rules. I figured I would share them with the community and see what others think about this.

Compare and contrast of Firestorm Armada to Battlefleet Gothic

BLUF: BFG is still the top dog. I think that there are many things that FA did well and some of the concepts would be easy enough to institute as “House Rules”. However, BFG still wins hands down in many areas for being more thorough and detailed to create a “realistic” space like environment.

Interesting points:
I have to admit first off that as I was reading the story line and background of the FA book it seemed shallow and contrived. This isn’t their fault, it was sound enough I suppose but when its compared to the robust universe that Games Workshop has built for itself over the years…there was no comparison. So I had a really hard time caring about the plot and background which for me is a pretty important part of the game. So others probably won’t have that issue.
I found it interesting in the course of reading this rule book what different games designers take as key points to the game and the points which FA and BFG had in common:
• Measurement from the peg/flight stand as the actual model
• Increased difficulty in shooting at smaller targets
• Movement must be at least half of the movement to account for drift
There were some things that FA had which I found to be very interesting concepts…but should/could have been done better.
• Crew Points, Loss of Crew Points immediately effects shooting
• Assault Points as a concept
• Point Defense
• Mines
• Linked Fire

Good Points:
Crew Points- I like the idea of crew points. Perhaps if it was an aspect of a critical result or a result at the end of the Assault Phase. It has less of an effect in BFG as the storyline implies that most everyone on the ship is forced labor, but I think that there would be value in having that metric. BFG does reduce a ships capabilities after it has received a certain amount of damage, and I think that is more realistic rather then an immediate effect on a 1 for 1 basis.
Point Defense Area Effect- For me hands down the best concept in the FA rulebook. Basically the Point Defense function (PD) takes the place of the BFG turrets. PD can only be used against incoming fighters/boarders/torpedoes/mines/etc…however they provide a circle of defense that has a 4” radius around the ship. This means that enemy fighters that are passing by on their way to attack another nearby ship could be eliminated by surrounding ships PD area. I think that this is pretty huge and makes a lot of sense. A forward deployed escort Frigate wouldn’t watch a stream of Torpedoes coast by them on the way to the battleship. While BFG does have a spot on the chart for a ship to try and shoot at passing “ordinance” I don’t think that there is an option for a nearby ship to turn their turrets to destroying it.
Everything is measured in inches- It is nice to be able to immediately figure that out. CM’s are easy when I have the measuring tape sitting there in my hands, but otherwise I am lost in a fog.
Squadron Command distance- In FA it is determined by race and tactical ability as opposed to a flat 15cm, which I think makes a lot of sense.
Cut Engines- Exactly the same as the BFG order of all stop, but available as a standard movement type. Additionally those ships that have cut engines are easier to hit with shooting what with their not moving, which I don’t think that BFG has taken into consideration.
Battleships could turn up to 90 degrees- In FA there are only 45 degree turns which require you to move an inch while doing so. The restriction on the number of times you can make that turn is based off the size of your ship. Battleships have to move 2” before turning. It appears that the standard movement for a battleship is 6”, so they could move 2, turn while moving 1, move 2, turn while moving 1 and get a 90 degree turn out of using all of their movement. I have a hard time justifying such a massive thing doing a 90 degree turn in one turn…but I like it.
Intercept movement- Fighters and Interceptors have a free movement/engagement radius of again 4”. If enemy fighters/torpedoes/whatever pass within 4” of them then they get to react. Kind of like being on Overwatch. I like it.
Capturing Prizes- In the assault of a ship, once the boarded ship is out of Assault Points (AP)…if it had any to begin with and is out of Crew Points (CP) it can be taken as a prize. It is removed from the board and the new owner gets something like double victory points for it.
Meteoroid Movement- Truly this is simple and easy to integrate into BFG there are already rules for drifting hulks and other such things. This was literally the only piece of spatial environment/scenery that was well done.
Belly Up Manuever- Simple and effective. In an environment where there is no effect of gravity why shouldn’t a ship be able to float “upside down” and put its port broadside where its starboard is should one be disabled or for whatever reason at all.
Rescue Escape Pods- As simple as moving over them, grants some 10 victory points per pod. If a ship is destroyed the size of the ship determines the number of pods that are launched. This was an ‘optional rule’ and I thought it a good one.

Bad Points:
Storyline- I won’t get into that again. But it was a big one for me.
Range Bands- In FA everyone has the same range. That’s cheesy and underdone, every race has different traits for almost everything…but everyone in the game has the same ranges? There are 4x Range Bands that are each 8” making a max range for everyone on the table an even 32 inches.
Space Phenomena- Seriously, BFG blows them out of the water on this. Its pretty ridiculous the amount of difference between the two game types on this. Not just in the number of options, but in their game functionality.
Point Defense- As much as I love the concept of the area effect PD trait, they really worded the rules quite clumsily and cumbersome. There was quite a bit of effort put into de-conflicting Point Defense and Turrets. PD is against the small stuff and Turrets are basically described as being something akin to Uber dorsal weapons.
Damage Rating/Critical Rating- Basically while there is no actual “armor rating” whose score has to be bested in order to damage the ship, it is done as a Damage rating. Example: BFG you determine that you have 5 shots, you roll 5 dice and try to get over the armor, every roll which does so is a hit and damage done. In FA you determine that you have 5 shots, roll the 5 dice and see if its effective or not (sometimes 4+ but frequently needing 5+ to be effective) the effective rolls are added up, if they exceed the damage rating of the ship then the ship takes the amount of damage based off the number its DR was exceeded by. Same thing goes for critical hits. I think that BFG is much more streamlined and makes more sense to me.
Game Cards vice Orders- I basically dislike the incorporation of game cards in general for anything other then quick reference. Basically some of the same things that BFG does in orders ‘full speed ahead’, ‘lock on’, etc are available in Cards and are not rolled for but played. At the beginning of each turn you can draw a number of cards equal to the number of squadrons you field, not to exceed 5 cards in your hand at any time. You can play them at various times. I much prefer the Orders.
Alternating Play- Unlike BFG which is Turn based, unlike LoTR which is turn based but the priority is re-determined every turn, FA is determined every turn using 2d6 and adding the tactical rating to determine the initiative order. Then both players alternate moving one squadron or wing of tiny craft each. This would make game play drag on forever. Not to mention that I would be hard pressed to remember if I had moved a squadron by the time I finished for a turn. Additionally, the winner will be the person who takes more squadrons grouped with fewer ships per squadron so that eventually you’ll be able to keep moving long after your opponent is done.
Turning- I think that smaller craft should not be limited to a 45 degree movement, additionally the FA required 1” movement per turn seems counter intuitive to a space environment. I think that the space shuttle could pivot in place if it wanted to, like a hovercraft here groundside. If the actual base peg is the place where the model is, I think that tiny escort craft being able to turn 90 or even 180 is not unbelievable.
Fixed Channel firing- In addition to broadside firing there is something called Fixed channel firing which basically means a fixed forward weapon. The things these weapons can fire on is determined by the width of the square base taken straight away from the model. Again, if the actual model is the tiny peg why would you use the 1” square base as the edges of the firing channel?
Template and measurement tool- This isn’t really FA’s fault, they are new. BFG has better templates.
Randomized movement- Again, same problem as the templates. For randomized meteor movement or randomized arrival of reinforcements they have a star like template with numbers on it. All through the game you use the standard D6, but for this one template you’re supposed to use a D8. Not FA’s fault, but the GW scatter dice are just better.
Instant damage effect on firing from lost Crew Points- I mentioned this earlier but it goes here in the bad section. I think an impact once crippled makes more sense then an immediate impact.
Torpedoes- Have the same range limits as everything else. I like the BFG method where the torpedoes could be a lingering threat.
Debris- There is no debris in FA. Apparently when a massive battleship gets blown up…it vaporizes instantly. Every time.
Fewer Scenarios- Not much to say about that. FA did say repeatedly that there would be more content forthcoming and more races and more etc etc.
Models: The models for FA are cool and interesting...but they have no where near the depth of detail that the GW models have. Not to mention being able to tie them back into the storyline (as previously mentioned).

[fracas]

thanks for this


i have been a big BFG fan and was tempted by FSA game. got the rule book but it seem cluncky.
the models are fairly nice but the battleships are just too big to play with imo.



currently BFG is being updated so i hope to resume blogging about it soon.

[RedWidow]

Thank you for the review/comparison. I like how thorough it is . I just wanted to take a moment to say that most of the things that you consider bad...or worse than BFG..were the exact things that make me prefer Firestorm. I am not nearly as bothered by point defense or having the fixed forward type weapons fire using the width of the base as their arc. I really prefer the damage/dice system for Firestorm...especially the exploding dice (6s are rolled again) and the fact that how much damage is done is related to the number of successes rolled on the dice. I think that an armor rating would add nothing. Also, I don't think that the escorts need additional tightness in their turns...the fact that they turn using a smaller template is plenty.

I do agree that the universe needs more development...and does not compare to the 40k storyline...but that can be advanced with time.

As for models...I own 3 of the 6 available starter fleets for Firestorm and 4 large fleets for BFG...and I prefer the Firestorm models in almost every category...especially size. Having played quite a few games, I do not see the large battleships as a hindrance. I am actually looking forward to larger models...dreadnoughts etc.

Again, though I don't agree with every point in your review...I do appreciate reading a well read and intelligent review.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Good review not that i agree with all of it

Have gone with fsa for a few reasons for one i like the size and design of most of the ships but the main reason is that GW do not support BFG and i believe that they have no plans to support or update it anytime soon or ever infact.

[scadugenga]

I've played some Dystopian Wars, but not FA yet.

I like the rundown--but if you want more "accuracy" in what capital ship space battles might actually be like, I'd have to say that Renegade Legion: Leviathan wins hands down.

Had some great fluff too.

[Bean]

Nah, if you want really believable capital ship combat, play [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_Vector:_Tactical"]Attack Vector: Tactical[/URL].

If you want something that's actually fun, stick to something like BFG, Firestorm, or ACTA. Personally, of those, I like ACTA the best.

[Sanguinary Dan]

I've played some Dystopian Wars, but not FA yet.

I like the rundown--but if you want more "accuracy" in what capital ship space battles might actually be like, I'd have to say that Renegade Legion: Leviathan wins hands down.

Had some great fluff too.

I've not read FA,but I love BFG and RL:L. With one exception. Leviathan has the worst missile rules you'll ever see. They go on and on about how the massive spinal railguns are the main weapon of a capitol ship, but a couple of smaller ships with missiles will destroy a BB in a single volley.