2nd Ed Beam Question
- Thread starter Target
- Start date
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
Maybe putting a cap on the number of re-rolls would help? Like "no AD of a beam weapon may be re-rolled more often than 3 times, bringing the maximum number of hits for each single AD to 4".
CZuschlag
Mongoose
A cap of 4 hits produces an expectation of:
0.5+0.25+0.125+0.0625 = 0.9375
or a 6.25% downtune to beams as playtested in 2e. This is small enough that it can also be made up by slight inclrease in beam ships' sizes.
There'll still be Yahtzee moments, but they won't be as profound.
0.5+0.25+0.125+0.0625 = 0.9375
or a 6.25% downtune to beams as playtested in 2e. This is small enough that it can also be made up by slight inclrease in beam ships' sizes.
There'll still be Yahtzee moments, but they won't be as profound.
Intersting the games we have tried with a 4+ beam mechanic always had at least one massive beam strike and frequently more............also more - total misses..................which is prob more in tune with the show..........? I think most things are killed if they get hit by a beam, any beam.................
Commador Q
Mongoose
i don't think the "only rerole the first AD" rule was that hard to understand, i think lots of new players asked the question, because they weren't sure what the rules ment to say. I don't recall where if at all it actually says "beam weapons that benefit from a rerole effect may only rerole their first set of AD, and my not rerole any missed AD that were granted by the Beam trait" or anything like that. there is an important difference between a frequently asked question and something that's hard to understand.
though i do have to say the only rerome the first AD effect was really anoying with 1 AD white stars which often had to choose between bettering their chances of a hit with their beam, or taking the more practcile but potentalli less damaging reoles for the moleculat pulsers, in the case of redirect fire.
though i do have to say the only rerome the first AD effect was really anoying with 1 AD white stars which often had to choose between bettering their chances of a hit with their beam, or taking the more practcile but potentalli less damaging reoles for the moleculat pulsers, in the case of redirect fire.
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
katadder said:
Not good for fleets which have few or none beams - these shipkiller shots are contrary to gaming balance, because ships without them don´t have the chance to do something similar. While beams should be a unique and interesting weapon system, they shouldn´t dominate the game. Beam is just ONE trait of many after all. What´s the use of experimenting with different ship combinations and other weapons if it always comes down to taking beams anyway? Why use da tl-dd Ion Cannon when your little battle laser has a certain chance of doing much more damage just because you keep on rolling those 4s?
So, I´m back to my original idea: cap the number of hits!
CZuschlag
Mongoose
MustEatBrains:
There are other races with statistically rare uber-kills already (Dilgar Bolter Crits, pak'ma'ra Plasma Torpedo crits, Heavy Missile Volleys) that, while spectacular, aren't overwhelmingly unbalancing innately, because the averages are right (and, yes, I know your objection to this thought process, Ripple --- duly noted.)
What we are, I think, really debating is how much this is a beer-and-pretzel dice rolling contest, and how much it is a serious strategy grind-it-out. As have been previously mentioned, if the balance is right --- and, given that we don't have the rebalanced ships, we can't even begin to guess or second guess this, we'll have to accept it a priori, we are talking about different methods, within the 1d6 system, to give the same balance (average yield), while fine-tuning the standard deviation (how much is luck vs. skill). The values are all very close, we're just witnessing three similar options, in ascending standard deviation:
Jim's Beam Mechanic: Always start with 3, use the current beam rolling rules (beams overpowered by 10% here.)
Triggy's Cap: Cap the number of sustained hits to 4 (beams underpowered by 6% here)
Current 2e: Beams neither underpowered or overpowered, but immensely luck-dependent.
What we're debating is standard deviation; or, how much do we want this game to be about luck, and how much about skill? We may not be the best audience for debating this, as we here are all pretty hardcore tacticians; but I personally do prefer a game of skill (Jim's mechanic) best.
There are other races with statistically rare uber-kills already (Dilgar Bolter Crits, pak'ma'ra Plasma Torpedo crits, Heavy Missile Volleys) that, while spectacular, aren't overwhelmingly unbalancing innately, because the averages are right (and, yes, I know your objection to this thought process, Ripple --- duly noted.)
What we are, I think, really debating is how much this is a beer-and-pretzel dice rolling contest, and how much it is a serious strategy grind-it-out. As have been previously mentioned, if the balance is right --- and, given that we don't have the rebalanced ships, we can't even begin to guess or second guess this, we'll have to accept it a priori, we are talking about different methods, within the 1d6 system, to give the same balance (average yield), while fine-tuning the standard deviation (how much is luck vs. skill). The values are all very close, we're just witnessing three similar options, in ascending standard deviation:
Jim's Beam Mechanic: Always start with 3, use the current beam rolling rules (beams overpowered by 10% here.)
Triggy's Cap: Cap the number of sustained hits to 4 (beams underpowered by 6% here)
Current 2e: Beams neither underpowered or overpowered, but immensely luck-dependent.
What we're debating is standard deviation; or, how much do we want this game to be about luck, and how much about skill? We may not be the best audience for debating this, as we here are all pretty hardcore tacticians; but I personally do prefer a game of skill (Jim's mechanic) best.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Tankdriver said:
At 1AD the new mechanic breaks down slightly, since it is less likely to hit than the old mechanic. Foe example a WS against hull 4 would get an initial hit 5 times out of 6, while under the new mechanic it only gets a hit half of the time. The new mechanic only becomes better after the second reroll. Because of this there has been a slight change to the WS's beam.
I personaly like the way the new beam mechanic has been working.
You can actually take a hull 4 ship without it instantly being blown out of space. The Olympus is real pain at low lvls.
As for the Avoiki reducing a Bimith to 1 hit probably has more to do with the type of crits than beam hits. I would expect a 8AD weapon to take out or go close on a raid ship. It's not unreasonable.
Im guessing Jims 23 hits is 23 dam with the darkner which again is due to DD on the crit table.
I can see how 1AD is pain though. The reason the Primus was so good is that it always did some dam while 4AD weapons could quite easily miss as hit.
You can actually take a hull 4 ship without it instantly being blown out of space. The Olympus is real pain at low lvls.
As for the Avoiki reducing a Bimith to 1 hit probably has more to do with the type of crits than beam hits. I would expect a 8AD weapon to take out or go close on a raid ship. It's not unreasonable.
Im guessing Jims 23 hits is 23 dam with the darkner which again is due to DD on the crit table.
I can see how 1AD is pain though. The reason the Primus was so good is that it always did some dam while 4AD weapons could quite easily miss as hit.
MustEatBrains
Mongoose
@CZuschlag:
I know that there are a few other weapons out there which can cause some bad damage, but these are pretty dependant on crits (which, as far as we know, will not be as common/drastic in 2nd ed as they are at the moment).
What I´m concerned about is that, without a cap, ACTA will be all about beam teams again in 2nd ed, just for the possibility of getting a shipkiller shot. I wouldn´t consider pressing as many beams as possible into a fleet real tactical skill (I know that you didn´t mean that when talkin about skill though).
The problem with the average chance of something happen is that, while it may statistically even out over several games, in a given single game al kind of things can happen which have nothing to do with average chances (in my experience, stochastics, while nice in theory, simply don´t work in wargaming).
Maybe it´s just me, but I fail to see how a limitless beam under the current rules, starting at 3+, is more tactical/skillful than a capped beam with a strong, but ultimately limited damage potential at 4+. With the cap, I as a player can more easily estimate the effects my ships will have, if only because I know their limits (which in turn might be a reason to combine my beam ships with other weapon systems). Really, I don´t think there is much of a difference here (with the exception that 3+ beams have a greater chance of exceeding the etimations).
Besides, given the momentary dominance of beams, a 6% loss in effectiveness is acceptable for a smoother gaming experience, I think.
I admit, the difference is not earthshaking between the capped and the 3+ beam, but I don´t think that beams really have to be upgraded by another 10%.
That is, of course, if the current rules stage hasn´t already moved on from what we´re debating here, our infirmations might not represent the actual rules as they stand at the moment.
I know that there are a few other weapons out there which can cause some bad damage, but these are pretty dependant on crits (which, as far as we know, will not be as common/drastic in 2nd ed as they are at the moment).
What I´m concerned about is that, without a cap, ACTA will be all about beam teams again in 2nd ed, just for the possibility of getting a shipkiller shot. I wouldn´t consider pressing as many beams as possible into a fleet real tactical skill (I know that you didn´t mean that when talkin about skill though).
The problem with the average chance of something happen is that, while it may statistically even out over several games, in a given single game al kind of things can happen which have nothing to do with average chances (in my experience, stochastics, while nice in theory, simply don´t work in wargaming).
Maybe it´s just me, but I fail to see how a limitless beam under the current rules, starting at 3+, is more tactical/skillful than a capped beam with a strong, but ultimately limited damage potential at 4+. With the cap, I as a player can more easily estimate the effects my ships will have, if only because I know their limits (which in turn might be a reason to combine my beam ships with other weapon systems). Really, I don´t think there is much of a difference here (with the exception that 3+ beams have a greater chance of exceeding the etimations).
Besides, given the momentary dominance of beams, a 6% loss in effectiveness is acceptable for a smoother gaming experience, I think.
I admit, the difference is not earthshaking between the capped and the 3+ beam, but I don´t think that beams really have to be upgraded by another 10%.
That is, of course, if the current rules stage hasn´t already moved on from what we´re debating here, our infirmations might not represent the actual rules as they stand at the moment.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
Did the playtesters or designers for 2e consider using range to determine the "to hit" rather then hull score? I mean setting the base roll at 3+, beyond 1/3 range it goes to 4+ and beyond 2/3 range it's 5+?
30" beam, 0-10 = 3+, 11-20 = 4+, 21-30 = 5+
Or is that more complex then it's worth?
30" beam, 0-10 = 3+, 11-20 = 4+, 21-30 = 5+
Or is that more complex then it's worth?
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
I was in favour of a change to the "to hit" mechanic which IMO is too similar to BFG
the decision was to stick with the current system
the decision was to stick with the current system
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
For clarity - by "to hit" I don't mean additional rolls, I was interpreting the 2e beam mechanic that was independant of Hull score to make a distinction between normal rolling and beam rolling.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Chernobyl said:
far too late for that Chern, I'm afraid, I tried to get it support last year to little avail
Right Hand of God
Mongoose
You could have beams effected by interceptors, there is, after all, nothing in the show to say that interceptors don't work against beams, and one specific EA v EA where they do suggest that beams can be intercepted. That at least would put the weapon system on a par with other weapons and offer a little balance to those beam-less fleets.
Some of this depends on the size of the game played though. The standard tourney game of 5 points of raid seems fairly common and is small enough that one abberant roll could unbalance the game. However, 5 raid points is a very small gme. My gaming circle rarely plays anything less than 5 war points, and event that is considered a smale scale game. At that size the lucky or inlucky rolls do equal out over the game.
I think the new beam system has a lot going for it, it will ofer new tactical challenges and make players think about targeting priorites as well as making all those smaller ships more useable, thus changeing the composition of fleets that players take, which itself has a knock on effect on the game in a differnt way.
I don't think the mechanism can be tried out using 1st Ed ships though. We know the majority of ships stats are being changed and without further info on those changes, the speculation of the effects is fairly pointless, albeit rather interesting to read
Some of this depends on the size of the game played though. The standard tourney game of 5 points of raid seems fairly common and is small enough that one abberant roll could unbalance the game. However, 5 raid points is a very small gme. My gaming circle rarely plays anything less than 5 war points, and event that is considered a smale scale game. At that size the lucky or inlucky rolls do equal out over the game.
I think the new beam system has a lot going for it, it will ofer new tactical challenges and make players think about targeting priorites as well as making all those smaller ships more useable, thus changeing the composition of fleets that players take, which itself has a knock on effect on the game in a differnt way.
I don't think the mechanism can be tried out using 1st Ed ships though. We know the majority of ships stats are being changed and without further info on those changes, the speculation of the effects is fairly pointless, albeit rather interesting to read
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Right Hand of God said:
we know that interceptors track and meet incoming fire, that can't be done with light speed beams unless you're using Star Trek PSB :wink:
it is widely known that that specific scene was wrong (and we never saw beams intercepted), not to mention all the other problems in that episode.
"We can't jump and leave our fighters out there" Why not? Fighters are perfectly capable of following a ship through a jump point!
The Agrippa/Roanoke balls-up was another
Similar threads
