5p WAR

[nekomata fuyu]

(40 flights attacking a single war level ship will do that).

Can you get 40 flights within range of a single ship though?

That said, technically the new rule for limiting the number of fighters in contact with a ship is pretty much useless due to physically not being able to get more that 4 fighters in contact with a ship (barring cheese counters). One way around this is if fighter counters can now stack, and that would also allow you to get as many fighters as you want ganging up on a single ship.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I actually guessed (and exagerated) about how many fighters I got within range. The actual number of fighters you can get in rang is closer to 20 or 30 (with thunderbolts at long range). The G'Vrahn has a large base so 4 fighters fit on the base (cause they can overlap with ships) and about 7 or 8 around the base an another 10 or 12 out side that plus a few more T-bolts can squeeze into range around that ring. Though I tend to not put fighters on my enemies base to prevent fighters from intercepting mine.

 

[Triggy]

(40 flights attacking a single war level ship will do that).

Can you get 40 flights within range of a single ship though?

That said, technically the new rule for limiting the number of fighters in contact with a ship is pretty much useless due to physically not being able to get more that 4 fighters in contact with a ship (barring cheese counters). One way around this is if fighter counters can now stack, and that would also allow you to get as many fighters as you want ganging up on a single ship.

The new rule only covers fighters contacting a ship for suicide runs, breaching pods, etc. For normal attacks, range and position apply as normal.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

The wording of the rules uses suicide runs and boarding as examples, but doesn't limit it to these uses as long as the fighters are in contact with the stem, so could potentially still be used for cramming in extra normal fighter attacks.

Overall though that rule is just horribly written:
- It doesn't say if it overrides the rule about not stacking fighter counters.
- If it doesn't override the rule for stacking fighter counters, it is useless.
- If it does override the rule for stacking fighter counters, it's only half written, because it doesn't bother to tell you how to override the stacking rules, or how to deal with any of the inconsistencies that come with overriding the stacking rules.

 

[lastbesthope]

The new rule only covers fighters contacting a ship for suicide runs, breaching pods, etc. For normal attacks, range and position apply as normal.

Can someone remind me what page that rule's on, I couldn't find it the other night for a friend.

Thanks

LBH

 

[nekomata fuyu]

P&P p11

 

[Da Boss]

The wording of the rules uses suicide runs and boarding as examples, but doesn't limit it to these uses as long as the fighters are in contact with the stem, so could potentially still be used for cramming in extra normal fighter attacks.

Overall though that rule is just horribly written:
- It doesn't say if it overrides the rule about not stacking fighter counters.
- If it doesn't override the rule for stacking fighter counters, it is useless.
- If it does override the rule for stacking fighter counters, it's only half written, because it doesn't bother to tell you how to override the stacking rules, or how to deal with any of the inconsistencies that come with overriding the stacking rules.

I tend to agree its not well written and has already caused some confusion as people think it means ALL fighters rather than those that need to contact the stem.

perhaps a revised wording could go in the pdf?

 

[Triggy]

I can see the confusions from the wording. It is certainly the intention only to affect fighters needing to make contact with the stem and should also allow them to "stack" if needed to keep a level playing field.

 

[lastbesthope]

P&P p11

Ta neko.

LBH

 

[Foxmeister]

I tend to agree its not well written and has already caused some confusion as people think it means ALL fighters rather than those that need to contact the stem.

perhaps a revised wording could go in the pdf?

It is a terribly unbalanced ruled IMHO anyway. It should have been based of PL, not starting Damage, since ships are *supposed* to be balanced by PL.

An Omega will only get hit by a maximum of 6 Klikkitaks, and is well suited to dealing with those with its AF6. The lowly G'Quan will now get hit by 9 and it only has AF1. The Ka'Bin'Tak will get hit by 20 whereas the Victory will only take 12 even though it's adaptive armour gives if an "effective" higher damage score.

Not that I worry too much about it - no one in my gaming group plays Gaim, and I don't play outside that group often any more, so it is largely a moot point for me!

Regards,

Dave

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'd have thought that the bigger the ship (i.e. Damage points) the more fighters could ram it, as per the rule. Priority Level is based on the ship's power, not the size. As for implementing the stem/fighter rule, why not leave off the ramming fighters that make contact to the side and mark the ship with a die or something until the rams are resolved. I don't use any races with kamikazes, so I'm not that familiar with the rule, but I thought that the ram was resolved as part of the fighter's move and so would bypass AF and each ramming fighter would be removed after it's attack and so no stacking/cramming would be required ? If I "misremembered" that rule please feel free to ignore that last sentence

 

[Foxmeister]

I'd have thought that the bigger the ship (i.e. Damage points) the more fighters could ram it, as per the rule. Priority Level is based on the ship's power, not the size.

DPs do not necessarily relate to size, though it some cases (e.g. the Explorer) it is likely to be pretty much true. According to most material that I can find, a G'Quan is not actually a particularly large ship, therefore I assume that its DPs relate to it supposed "hardiness" rather than size (though the on-screen G'Quan could never be considered "hardy" ). The point about PLs is that they are already supposed to be balanced - this new rule is not. As I said before though, it doesn't overly bother me!

I don't use any races with kamikazes, so I'm not that familiar with the rule, but I thought that the ram was resolved as part of the fighter's move and so would bypass AF and each ramming fighter would be removed after it's attack and so no stacking/cramming would be required ? If I "misremembered" that rule please feel free to ignore that last sentence

"Crewed Missile" attacks occurs at the end of the movement phase, so "stacking/cramming" would be required, and the rule for the "Crewed Missile" state that the attacks occur after AF has been resolved.

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Other issues off of the top of my head:
Before, a single flight in support would block off half the stem, meaning that only half the stem was available for making contact. Assuming that fighters now stack, all the fighters just stack to attack the ship from the open direction.

When you have a stack of fighters, how do you deal with contact? Technically I guess that a enemy single flight would contact all of them, and while it would suffer massively in the resulting dogfight, it would block them from doing anything for the turn.


Overall, I think it's a good mechanic to allow a single counter to represent more than one flight of fighters (hell, the system does that), but it only really works when the mechanics have been written with that in mind. The current ACTA mechanics expect only a single counter representing a single flight in any one area of space, and that's why they can't cope with the new contact rule.

 

[Triggy]

Fighters that are making a run on a ship (boarding, ramming, etc.) stack. Those just shooting still do not stack, just like every other counter.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Which is just rediculously silly when you think about it.
Still if that's what the rule is meant to be, it would be nice if Mongoose puts the rule amendment in a FAQ. Preferably along with rules to cover the various situations it brings up.

 

[Triggy]

It's meant to represent the fact that fighters ramming/etc. don't need to take up any space as they just collide with their target but other fighters are flying about and need space to fly into.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I'm almost certain that 6 fighters don't occupy many times the volume of a capital ship either.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I'm almost certain that 6 fighters don't occupy many times the volume of a capital ship either.

They do when they ram the ship and become apart of, otherwise the fighters don't just sit there... hanging in space blasting away with their guns. They're manouvering around to avoid becoming a target for any gunner that might look their way and decide to snap off a few shots.

Its common practice for fighters to be moving around in erratic patterns as a precaution against getting shot.

And as far as I'm concearned this whole problem is being WAY over thought. If the rule says that you can get "X" number of fighters to make a ramming(for eg) attack on Target A using Formula B, then thats how many you get and stacking obviously doesn't apply for this rule.

As for shooting at a target, I don't see why it would restrict shooting attacks since they are done at range.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Actually, the rule merely gives a maximum number of flights that may make contact with a ship's stem in a single turn. It does not say that you can break other rules to do so. It does not say that it only applies for flights wanting to make contact for the stem for specific reasons (such as ramming). All else is being made up to try and make sense of a rule that in writing is almost completely useless.

 

[Iain McGhee]

It might not specifically state that this rule only applies to craft which are required to touch the stem, but that's what the rule was designed to address. Specifically, to limit the number of Gaim crewed missiles that can attack a ship in one turn. That was a subject of debate ever since the Gaim list appeared. Certainly it could have been worded better. Contact for dogfights shouldn't matter that much. Either the flights attempting to contact the ship are intercepted by escorts (so any rammers over the number of escorts get through) or the owner of the ship being attacked wins initiative and his fighters move into dogfights with the fighters intending to ram before they get to move into contact, or both.