5p WAR

[nekomata fuyu]

If it's intended to limit the number of suicide fighters that can impact a ship in a turn, it's doing a very poor job. With the exception of the very smallest ships, the rule boosts the number of fighters that can make contact.

 

[Triggy]

If it's intended to limit the number of suicide fighters that can impact a ship in a turn, it's doing a very poor job. With the exception of the very smallest ships, the rule boosts the number of fighters that can make contact.

Well you've obviously never seen Gaim fleets with custom shaped bases specifically designed to make contact with stems then...

(this is even easier to do when using counters)

 

[Joe_Dracos]

If it's intended to limit the number of suicide fighters that can impact a ship in a turn, it's doing a very poor job. With the exception of the very smallest ships, the rule boosts the number of fighters that can make contact.

It also seems to me that you are more interested in the arguement and not the ressolution to your "difficulty" understanding the rule since you shoot down every explanation and interpretation that comes to mind. When rules are written, it is assumed that people can use common sense in their interpretation. Finding flaws in every rule is just.... frustrating. In the long run, its not our interpretation of said rule that matters, just yours. Read, Interperate how feel the rule fits and use it as you and your gaming group sees fit. Our interpretation of the rule is irrelevant (to you) in the end.

That is how me and my gaming group interpreted the rule, that is how we apply the rule. Not everything needs clarification.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

It also seems to me that you are more interested in the arguement and not the ressolution to your "difficulty" understanding the rule since you shoot down every explanation and interpretation that comes to mind.

Because if the rules contradict themselves, it's obviously the fault of the player and not the rules themselves :roll:
The reason that I'm pointing out holes in the rules so easily is because the rules are half written, and offer no guidance on how such situations are meant to be resolved. I appretiate that there are several attempts to fit the new rule in with the rest of the game, but each one so far has created its own problems.

Of course, because someone has dared point out that your suggestion has its own flaws I guess it's much easier for you to just go for the character attack instead :roll:

Well you've obviously never seen Gaim fleets with custom shaped bases specifically designed to make contact with stems then...

(this is even easier to do when using counters)

Aye, anyone I've played against uses basic shapes (square or hex, but I'd also include triangle) for their counters.
Personally I would have thought that anyone trying to use exotic shapes deliberately designed to abuse rules could be easily dealt with by saying "don't play against people who so blatantly try and abuse the rules" rather than ignoring normal counters and instead starting to write the rules for abusive counters.



In general:
If we go back to the assumption that the rule is intended to limit (rather than boost) the number of suicide fighters that can attack a ship in a given turn, or if we just want to minimise (and preferably avoid altogether) the number of rules changes needed to get the rule working, I can only see rules as written as an option. That is, the rule doesn't mean that you get to break the stacking rules to cram extra fighters in, and instead just sets a maximum that can be crammed in by abusing exotic counter shapes.
This means that square counters can still only contact most ships with 4 fighters, and hex counters can only contact with 3.

 

[Greg Smith]

Aye, anyone I've played against uses basic shapes (square or hex, but I'd also include triangle) for their counters.

...

This means that square counters can still only contact most ships with 4 fighters, and hex counters can only contact with 3.

But if triangles are acceptable, you can get 6 in (or more of the apex is narrow).

Why should one player who uses hex based miniatures, be able to get more in than someone who uses conters. And why should someone who makes custom bases/counters be able to get more in again. And who decides where the line of abuse is?

The rules as written are open to abuse, which is why the new rule was written.

 

[AdrianH]

In general:
If we go back to the assumption that the rule is intended to limit (rather than boost) the number of suicide fighters that can attack a ship in a given turn, or if we just want to minimise (and preferably avoid altogether) the number of rules changes needed to get the rule working, I can only see rules as written as an option. That is, the rule doesn't mean that you get to break the stacking rules to cram extra fighters in, and instead just sets a maximum that can be crammed in by abusing exotic counter shapes.
This means that square counters can still only contact most ships with 4 fighters, and hex counters can only contact with 3.

I agree that the new limits set by P&P are in addition to the usual physical limit due to stacking. However, using official counters, I can easily get 6 fighters round any ship or even another fighter, without stacking fighters on each other and without even stacking the fighters onto the ship (which is permitted anyway). Assuming the ship counter is at least the same size as the fighter counters, you put two each to left and right and one each above and below, like this. Hex bases should also be able to pack six round the stem of the capital ship of their choice, or around a similar size hex fighter base.

It's the big ships who need to worry. The new rules allow a maximum of 20 fighters to contact a Ka'Bin'Tak, which isn't going to happen unless the fighters are custom sized or stacking is now allowed...

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Why should one player who uses hex based miniatures, be able to get more in than someone who uses conters. And why should someone who makes custom bases/counters be able to get more in again. And who decides where the line of abuse is?

The rules as written are open to abuse, which is why the new rule was written.

By regular triangles, I mean equilateral triangles

I agree that it would be best to have rules that work independent of whatever custom counters someone cooks up (or specify what forms the counter may take). The issue here though is that the rules don't cover how to squeeze in the extra counters. It's easy enough to give a wishy washy answer such as "oh, just stack the counters", but that raises many more questions than it answers, and hence raises many more arguments that it solves.


AdrianH: If you can get 6 square counters in contact with a ship's stem, you must be dealing with a very fat stem. Your diagram would seem to imply a ship with stem about 25mm wide (the same width as a fighter counter), whilst most ships only have a stem about 5mm wide.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Sorry if you thought it was a character attack (really it wasn't intended to be one).

The rules don't contradict each other. P&P Trumps main rule book. P&P prvides you the scenerio upon which the rule applys. So when ramming with fighters you can have X number of fighters attack Y ship.

On your last point, the fighters are considered destroyed when making the attack, simply remove any fighter that makes contact and count is as destroyed. After all fighter movement is done (by the gaim player) resolve the ramming attacks.

I still don't see the confusion.

I just have to ask why are you persisting on this line? You have been presented with enough rational answers and you just continue to ask the same question. If you don't like P&P then find somebody else who doesn't and don't use it. If you simply just don't like the rule then find somebody else willing to play the game without it. That will ultimately solve all of your problems concearning this rule.

I will say no more on this subject.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Ok, so if we change the rule to say that you immediately remove the counters (thereby not needing to break stacking rules), the Gaim fighters now cannot be hit by AF or be intercepted by other fighters. This "rational answer" isn't looking quite so rational to me.
Whilst you seem to be ignoring it, all the other "rational answers" have similar issues. And this is before you realise that you have several "rational answers" which different people could be playing, and hence another potential argument midgame as one player want to immediately remove counters and another wants to stack them up.

I would say to support ships with 2 fighters - place them with the ship's stem sandwiched between them and the Gaim cannot make contact with the ship at all. This would at least put the argument's off for until the Gaim clears them out. Of course the Gaim would just use their emines to get around that.

 

[AdrianH]

AdrianH: If you can get 6 square counters in contact with a ship's stem, you must be dealing with a very fat stem. Your diagram would seem to imply a ship with stem about 25mm wide (the same width as a fighter counter), whilst most ships only have a stem about 5mm wide.

I hadn't spotted the bit which says the Klikkitaks have to make contact with the target's stem. For breaking stealth, a fighter only needs to contact the target's base, so I thought the same applied to ramming attacks. The diagram therefore shows fighters clustered round a target's base, not stem.

I agree then, the rule for maximum number of attacks makes no sense if the Klikkitaks have to contact the stem. The example given, of up to six attacking an Omega, is physically impossible with official counters or models. So my suggestion would be to change the rule to allow Klikkitaks to make contact with the target's base, rather than the stem. Then apply the maximum allowed in P&P (and, for that matter, in S&P 56, which introduced the revised Gaim fleet along with the damage/10 + 2 limit).