Methos5000
Mongoose
Lets not forget about pretty much every Missile carrying Dilgar ship at Raid and above.
A simple G'Quan poll!
- Thread starter Foxmeister
- Start date
Methos5000
Mongoose
Sorry I should have been clearer, it was in reference to the prior page where duplicate weapon systems were being discussed.
Target said:
okay we can argue now got my book and it appears that we are both wrong its midrange
Beam-if an attack dice from this weapon succesfully strikes a target, immediatly re-roll it to attack again (so its just one AD no matter how many rerolls)
TL-Any AD that do not succesfully strike their target may be re-rolled.
RE-Rolls- simply means you may ignore the first failed result that a dice rolled and roll again
so in the case of a twinlinked beam you effectively double their AD, 4AD, no matter how many times you hit your going to eventually miss 4 times, at which point you can reroll 4AD
but since they so adroitly in the rules avoid giving beams a reroll on fail, whether from scout or SA, I dont see it ever happening
EDIT: altough it is an interesting Weapons system
Dual Heavy Laser Cannon R30 Bore 4AD Beam, DD, TL*
*The GQuan may choose to lose the TL trait and fire its DHLC in its forward arc, it loses this ability and the TL trait if crippled
however it doesnt change the fact that if you give a ship 500 secondaries I want to fire atleast half of them, just to feel important
I can see them needing to clarify for that to prevent people from cheese mongering.
Okay my admirals ships will attempt a ram and a CAF, and that scout is over there so I get all these dice and rerolls misses 2x
I think that has to do with no matter how many ways you get to reroll misses page 3 under re-rolls definitely states that you must always accept the result of the second roll, and can not re-roll the dice again.
however thats on the first failed result
Okay my admirals ships will attempt a ram and a CAF, and that scout is over there so I get all these dice and rerolls misses 2x
I think that has to do with no matter how many ways you get to reroll misses page 3 under re-rolls definitely states that you must always accept the result of the second roll, and can not re-roll the dice again.
however thats on the first failed result
Have to actually read that again... I know what was ment due to all the discussions about it where the designers chimed in, but may not be what is written.
Way it worked before was no matter how many ways you achieved it (scout CAF TWL) you could only get one re-roll. Additional ways just made it harder to stop the re-roll. And secondary rolls, whether achieved through beam trait or a second chance action/trait/etc. could not be re-rolled.
Maybe that would help for next ed. Change the wording so that 'secondary rolls' become a separate category from 'attack rolls' to help distinguish which rules apply to initial attacks only. The wording for 'you may not re-roll a re-roll' just doesn't seem to be working in it's present wording.
Ripple
Way it worked before was no matter how many ways you achieved it (scout CAF TWL) you could only get one re-roll. Additional ways just made it harder to stop the re-roll. And secondary rolls, whether achieved through beam trait or a second chance action/trait/etc. could not be re-rolled.
Maybe that would help for next ed. Change the wording so that 'secondary rolls' become a separate category from 'attack rolls' to help distinguish which rules apply to initial attacks only. The wording for 'you may not re-roll a re-roll' just doesn't seem to be working in it's present wording.
Ripple
Cavalier1645
Mongoose
The Q'Quan Improvement gives the Q'Quan more damage points and 1AD to its heavy laser. It is an improvement, but not one that going to make Narn players really want take the Q'Quan. I feel they need to ether increase the range of the Q'Quan secondaries or improve it manueverable. All Quan turn like bath tubs and constanctly out flanked. To many people know that to beat a Q'Quan you just need to get to its side or back and stay more than 8" inches away. I hopr they can do sothing about the Narn after reading these comments.
Lumbering really beat up on secondaries as a whole. Moved the game way more into the stationary sniper roll, as it vastly increased the 'safe' spaces on the sides of the heavier ships. The G'Quon suffered more than most.
Lumbering should have been closer to no turn of more than 45% at a time unless on all stop and pivot maybe.
Lumbering should have been closer to no turn of more than 45% at a time unless on all stop and pivot maybe.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Ripple said:
Not keen on that one either! Boresight ships need to use Come About.
Regards,
Dave
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
Ripple said:
Narn secondaries are too short range. Lumbering has nothing to do with their uselessness. Most Narn ships have 360 degree coverage. Secondaries are intended to defend the ship against lighter, more agile opponents but the Narn versions are too short to do the job. The T'Loths and all Battle and higher level ships need to convert their light pulse and twin arrays to range 12.
Frankly no large ship in the game should have secondaries shorter than 12 unless they are intended for anti-fighter duty. Make the Narn secondaries TL but not DD so that the Centauri versions remain superior.
Range 12 secondaries means that light ships trying to attack a larger ship with anything other than its primary weapon will denerally have to enter the range of the larger ship's secondaries. This makes the large ship's poor maneuverability less of a handicap to its self-defense.
Keep the +1d to the G'Quan's heavy lasers and replace OS with SL on e-mines on the G'Quan and Bin'Tak and I think the Narn are good to go.
Tzarevitch
Bore ships didn't need to do the 90 degree turn if they could do 2 45 degree ones. It is actually a lot more flexible than one 90. I allows you to slide sideways to see into the shadows of terrain, avoid explosions, avoid the bases of other ships... it's much much better... push it around a bit.
As to the idea that all secondaries should be 12 inches or more...
We used to have weapons with ranges of 3 to 6, now the shortest is 8 in most races. You want to push it out to 12... soon enough we'll push them out to 15... because of the Vree likely... we're already seeing a lot of power creep in the game. More DD/TD than last edition, more e-mines, more fighters immune to defensive fire.
I just don't want to see where we end up with threat sphere based on PL. The G'Quan used to be able to threaten with those same eight inch guns by turning and pursuing the ships harassing it... giving it, oddly enough, roughly 11 inches to either side that were under threat.
Ripple
As to the idea that all secondaries should be 12 inches or more...
We used to have weapons with ranges of 3 to 6, now the shortest is 8 in most races. You want to push it out to 12... soon enough we'll push them out to 15... because of the Vree likely... we're already seeing a lot of power creep in the game. More DD/TD than last edition, more e-mines, more fighters immune to defensive fire.
I just don't want to see where we end up with threat sphere based on PL. The G'Quan used to be able to threaten with those same eight inch guns by turning and pursuing the ships harassing it... giving it, oddly enough, roughly 11 inches to either side that were under threat.
Ripple
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
Ripple said:
I also didn't say all of them need to be 12, only those on large vessels ships. Most races already have range 12 (or at least 10) secondaries. The Narn and the Abbai are the main culprits without.
Weapons with ranges 3-6 were antifighter weapons. The few that were out there before went away with the creation of the anti-fighter rating because they serve no purpose now. The game evolves, now it is time to evolve away from the range 8 secondary weapon on cap ships (i.e. slow, lumbering ships).
Secondaries are intended to defend the ship from light vessels. Range 8 is too short as very few light vessels other than shadow scouts and drakh heavy raiders have to come into that range against a larger slower and less agile opponent with range 8 weapons. Thus those secondaries are USELESS. 10 is the minimum effective range for secondaries on large ships, 12 is better as it is long enough that it forces light ships intending to use their own secondaries to actually brave return fire. The main guns on most light ships will still outrange the secondaries on a cap ship but range 12 forces them to take a risk to use anything more than the couple of dice most have on their main weapons.
I see no reason to push for 15 just because of the Vree.
Tzarevitch
well the tigara has range 8 weapons forcing it to come within lowered stealth range, it also has a range 4 weapon. same as the troligan.
abbai are pretty much totolly range 8 and even some of their beams are only range 10.
early EA have alot of range 8 plasma cannons.
as you mentioned the raid ship of the shadows has range 8, so do drakh raiders and blue stars.
some of the drazi ships have range 8 particle blasters.
all the narn have range 8 secondaries.
so in reality theres actually quite alot of ships with range 8.
putting it all upto 12 would give ships a 24" threat range and would actually get on par with some peoples main weapons (centauri). this would change the dynamics of the game a fair amount as suddenly you dont have to move as far and 3 g'quans could have the entirety of most peoples boards covered from edge to edge which is wrong.
abbai are pretty much totolly range 8 and even some of their beams are only range 10.
early EA have alot of range 8 plasma cannons.
as you mentioned the raid ship of the shadows has range 8, so do drakh raiders and blue stars.
some of the drazi ships have range 8 particle blasters.
all the narn have range 8 secondaries.
so in reality theres actually quite alot of ships with range 8.
putting it all upto 12 would give ships a 24" threat range and would actually get on par with some peoples main weapons (centauri). this would change the dynamics of the game a fair amount as suddenly you dont have to move as far and 3 g'quans could have the entirety of most peoples boards covered from edge to edge which is wrong.
Secondaries are intended to attack any threatening ship.
The old 3 to 6 guns had the AF trait, but were also a threat to small ships. Closer to dual purpose guns that anti aircraft machine guns. Dropping them dropped a whole layer from the onion of ship movement. Remember any AD can soak an interceptor, do a crit, or push in that last damage point.
The current 8 to 10 range guns are threatening to small ships, if the larger ship could move towards them. They can't due to the way Lumbering was written. If we should change anything it is Lumbering, so that ships can move somewhat sideways. Re-writing every ships with shorter range secondaries is going to be a lot harder to balance.
And you don't see a reason to move them to 15 now, but bump everyone up (at larger level) and when we start seeing who can still dance just outside range with small ships SOMEONE will want to bump up again... or shorten the ranges on those ships.
What I'm saying is we're moving more and more away from a game of maneuver and shoot... to a game of CBD and snipe... with giant banks of 'defensive' weapons for dealing with smaller ships. B5 was never about playing star caste...
Ripple
The old 3 to 6 guns had the AF trait, but were also a threat to small ships. Closer to dual purpose guns that anti aircraft machine guns. Dropping them dropped a whole layer from the onion of ship movement. Remember any AD can soak an interceptor, do a crit, or push in that last damage point.
The current 8 to 10 range guns are threatening to small ships, if the larger ship could move towards them. They can't due to the way Lumbering was written. If we should change anything it is Lumbering, so that ships can move somewhat sideways. Re-writing every ships with shorter range secondaries is going to be a lot harder to balance.
And you don't see a reason to move them to 15 now, but bump everyone up (at larger level) and when we start seeing who can still dance just outside range with small ships SOMEONE will want to bump up again... or shorten the ranges on those ships.
What I'm saying is we're moving more and more away from a game of maneuver and shoot... to a game of CBD and snipe... with giant banks of 'defensive' weapons for dealing with smaller ships. B5 was never about playing star caste...
Ripple
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
greenboy said:
I would agree, except it is easier to fix the handful of big ships by extending their secondaries, than it is to fix the multitudes of small ships with excessive weapon ranges. It is just a matter of practicality really.
Tzarevitch
Greg Smith said:
My issue with this is rather than drastically changing one ship and trying to balance it the present idea is to change the way a whole fleet is played / acts and then try to balance that? Surely much more difficult?
Surely it is easier to change one ship (OK and varients) than have a across the board change.
Most people agree the main Narn problem (apart from being Narn) is the G'Quon - change them to make them worthwhile, then give them a minor rules thingy like everyone else?
Everything in the show suggests it is a big beam ship - unlike the game :?
I watched the episode where sheridan went up against the shadows offensively for the first time. when he asked for volounteers, and G'Kar said the G'Toc was the only ship powerful enough for the mission... a mission which involved a Sharlin i will remind you.... then you look at the game g'quan and laugh!
