ACTA: Fleet Carrier

[nekomata fuyu]

On the issue of balance, I would have thought that recovery would be the least of the worries that Fleet Carrier brings up. Much more important to me is the +1 to dogfight instead of the weak pseudo-save, and that's granted to all fighters in the fleet even if they're not even from the same faction!
Even if you were to limit a Poseiden's Fleet Carrier to just Auroras though, it doesn't escape the issue that Fleet Carrier's strength is strongly dependant on just how many flights are in the battle in the first place. I think that next to that particular variable, everything is going to be fairly insignificant to balance anyway. It follows that if there are any balance issues with Fleet Carrier, the only real hope of bringing it in line will be to limit its effect (including dogfight bonus) to only the ships that were being carried by the carrier.

 

[Ripple]

Lot of truth to what your saying as far as what are the strengths of the trait. My point was that only the save is limited in some ways, dogfight is available to all race except the ancients (league races sometimes need to use the limited league rules) and all races gain by a variation in the number of flights. The recovery save is limited to specific fighters... why?

Is it for fluff, balance or vision reasons?

Fluff is getting harder to justify as we discuss it. Most of the actions seem to take to long to do in battle or are hard justify parts wise. (why do we carry stealth parts on a rutarian based carrier?)

Balance, why were they limited to start with? What fighters were seen as being an issue.

Vision, similar to fluff, but more game mechanicy... was it seen as a bonus certain races had developed, a racial strength.

I just thought it we could identify why it was there, and why it was limited in the first place it would be easier to say what the right answer was, and adjust the rules to iron out the rough edges.

Ripple

 

[Tolwyn]

One small question that arose during our last game, if multiple Fleet Carriers are on the table, do their capabilities add together? Do my fighters get +2 Dogfight and can I roll a 2nd time to recover lost fighters?

 

[Burger]

One small question that arose during our last game, if multiple Fleet Carriers are on the table, do their capabilities add together? Do my fighters get +2 Dogfight and can I roll a 2nd time to recover lost fighters?

No. The only benefit you get from having 2 fleet carries is increased coverage area, and a choice of which to recover to (as long as they are within 30").

 

[Tolwyn]

Thank you 8)

 

[alpha_construct]

Sorry if this has been answered before, but I was unable to find it. If someone has multiple fleet carriers, all within range of the fighter, can each one attempt a roll to save it if another fails? Also, does the dogfight bonus stack with each other? Essentially, in a five point raid with 5 dilgar fleet carriers, can the player roll five dice for each fighter recovery and give each fighter +5 dogfight? I know the answer is no by the spirit of the rules, but sometimes some people need official answers as proof. I need an official answer from a Mongoose employee as it will be the only way to prove that this is totally over the top. Thanks for your time.

 

[katadder]

literally end last post on the page before. only one fleet carrier counts for +1 bonus and you only get one save.
however you may put a saved fighter on any fleet carrier within range and with space.

 

[jjdodger]

Was there ever an official ruling made on this?

 

[Burger]

Matt's ruling is that you cannot recover upgrade fighters if you didn't buy the upgrade.
He was thinking about changing it, but no official change has gone through yet.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Matt has also ruled that that original ruling is against the spirit of the rule, so expect the official ruling to end up that advanced fighters can be recovered.

 

[Methos5000]

Personally if the Balvarin and Poseidon get the ability to recover Rutarians and Firebolts free of charge then the other fleet carriers in other fleets should get the ability to recover fighters they don't "normally" carry either. Whitestar Carriers can recover all ISA fighters. The Brokados can even recover the Riva. Why? The Rutarian and Firebolt are already 2 of the top end fighters in the game, letting a base fleet carrier recover them despite not carry them to begin with is unfair the other races that are restricted in their fleet carrier use. Why does the WS Carrier only recover WS Fighters, the Nial is still the base fighter for the ISA, why would they design a carrier that is unable to handle a Nial, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Besides if the fluff we are going with is they are just using the ability to regroup and coordinate fighters why would some fighters be exempt from it just because they aren't normally carried by that carrier

 

[nekomata fuyu]

There's a big difference between allowing a fleet carrier to recover all the types of fighter that it could carry, and allowing it to recover fighters which it can't carry (without a refit).

Saying that a Poseiden normally can't take Firebolts because they cost to them is like saying that an EA:TA fleet can't normally take Omegas because they have a cost to them. This is where any ruling to try and disallow fleet carriers from recovering advanced fighters is going to cause problems unless they rewrite the rule to remove the word "normally". If you try and make such a ruling without explicitly rewriting the rule, you just end up with a load of questions about when normally means normally, and when normally doesn't mean normally.

 

[Harry Lonsdale]

literally end last post on the page before. only one fleet carrier counts for +1 bonus and you only get one save.
however you may put a saved fighter on any fleet carrier within range and with space.

Would you have to designate the fleet carrier before rolling recovery? For instance, in a situation where you have 2+ fleet carriers, one of which is within 10" of the flight--to get the recovery bonus I'd think you have to recover it to that close fleet carrier.

 

[Methos5000]

There's a big difference between allowing a fleet carrier to recover all the types of fighter that it could carry, and allowing it to recover fighters which it can't carry (without a refit).

Saying that a Poseiden normally can't take Firebolts because they cost to them is like saying that an EA:TA fleet can't normally take Omegas because they have a cost to them. This is where any ruling to try and disallow fleet carriers from recovering advanced fighters is going to cause problems unless they rewrite the rule to remove the word "normally". If you try and make such a ruling without explicitly rewriting the rule, you just end up with a load of questions about when normally means normally, and when normally doesn't mean normally.

And part of my point is why doesn't the Whitestar Carrier "Normally" carry Nials, they still make up the bulk of the fighters in the fleet but they build a carrier that has no facilities whatsoever to work on them?

Regardless, if this is such an issue then change the wording to mean what is equipped on carriers by default and change all the carriers that get "free upgrades" to carry half of each. So the Poseidon would list 12 Starfuries and 12 Thunderbolts with the option to change them however you wish. By default the Poseidon carries Starfuries and Thunderbolts so regardless of its current fighter configuration it can retrieve both as they are listed as the default fighters.

Same with the Balvarin, 1/2 Sentris 1/2 Raziks with the ability to swap for one fighter or the other.

Personally I think the Rutarian and Firebolt should be put on specific "advanced ships" same as the Shadowfury and beyond that there is no upgrade to them. Makes everything much simpler. So the Rutarian would still be on the Dargon, Liati and Adira and put the Firebolt on the Warlock and Marathon.

On a side note what is the VP given by a Balvarin fully loaded with Rutarians. Technically you have 1 Raid and 2 Patrol points tied up in that ship so is that what they give up, or is it still just 1 Raid point given up in VP?

 

[nekomata fuyu]

The issue with the White Star Carrier is and should be kept completely separate IMO. Granted, it may be akin to the Poseidon not being able to take Auroras, but that would be an issue with the Poseidon, not an issue with the recovery rules.

For the idea of having the "default" loadout on a carrier include all the types of fighter it can carry, that would play havok with in-service dates. A similar approach could work though:
"Craft: 20 Flights from the following list - Aurora, Badger, Firebolt*, Thunderbolt."
Fighters with a higher cost would be marked (with an * in my example), and the fighters section of the fleet list would give those extra costs.

Probably easier though would be to just drop the word normally, as that seems to be causing most of the problems. If some furute refit allows a carrier to carry something that it wouldn't normally be able to, I see no reason to stop that carrier from recovering that type of fighter too. It would just need to be made clear that other types of that carrier without that refit can't recover those fighters.

 

[skavendan]

I have a Question seems to branch onto this topic. I play Psi Corps I can access EA Fleet Carriers, Could I purchase Psi Corp fighters for an avenger? and then have the ability to replace them?

 

[Burger]

No, EA fighters can only be swapped for those listed in the EA fleet list. If you could do that then my ISA allies would be a Stuteeka with 24 Nials

 

[skavendan]

Yeah but they can already get there own carrier the psi corps can not get a carrier period which is dumb.

and dont go there too powerful that's why cuz a white star carrier is just as powerful and it can replenish!

 

[Burger]

Err what? I'm just going by the rules. The rules say you can't do it. Therefore the answer to your question is "no".

 

[Ripple]

Big difference between what is in the rules and what we would consider sensible. Look at the discussion between Neko and Methos above.

Neko believes that a Fleet Carrier should be able to recover any fighter it carries at the least and any fighter it could carry at the most.

Methos believes that it should only be able to recover fighters it carries as base equipment (ie assuming that the carrier is balanced and tested this way perhaps?) and that advance upgrades that you pay for separately should not gain a 'synergy' bonus that is not paid for by the addition of fleet carrier. Particularly in light of the fact that the ability is not common to all race that utilize advanced fighters and fleet carrier combo's. Plenty of basis for his comments in the rules due to the 'normally carried' component of the fleet carrier recovery rule.

Neither is about what it 'should' carry, of even should be able to, it's what does the rule allow or disallow due to 'normally carried'. Me, I find the whole fleet carrier recovery rule pretty suspect in the should catagory as I have a hard time justifying the whole recovery process unless. Either it is recover/repair/rearm... in which case it has to be actually carried, or its regroup/reorganize in which case it should be any fighter in the fleet.

Ripple