ACTA - I want, I hate, lets adjust

[Da Boss]

Half AD would work, I think. The problem is if you use the Launch Breaching Pods and Shuttles or Stand Down Special Action, you do not need to pass a Stealth Check, so how do you know there is a ship out there?

Stealth is not a 'cloaking device' (see SFU). It disrupt the sensors, scanners, radar, etc., but you know there is a ship out there.

Marc

Then maybe allow anything but a Beam and Mini-Beam weapon to fire at half AD as suggested. and/or possibly lose the Twin Linked trait.

The thing with the Crusade Fleet is by the time most of those ships were built they should have improved sensors to combat the stealth of the Minbari, not break, just improve things some. The EA did fight a war and got their butts kicked, so you would think the designers would have thought of improving the sensors. Plus the Warlock and Marathon had Shadow tech incorporated in the design. Maybe a +1 to stealth checks?

If you make it so stealth ships - and in particular the Minbari can be hit with half AD. I think you need to make sure those ships/that fleet does not suffer as a consequence. Playtesting required

re fluff reasons to make stealth breaking easier, to be fair - the Drakh don't get their +1 versus Stealth anymore (they did in 1st Ed) and have as good if not better argument to superior technology. The Vorlons also have issues seeing past the Minbari - no scouts unlike their ancient rivals.

 

[tschuma]

Forgot about the Drakh, they have a great argument for a +1since they have been around almost or longer then the Minbari. Also forgot about the Vorlons not having anything to break stealth. We have stopped playing Vorlons and Shadows for awhile.

I will post the ideas to the group to see if we want to play test anything on this side of the pond.

 

[Lifegiver]

At the current time, the best they have is Stealth 4+, so you just need a scout and close range to bring them to 2+ - not unlikely at all (the stealth ships use their tech to get in close...).

I think this is a good way of preventing stealth from becoming too dominant.

Take a look at Planet Mongoose, 30/09/10. There's a preview of some of the criticals system, which appears to have followed suggestions made here earlier. Roll once for location, then the severity of the critical depends on a number of factors starting with how many criticals have already hit that location.

Well, I really wonder about that. My suggestion seemed to be very unpolular a few pages above. I improved my critical hits system in the meantime, but I am still unsatisfied about it. The main challenge is reducing book keeping about critical hits to weapons.

 

[Mean Mutton]

What annoys me is that you can be right up close, when you could practically see the ship and throw stuff at it, and you fail stealth!

Hell, you could fire the damn things in manual and use line of site through a window if necessary! That's what makes it wrong and not true to life.

So make it say, under 8" you get to roll stealth as normal, but if you fail you get half AD?

Except that "right up close" really wouldn't be all that close. Even for modern day naval battles, "right up close" would be tens of miles apart. If your cruise missile's guidance system was being jammed by some sort of alien ECM system, you couldn't just look down the missile and press a button and have any hope of hitting a target a few miles away.

The Minbari ships were balanced with stealth working a certain way. Personally, I have little trouble fighting them as the Dilgar or the Vree and they're amusingly easy to tear apart as the Gaim. If you gave me half hit dice on them even if they fail their stealth -- that's such a huge nerf that the Minbari would become even more useless than the raiders.

 

[AdrianH]

I agree that there are various techniques to help beat stealth, and in general am happy to leave it as it is. For those who don't like the "all or nothing" aspect, especially if it's one of those days when the dice hate you, maybe roll stealth checks for each weapon system rather than each ship. So you're unlikely to get all your weapons to fire but at least you get something. This is also more "realistic" (in as much as that word can be applied to a game about a science-fiction show ) compared to half AD for a failed check; different weapon systems may very well have their own fire control scanners, but if you can't get a lock-on then you can't fire.

A successful stealth check for one weapon on a ship should not give a bonus for other weapons on the same ship, but if a ship has broken stealth then it can give the usual +1 bonus to other ships. This does disadvantage stealth ships slightly in that it is more likely for a ship to get at least one lock, thus increasing the chances of the next ship getting the bonus, but it's less of a nerf to stealth than some other suggestions.

As for Digger's idea about firing on manual, perhaps make it a special action with a CQ of at least 9, preferably 10. Allow it to be declared during the attack phase after a failed stealth check provided no other SA has been declared. If Ivanova could do it in "War Without End", so can you.

 

[l33tpenguin]

As for Digger's idea about firing on manual, perhaps make it a special action with a CQ of at least 9, preferably 10. Allow it to be declared during the attack phase after a failed stealth check provided no other SA has been declared. If Ivanova could do it in "War Without End", so can you.

Ugh... That was the stupidest...

You're shooting at something that is so far out the ships computer can't lock on to it (had nothing to stealth) and somehow you can manually do better than a computer that is capable of doing a billion mathematical calculations in a slit second... I just can't buy that. Thats like saying the gunner of a AC-130 can more accurately put rounds on target than the computer in his gunship.

If the targetting computer had been offline... sure. Go nuts on manual.

 

[Digger]

@ L33tpenguin - Duhhhh - Read the thread! I said if it was very close, less than 8" - So please, less of the stupid; we all play the game for fun!

 

[l33tpenguin]

@ L33tpenguin - Duhhhh - Read the thread! I said if it was very close, less than 8" - So please, less of the stupid; we all play the game for fun!

No no... it wasn't at all directed at yourself or AdrianH. It was the episode itself. It was one of those times when I just thought it was a really stupid idea on screen. Sorry, I realize now from my comment thats hard to tell. I was critiqing the show, not an idea here.

 

[Digger]

@ L33tpenguin - No worries mate, didn't know you were referring to the show - Let's crack on and play the game!