Advanced Jump Point as weapon: possible fix?

[lastbesthope]

Chernobyl wrote:

IIRC it takes 3 turns for the jump engines to recharge...so if your game (and the ship) lasts long enough you could do it more than once couldn't you?

Chern

ONLYif the ship opening the JP remains in hyperspace, I'm not sure about that though, the rules don't state that you have to ocme thorugh the JP, hough it is implied.

looking at the original book 1-rules, p. 18, jump points, end of 1st paragraph...
"Once a jump counter has been removed, the ship that created it may not initiate another for at least 3 turns as its jump engines have to recharge."

Chernobyl

True Chern, but I can't see anything in the rules that makes a ship opening a JP have to go through it, in either direction, it could simply open a JP for friendly ships to use. AN interesting grey area I think.

LBH

 

[Tal Hawkins]

I understand the "it was used in the series" argument and I understand the desire to make the game a copy of what we watched, but I can't help thinking this is one of those rules that should just be consigned to the rubbish heap as flawed from a game play perspective. Just ditch the damage caused by opening a jump point on a ship. The real advantage to be gained from AJP should be the positional aspect and the firing on turn of entry. It potentially becomes a real game breaker otherwise.

Oh and hi to everyone on the forums (first post)

The real problem is that it is only used once in the show in a very specific situation and rules much more open ended were written. The rules allow the AJP ability be used much more effectively than the show ever demonstrates.

 

[lastbesthope]

I dunno, the ItB demonstration of AJP seemed pretty effective to me :lol:

LBH

 

[emperorpenguin]

It clearly is a contentious issue, the words "advanced jump point" are quickly becoming the ACTA version of "wraithlord" to 40K players

 

[Triggy]

It clearly is a contentious issue, the words "advanced jump point" are quickly becoming the ACTA version of "wraithlord" to 40K players

Too true!

Yes, the AJP is very effective in at least one canon instance but truth is, in the game it is far too easy to put into action. The whole point about ItB was that the EA fleet had to be lured to a specific spot at a specific time before the Minbari could jump into them. In ACtA, any AJP fleet can jump into the heart of any other at any time at all!

 

[Matt]

Yes, the AJP is very effective in at least one canon instance but truth is, in the game it is far too easy to put into action

yes this is the core off the issue it shud be harder to use

 

[Pirate PB]

Think of it like this:

You have a WWII naval game. The Japanese Navy get a "Pearl Harbour Attack" rule that allows them to wtfpwn their opponent for a turn with no response. Yes the Japanese Navy carried out such an attack historically and yes it was very effective (lets leave the historical discussion of the efficacy of the Pearl harbour attack for now, eh?) but it required a level of stealth and planning to undertake that you can't replicate with a game mechanic. As such you're left with an overly powerful rule that rather than reflecting a special and unique event in the game becomes a default tactic for every fleet that can use it.

For me situational stuff like this is the province of special scenario rules rather than a general rule available to a fleet/ship as the norm. Maybe even a campaign level rule if you can satisfy certain conditions.

Oh yes - and if there are any 40K player lurking here - starcannons have been nerfed along with Wraithlords, at least that's the word I've heard.

 

[Elessar]

I disagree

Minbari are able to do such an attack

They probably do love to do so
:twisted:


ps are you sure us intelligence didn t know about the attack ?
:wink:

 

[Pirate PB]

Like I said - I wasn't discussing the historical Pearl Harbour attack per se. It was an example to make a point about how something "historically accurate" does not necessarily translate into a viable and balanced game rule.

Minbari or not, no fleet in the game should have an uncounterable trump card that they can play. The point isn't whether the "real" Minbari could or could not enact such an attack, its whether they should be able to do so within the normal mechanics of the game. I posit that they should not.

As to whether the boneheads love <double entendre>taking enemies from behind whilst they're not looking</double entendre> that may well be the case, but again, it hardly is a sound basis for a balanced game rule.

Interestingly, if we extrapolate your argument about US intelligence being aware of and allowing the Pearl Harbour attack to go ahead, maybe we should make the AJP Bomb useable ... with your opponent's permission.

ithankyouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!

I'm here all week, also available for weddings and bar mitzvahs ...

 

[emperorpenguin]

Oh yes - and if there are any 40K player lurking here - starcannons have been nerfed along with Wraithlords, at least that's the word I've heard.

WHAT! :shock: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Traveller-61]

now the part about causing damage only occurs when a jump point from hyperspace to realspace is opened, but in "A Call to Arms" we see the reverse happen as well, the small drakh ships are smashed by the victory class ships opening jump points to hyperspace.

Chernobyl

no what you see is the Drakh ships attempting to give chase into hyperspace not being quick enough and getting caught as the jump point closes.

You are forgetting that after that happened, the surviving Drakh ships were just turning when the Victory opened a jump point destroying them as it entered hyperspace.

For my 0.02cr, and as others have suggested here, any AJP "attack" should require at least one friendly ship to be on the table and to make a QC to successfully get the target co-ordinates.

DW

 

[noobdelux]

For my 0.02cr, and as others have suggested here, any AJP "attack" should require at least one friendly ship to be on the table and to make a QC to successfully get the target co-ordinates.

DW

if i dont remember corectly it states in the rules that you cant do ajp if you dont have anny ships on the board.

 

[Matt]

For my 0.02cr, and as others have suggested here, any AJP "attack" should require at least one friendly ship to be on the table and to make a QC to successfully get the target co-ordinates.

yes a qs check is a good idea that woude limit the chance off AJP bomb going true and woude still make it a possibility

 

[lastbesthope]

if i dont remember corectly it states in the rules that you cant do ajp if you dont have anny ships on the board.

Your memory is hazy young one :lol:

I suspect you are referring to this from the Jump Points section of the Advanced Rules:

Some scenarios will allow for ships to be kept off the battlefield until they are needed, waiting in hyperspace for the order to launch their attack. These ships are not deployed on the battlefield at the start of the game but are instead kept to one side. So long as at least one friendly ship remains on the battlefield, any ships waiting in hyperspace may be brought into play – if no friendly ships are on the battlefield, then ships waiting in hyperspace cannot be brought into the game.

What it basically means that in scenarios where a player is allowed to keep some of his fleet in hyperspace, if they leave them their too long they can't bring them in after all their ships on the 'realspace' battlefield have been destroyed.

The same rule applies whether the ships in hyperspace are AJP or just JP capable.

LBH

 

[Shadowfax]

I tend to travel the middle gound with AJP. I think the fix is relatively simple. Allow the AJP with a ship but in order for it to do damage a crew quality check needs to be done for all jump points that could do damage. We have the best of both worlds. Cannon and balance. I play this way and it helps keep the bomb in check.

 

[emoadam]

ack why is everyone so irate about it, a good general should anticipate this move, and plan to stop it, stop worrying about other peoples advantages, and make them worry about yours

 

[lastbesthope]

ack why is everyone so irate about it, a good general should anticipate this move, and plan to stop it, stop worrying about other peoples advantages, and make them worry about yours

People are irate about it because it is a heck of a lot of damage that you can't do anything about. I myself am not one of them, I accept that iot may happen and do my best to minimise the damage the JPs can inflict, unlike one of my opponents who once kept 2 ships so close together that I could place 2 AJPs behind the ships that both affected both ships, needless to say, the ships did not survive to ever make the same error :twisted:

People are allowed to express their opinions, doesn't mean we have to like them, or agree with them, but feedback on the rules is always a good thing.

LBH

 

[Target]

It's the fact it takes no skill what so ever, it appears and boom. How do you protect your hull 4 ships. You can't. It's just a extra weapon.

 

[Tal Hawkins]

I dunno, the ItB demonstration of AJP seemed pretty effective to me :lol:

LBH

What part of in a very specific situation did you not read?

 

[Tal Hawkins]

I disagree

Minbari are able to do such an attack

They probably do love to do so
:twisted:


:wink:

WRONG WRONG WRONG

They were able on-screen to do the attack ONCE using a ship as bait to draw the targets into a very specific spot.

FURTHERMORE the entire movie ITB is nothing more than a story being told my Londo so the fact that we NEVER see the tactic used except in a story being told by a third party who didnt see the actual event shows how little weight it should carry.