Almost a batrep!

[H]

why only almost, well, the game didn't last long enough and highlighted again two of the games major issues.

so anyhow, we were "supposed" to be having a 14 war point battle, as it transpired, the ISA and Shadow players let us down, but we got a 2nd time only gamer in with some centauri, and we changed to 8 war points of minbari, agains 4 of Psi corp and 4 of Centauri.

now we were all for big ships, except where we NEEDED smaller ships, so. .

Psi Corps,
Warlock
Shadow Omega (triggys stats)
3 hunters
delphi, chronos, 2 shadow cloaks.

Cantauri,
Adira (oooh yeah!)
2 primus
balvarin, altarian, 4 demos

Minbari
3 sharlins, 1 sharoos
4 tinashi, 2 morshin, leshath, 2 teshlan

so two top heavy fleets really. well then, so why is this only almost a batrep... well in turn one, 2 hunters destroyed a sharlin with 27 hits between them, the shadow omega was then bereft of it's target, and the warlock failed to see the sharlin. the 4 tinashi, and 2 sharlins removed the adira, the adira did a sum total of 12 damage to a sharlin, whoooo.. and one of my hunters was removed by the sharoos. and that was that in turn one. The minbari player was somewhat mifed at loosing a sharlin to the first shot of the game, but destroying the adira mildly placated him.

Turn 2 happened, the warlock died from pure damage from the 4 tinashi squadrons beams (we figured with crits we would be at a good 120 plus damage!) the minibeams from the same ships killed two demos and the alterian was crippled. the 2 hunters attacked the sharoos one missing, for 12 damage, the shadow omega did 9 damage, then was obliterated, one primus was crippled, the two shadow cloaks had gone down in the explosions of the two psi corps war ships. . and the minbari fighters had failed 1 dodge roll out of 30, and lost one dog fight from 7 (all mostly even). oh yeah, the sharoos side weapons destroyed one more demos and set the other adrift. . . and so with a Hunter, A primus, and a chronos left. we conceeded. the Minbari had lost one sharlin, and one nial. . .

so as you see, I can't really be bothered with a full blow for blow bat rep. . it took me longer to stick the damn spines on the shadow omega than it actually lasted!! . .

right, so Phill the Centauri player was playing only his second ever game, for reference the ISA murderised him in his very first game... his comments afterwards. can you teach me flames of war, I want a balanced game. . the Minbari players comments, it's so goddam random, where is the point in tactics, a good roll will win everything (this from the man who rolls more crits than anyone I know as well)

general opinion again from all players, crits happened way to often (especially with precise minbari) and just took over, the only more annoying thing were the ridiculous runaway beam hits... the 27 hits from 2 hunters, and then the 40 hits from a squadron of 4 tinashi, we also had 12 from a sharoos, and 16 from a sharlin.
pretty much ruined a game we were looking forward to, but then we kinda expected it from the start, and it didn't dissapoint :-(

 

[Triggy]

Thanks for the writeup - I know there are ardent supporters on both sides of the fence, but for large battles where you really don't want luck to be a huge issue, I'd use Burger's Beam System (1-2 = 0 hits, 3-5 = 1 hit, 6 = 3 hits). In fact, if this got a few proper playtests we could possibly see it as an "officially unofficial" addon (i.e. it is an official optional rule).

Second step would be the odd tournament start using it (with or without it being in P&P).

Third step would be the public deciding if they prefer it or not!

 

[H]

actually, I discussed it after the game, and the minbari player thought it sounded a lot fairer and less likely to see a warlock or a sharlin go down in a single salvo from damage alone on crazy beam rolls
however we were trying to play the rules as written or proposed for p+p. Alas your shadow omega stats proved pretty worthless*, that said, without them, it wouldn't have got off a single shot!

*not meaning they are bad, but the poor thing got blown up before getting into the game!

 

[Triggy]

Hence the reason why I'd suggest it particularly for a game like this where you want it to be fun and last for most of a day. In games lasting 1-3 hours (normal games) it's not such an issue as you play enough of them that the odd freak result can just be written off.

 

[H]

well, not so sure on freak result, I have beaten his Minbari once since the game was released, but then I have never lost to his dilgar. . . go figure...

 

[Lord David the Denied]

No disrespect to Burger but why not just go back to the old beam rules? The new rules are pretty widely hated, the old set allowed for beams that didn't always hit on a 4 (which is arbitary and in my opinion stupid) and it got progressively harder to keep getting hits.

Burger's method is fine but it's a bit like fixing something that isn't broken. Just roll back to the old version.

 

[Triggy]

No disrespect to Burger but why not just go back to the old beam rules? The new rules are pretty widely hated, the old set allowed for beams that didn't always hit on a 4 (which is arbitary and in my opinion stupid) and it got progressively harder to keep getting hits.

Burger's method is fine but it's a bit like fixing something that isn't broken. Just roll back to the old version.

I can tell you the reason, even if I actually agree with you almost 100% in principle. Assuming for balance's sake you start all beams on a 3+, it's because on average the old rules gave more hits (1.17 old rules, 1.00 new rules). If you changed it to start with the hull value of the target ship then I'm afraid every ship in the game would need rebalancing. Hull 6 ships have been made better to compensate for their weakness vs. beams and ships with beams as their main source of firepower have less firepower for the same reason.

The only viable alternative using this technique, short of introducing the change for 3rd ed. and rebalancing everything, is to use the 1st ed. rules but start all rolls on a 3+. This however would increase the firepower of every beam in the game by 17%. As you can see, this is no small problem and is the reason why Burger's Beam System is liked - it doesn't change any of the averages.

 

[Greg Smith]

Second step would be the odd tournament start using it (with or without it being in P&P).

Like Da Boss' did?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I can tell you the reason, even if I actually agree with you almost 100% in principle. Assuming for balance's sake you start all beams on a 3+, it's because on average the old rules gave more hits (1.17 old rules, 1.00 new rules). If you changed it to start with the hull value of the target ship then I'm afraid every ship in the game would need rebalancing. Hull 6 ships have been made better to compensate for their weakness vs. beams and ships with beams as their main source of firepower have less firepower for the same reason.

The only viable alternative using this technique, short of introducing the change for 3rd ed. and rebalancing everything, is to use the 1st ed. rules but start all rolls on a 3+. This however would increase the firepower of every beam in the game by 17%. As you can see, this is no small problem and is the reason why Burger's Beam System is liked - it doesn't change any of the averages.

Fair enough. Hoping for it for 3rd ed then.

 

[Da Boss]

Second step would be the odd tournament start using it (with or without it being in P&P).

Like Da Boss' did?

Indeed

however whilst I much prefer it - I think I am the only one at the club as most prefer the feel of the present system.

Present system - lots of dice rolls, big hit / or miss common, apparently "feels beamy"

Burgers system - less random, quicker, feels less "beamy".

As I said I prefer it, but what do other people think? Has anyone else tried it?

 

[Burger]

Present system - lots of dice rolls, big hit / or miss common, apparently "feels beamy"

Burgers system - less random, quicker, feels less "beamy".

To be fair, I think it only "feels beamy" because people have got used to rerolls since 1st ed. If beams had never gotten rerolls then nobody would be saying it doesn't feel very beamy. It's really nothing to do with how beams were in the show or how they might be in real life, it is just based on people's experience of beams in ACTA and opposition to change.

 

[H]

i'd rather feel less beamy and have a balanced game, sure 27 hits from tweo hunters was a great feeling at the time, but it was very harsh on the poor sharlin.

 

[katadder]

not that it matters but the corps fleets was slightly illegal
shame your other 2 players didnt turn up hiff. sounds like your guys had alot of beam luck. I tend to find it balances out throughout a game with only the occasional runaway beam.

 

[H]

on what basis illegal?
because I split a point between psi corps and allies?

hunter, delphi, chronos, 2 shadow cloak?
other points were warlock
shadow omega
2 hunters

 

[Da Boss]

not that it matters but the corps fleets was slightly illegal
shame your other 2 players didnt turn up hiff. sounds like your guys had alot of beam luck. I tend to find it balances out throughout a game with only the occasional runaway beam.

It depends on what that beams hits - if its your big ship/s as seen above, can be a game killer...........

most recent game played EA Crusade vs my Centauri

4 AD beams on three ships
Marathon fired IIRC 4 times - miss, miss, (!), 1 hit, 3 hits (2 bulkheads)
Hyperion fired 4 times - 4 hits, 4 hits, 8 hits, 7 hits

Liati fired 6 times - 1 hit, 2 hits, 2 hits, 3 hits, 7 hits, 8 hits,

Hyperion/4 Chronos did all the work - the Marathon was nothing more than a distraction............the present system is also terrible for the big misses as much as big hits - that was a battle level ship doing nothing really for the first 3 turns and even its last firing turn hardly scratches the Balvarin carrier.

 

[mikelosaurus]

The only viable alternative using this technique, short of introducing the change for 3rd ed. and rebalancing everything, is to use the 1st ed. rules but start all rolls on a 3+. This however would increase the firepower of every beam in the game by 17%. As you can see, this is no small problem and is the reason why Burger's Beam System is liked - it doesn't change any of the averages.

What about starting on 4+ (like the current rules) but then increasing it to 5+, then 6+, then 6+ every re-roll thereafter (more like the old rules)? Would that make them too weak?

 

[Ripple]

Likely that is what he is talking about.

I agree with Burger, folks like the re-rolls in part due to it being the way its always been, but I also think its the dramatic tension in waiting to see how many rolls you'll get. Rolling and hoping over and over does have it's attractions.

One of the big issues I've seen is that when you roll up, you don't just add up more damage, but lots more crits too.

I wish we had the option to just go with 4+ and then going up each roll (5+/6+). I know that's less than beams do now but it keeps the tension (maybe even helps as that string of 6's is more dramatic) and yet tones down the simply abusive mechanic we now have.

(I did not fill out our last battle report.

Summary -

Narn - 2 G'Quan, 2 Thentus, Ka'toc, T'loth, T'Rakk
EA - 2 Omega, Explorer, 4 Hyperion Assualt

Assassination (Mutual)

First turn - mild damage on a hyperion, jump point open
Second turn - omega dead due to super beam hit, never fires. Scattered damage to Narn
Third turn through Seventh - trade blows with all beams over 2 AD hitting at least double expected...

EA win... but entirely due to a couple of adrift crits literally running a G'Quan off the table.

Net discussion afterward, game turned out to be close, but felt crappy as big beams rolls kept see-sawing the battle.

Ripple

 

[Da Boss]

One of the big issues I've seen is that when you roll up, you don't just add up more damage, but lots more crits too.
Ripple

good point - its not always mentioned but is usually what happens............often on double / tripple damage beams..............

 

[katadder]

on what basis illegal?
because I split a point between psi corps and allies?

hunter, delphi, chronos, 2 shadow cloak?
other points were warlock
shadow omega
2 hunters

yep as when you buy allies with a FAP you cant split a single FAP between allies and actual fleet otherwise as you have shown you just use it to bypass the dross in a fleet (ie the fighter carriers)

 

[H]

i did it to overcome the fact i hadn't BUILT my fighter carriers, or Mothership lol