Anti initiative sink house rule

[The Hobbybox]

Oops, yeah, should have been 2 Chronos, 3 Myrmidons and a Marathon.

 

[katadder]

true but the adira did next to nothing.

Well thats your fault for allowing 2 Strikehawks to lure it behind an asteroid field

actually he was diverting the rest of your fleet towards mine otherwise your entire fleet would have escaped i think.

 

[Burger]

So could you comfortably squadron those into two groups

Depends on the opponent's fleet. If they have lots of init sinks as well, don't squadron because it'll mess with your boresighting. If they have only a few ships, squadron (for speed of play if nothing else!).

and/or would you consider replacing two Strikehawks for a Solarhawk

Never, ever, EVER field a Solarhawk! Even if playing at Battle level, take 3 Strikehawks rather than a Solarhawk and 2 Strikehawks. They are just free VPs for your opponent. They die so easily, and they always get shot first because of their big gun and low hit points.

 

[Burger]

actually he was diverting the rest of your fleet towards mine otherwise your entire fleet would have escaped i think.

If I'd wanted to run away I could've flown off my own deployment edge Scenario was assassination, no edge ownership!

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

The following situation has been seen here more than once.

Stella debris is on the table. Initiative sinks stay behind the debris on all stop, enemy ships therefore have to move before the ships they are engaging, don't manage to boresight anything and die under the guns of the smaller ships of the init sink equipped fleet with no chance of retribution.

Cannot kill the init sinks themselves because they never engage the enemy, never even seen by the enemy in most cases.

Cannot kill the enemy ships that do come out, because they are never in arc to engage.

A varient is using high stealth init sinks at extreme range, can be shot at but takes stupid amounts of fire to destroy them, while the rest of the fleet mops up.

This situation leads to an escalation of init sinking, each game involving more of the little bleeders. Turn length gets longer and longer, games get less playable and less fun.

Guess I want to put the breaks on it a little and change the dynamic. If both sides are limited to half a dozen ships or squadrons, how you organise those squadrons becomes much more important. to get effective initative sinks you have to gather your serious hitters into one or two squadrons and use them last, but it is less likely that either side can leave their opponant doing nothing, getting frustrated and giving up the game.

 

[Burger]

Stella debris is on the table

Clear up the empty cans and bottles before playing

 

[Sulfurdown]

I can definitely empathize with the long range sinks, but as Burger illuminated with his Drazi fleet forcing your ships into squadrons as you currently have set up could cripple some games even worse then if you played without limit.

Shadow Ship & Shadow Scout vs Drazi Strikehawks & Eyehawks - If the Scout is left far out it becomes almost impossible to hunt down and with the initiative bonus of the Shadows you end up always forcing both Drazi squadrons first and then the Ship has free reign over the board. I would almost be rediculous to watch that game. That is, however, the extreme case.

So a Group Cap might work, the numbers just need adjustment.

EDIT: If you knew you were facing the Shadows I'd imagine you'd alter your fleet build under those conditions to allow a wider spread of ship groups, but I was using the above as an illustration, nothing more.

 

[Ripple]

Or worse is the initiative sinks hiding in hyper just doing their Initiate Jump Point order for three key turns.

Sadly, the initiative system is one of the weakest points of the game, largely due to boresight rules and the vast distances many ships can cover in a turn. It is better than many systems, but needs a bit of reaction built in for boresighted or short ranged/movement ships. Just limiting the number of units just favors units that don't need precise positioning.

Ripple

 

[Jhary]

Ok, init sinking leads to wierd things happening.

Small fast ships tend to end up moving first, before the larger and slower ships, which is obviously not that logical.

It's also been said that massed swarms makes using larger ships impossible, which isn't the sort of game we wanted to be playing.

End of the day though, this is just a house rule to change the dynamic of the game, nothing more.

Its an Wargame and in war strange things happens. Its logical that smaller and normaly agiler units move in and out befor large monster units can react or for what have we figthers?

The following situation has been seen here more than once.

Stella debris is on the table. Initiative sinks stay behind the debris on all stop, enemy ships therefore have to move before the ships they are engaging, don't manage to boresight anything and die under the guns of the smaller ships of the init sink equipped fleet with no chance of retribution.

Cannot kill the init sinks themselves because they never engage the enemy, never even seen by the enemy in most cases.

Cannot kill the enemy ships that do come out, because they are never in arc to engage.

A varient is using high stealth init sinks at extreme range, can be shot at but takes stupid amounts of fire to destroy them, while the rest of the fleet mops up.

This situation leads to an escalation of init sinking, each game involving more of the little bleeders. Turn length gets longer and longer, games get less playable and less fun.

Guess I want to put the breaks on it a little and change the dynamic. If both sides are limited to half a dozen ships or squadrons, how you organise those squadrons becomes much more important. to get effective initative sinks you have to gather your serious hitters into one or two squadrons and use them last, but it is less likely that either side can leave their opponant doing nothing, getting frustrated and giving up the game.

Take other ships choose also to do an unfamous retreat if you cant do any thing.

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

OK, I'll admit defeat.

Doesn't look like the idea found any support out there. I only mentioned it because it made for some interesting games, and I thought others might want to try it.

Still, better to be playing around with rules variants to address a problem than just giving up, I say.

 

[Centauri_Admiral]

Personally I prefere to play REAL mens games, by which I mean a game of at least 5 points at battle, and test your fleet command skills properly. Anything less, to me, is a girls game . . . . . . .

And to be honest, I find intiative sinking unsporting, call me old fashioned but I like games/gamers who try and find a fair and balanced way to win their games without resorting to becoming a beardus maximus.
BUT I do however understand that some players feel that fleets like the narn or drazi NEED int. sinks to give them a fighting chance.

Anyway, weren't the narns and drazi, designed to be Centauri cannon-fodder?
:twisted:

 

[Davesaint]

Personally I prefere to play REAL mens games, by which I mean a game of at least 5 points at battle, and test your fleet command skills properly. Anything less, to me, is a girls game . . . . . . .

And to be honest, I find intiative sinking unsporting, call me old fashioned but I like games/gamers who try and find a fair and balanced way to win their games without resorting to becoming a beardus maximus.
BUT I do however understand that some players feel that fleets like the narn or drazi NEED int. sinks to give them a fighting chance.

Anyway, weren't the narns and drazi, designed to be Centauri cannon-fodder?
:twisted:

I don't understand why you feel bringing initiative sinks is "beardy." Afterall, modern navy's don't go running around with only battleships or only carriers in their fleets. They take small ships to escort the larger ships. The problem isn't necessarily with the taking of the small ships, it's in the quality of the small ships you are taking. Frankly, if the Hermes didn't come with a fighter and a missle rack, no-one would take it. The thing s that in 2nd ed initiative sinking for some races/eras got easier and cheaper.


Dave

 

[Right Hand of God]

I think the use of initiative sinks in larger games is less important though, the more target rich the environment the greater the chance of getting in BS shots anyway. The trouble then ccomes with huge squadrons dominating the game. You try your luck against a squadron of 3 shadow crusiers or 6 tertius. You don't want an initiative sink at that point you want a sofa to hide behind :shock:

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

To Davesaint:
Init sinking is just totally beardy in that it is using the technical rules to create situations on the table top that simply couldn't happen in the real world for gamesmanship advantage.

If you can't recognise EXCESSIVE use of init sinks as beardy, then, well, there's nothing I can say that wouldn't be offensive so I'll stop now.

Got a silly idea to prevent init sinking.

Any ship that hasn't played a constructive part in the battle in three turns is automatically considered destroyed, giving the enemy double standard victory points.

PS it's been one of those weeks!

 

[Sulfurdown]

As insane as that suggestion is... I can see that being toned down to "any ship that has not performed a constructive combat engagement" is considered fled. A three round "withdrawal" rule. Constructive meaning actively aiding combat if possible so scouting would be constructive, etc.

 

[Da Boss]

Hmm - also be careful that a ship that has lost its weapons and is trying to repair them is not penalised or one which is still alive but crippled etc but limping around?

 

[katadder]

they are playing a constructive rol,e they are manouvering to force you into manouvres

 

[Lord David the Denied]

To Davesaint:
Init sinking is just totally beardy in that it is using the technical rules to create situations on the table top that simply couldn't happen in the real world for gamesmanship advantage.

If you can't recognise EXCESSIVE use of init sinks as beardy, then, well, there's nothing I can say that wouldn't be offensive so I'll stop now.

Got a silly idea to prevent init sinking.

Any ship that hasn't played a constructive part in the battle in three turns is automatically considered destroyed, giving the enemy double standard victory points.

PS it's been one of those weeks!

It IS manipulating the letter of the rules, as you say. This is one of the problems with the you-go-I-go system, and would be eliminated with alternating turns á la GW games. Of course, that method comes with its own problems, too...

 

[katadder]

whats manipulating the letter of the rules?
anyone can use smaller ships, they are generally just less powerful though so you may start with smaller ships and init advantage but you will lose ships quicker too.

 

[Burger]

Using initiative sinks against Drazi is quite broken. If Drazi player has 6 ships and you have 7, you can keep 6 of yours out of sight (preferably behind scenery). Then your 7th can move around and go hunting with total impunity, knowing that the Drazi can never align their boresights to shoot back.