Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Quite correct. If you can GET them there, they get there first... so to speak...Nomad said:
Wulf
Arma: Fighters:Anti-Fighter:
- Thread starter JayRaider
- Start date
Wulf
LaranosTZ
Mongoose
Eh, I play Minbari as one of my two primary fleets, and I've never had problems maintaining range, with a bit of planning and foresight. When I see something that can keep close with me, I eliminate it. As long as you prioritize those ships, they don't keep up with you for long, all those precise beams will either crit them out or remove them from the sky. (And before you complain about 'I've played it this way and it never seems to work, I don't know who you're playing...but even against people I consider very good players I've managed to keep more then 8" between us when I want it.) I personally have had great success with the Morshin carrier. Look at it this way, for a battle point you get 4 patrol points, that's 4 nials. With the morshin you get 8 nials, 1 flyer, -and- a ship. Sure the ship isn't going to be taking out G'quan's and bin'taks but it does add firepower at decent range, and it might also distract your opponent into shooting it, since the command bonus it gives makes it even less likely that my opponent will beat my initiative.
I don't think the fighters within 1" is a problem in particular, it actually makes sense from a common sense point of view. Stealth is based on throwing off an opponent's sensors. IF one is within a few hundred feet of a ship that's hundreds of feet long then sensors don't matter. Sure those fighters will fight first, but in SFOS the Minbari ships have higher damage/crew and aren't as vulnerable to crippling or skeleton crew issues as they were in tournies. If those fighters choose not to fire, and are there to disrupt my stealth? Even better, 7 times out of 10 I'll be firing before my opponent, when I make it a priority to destroy those fighters, they go away...and when they are gone, hey look, no ships left to do the special action, so no +1 vs my stealth.
Personally, I am not upset about the changes to stealth and fighters, though I do think it hurts the Vree a lot more then it does my Minbari fleet.
I don't think the fighters within 1" is a problem in particular, it actually makes sense from a common sense point of view. Stealth is based on throwing off an opponent's sensors. IF one is within a few hundred feet of a ship that's hundreds of feet long then sensors don't matter. Sure those fighters will fight first, but in SFOS the Minbari ships have higher damage/crew and aren't as vulnerable to crippling or skeleton crew issues as they were in tournies. If those fighters choose not to fire, and are there to disrupt my stealth? Even better, 7 times out of 10 I'll be firing before my opponent, when I make it a priority to destroy those fighters, they go away...and when they are gone, hey look, no ships left to do the special action, so no +1 vs my stealth.
Personally, I am not upset about the changes to stealth and fighters, though I do think it hurts the Vree a lot more then it does my Minbari fleet.
I agree in that fighters firing first without rist of retaliation seems wrong,
I would also suggest that against certain fighters of low armour anti fighter weaponry can be pretty lethal, its almost like an auto kill which I think is wrong too.
I would also add that surely weaponry designed to pumel capital ships at distance would have some problems dealing with close in fast moving fighters.
So....
Fighters fire last as before.
Anti fighter imparts a -2 mod to the dodge score (not negating it completely)
And...
Any weapon without the anti fighter trait can only be used with half its normal AD against fighters.
it probably means they will be too surviveable but thought I'd throw it in anyway
White Stars and other NON fighter ships with a dodge ability would be treated as per current rules as they are a lot bigger in size plus are not flying in groups.
I would also suggest that against certain fighters of low armour anti fighter weaponry can be pretty lethal, its almost like an auto kill which I think is wrong too.
I would also add that surely weaponry designed to pumel capital ships at distance would have some problems dealing with close in fast moving fighters.
So....
Fighters fire last as before.
Anti fighter imparts a -2 mod to the dodge score (not negating it completely)
And...
Any weapon without the anti fighter trait can only be used with half its normal AD against fighters.
it probably means they will be too surviveable but thought I'd throw it in anyway
White Stars and other NON fighter ships with a dodge ability would be treated as per current rules as they are a lot bigger in size plus are not flying in groups.
It doesn't really matter if fighters become more surviable if you use the rule that you must have a capital ship on the board to win. We have anti fighter at -1 and regenerating fighters and it hasn't become who has the most fighters wins although watch for T-Bolts. We hardly ever purchase wings and play 5 pt raid 90% of the time.
Frohike,
We've also implemented the -2 (a fact I should have mentioned since it makes a big difference). So, aux craft attack first, ships with A-F weapons may fire them at aux craft IF an aux craft has declared an attack against the ship, and A-F weapons impose a -2 to Dodge instead of nullifying it completely.
We've also added the following clarifications:
- Any action initiated by an aux craft which would negatively impact a ship is considered an attack (Scanners to Full!)
- If the aux craft's attack action takes place before the firing phase (again, Scanners to Full!), then the action takes effect before A-F has a chance to fire and the effect will remain in play even if the aux craft is subsequently destroyed by A-F fire.
- If a ship is on Concentrate All Firepower! it may still fire it's A-F weapons in response to an aux craft attack without forfeiting the CAF! special action since it's assumed that A-F weapons are primarily defensive in nature and independent of offensive targeting systems (a gross generalization I admit).
We've also implemented the -2 (a fact I should have mentioned since it makes a big difference). So, aux craft attack first, ships with A-F weapons may fire them at aux craft IF an aux craft has declared an attack against the ship, and A-F weapons impose a -2 to Dodge instead of nullifying it completely.
We've also added the following clarifications:
- Any action initiated by an aux craft which would negatively impact a ship is considered an attack (Scanners to Full!)
- If the aux craft's attack action takes place before the firing phase (again, Scanners to Full!), then the action takes effect before A-F has a chance to fire and the effect will remain in play even if the aux craft is subsequently destroyed by A-F fire.
- If a ship is on Concentrate All Firepower! it may still fire it's A-F weapons in response to an aux craft attack without forfeiting the CAF! special action since it's assumed that A-F weapons are primarily defensive in nature and independent of offensive targeting systems (a gross generalization I admit).
Daddy Dragon
Banded Mongoose
So we've basically come full circle from 1st printing. And the arguments and insults are exactly the same as they were a year or more ago, which is why I rarely if ever post here (love the hell out some of the stuff you guys come up with, despise the sniping). So, let me make sure that I've understand the root cause of the dilemma.
1) If fighters fire first, fighter heavy fleets will likely devastate their targets rendering their defensive AF weapons all but useless.
2) If fighters fire last, then AF weapons make fighters (and the fleets that are built around them) essentially impotent.
3) Fighter should be able to ignore stealth within 1", since as been pointed out elsewhere, when you firing up a target that is sometime a mile or more long, you cannot miss (you can only miss something vulnerable
)
Logic would submit that we should seek a middle ground, the proponents of which would have the fighter and AF fire conducted simultaneously. But if the results above are valid, then we end up with both sides unhappy, only simultaneously. One side with their drifting, smoking hulks and the other with their fighterless carriers running from the field.
So, a very un-Babylon 5-ish situation. The ultimate goal is something that is fast, simple, and consistent with what we've seen on screen. Huge ships, swarms of fighters, lots of cinematic carnage.
My take on it would be to scrap anti-fighter as a trait for weapons and implement an interceptor like mechanic for those ships with anti-fighter capability. In essence, it would work something like this:
Determine target of all fighter runs.
If target has an AF rating, they roll a number of dice equal to that score.
A target number would need to be set for success. But success would not necessarily destroy the flight.
The AF envelope would remain at 4 inches from the center of the ship.
Ex:
Sharlin A has an AF rating of (for the sake of this example) 6. They roll 6 dice with a target of (again for the sake of this example) 4. This target number would be modified by the dogfight rating of the fighter (we'll need a number for breaching pods, perhaps -2, which would only apply to the AF roll). Roll higher than the modified number and the attack run is disrupted (rotate the flight base to face away from the target. Roll a 6 or higher and the flight is eliminated regardless. Sharlin A could continue to use its AF rating until it was expended (in the same manner as interceptor fire). The disrupted flights would not be able to attack the target but would be available next turn to try again and could move as normal in the Aux Craft portion of the movement phase. Destroyed flights are of course removed. Those flights that were neither destroyed or turned away conduct their attack as normal.
This serves a twofold purpose. First, since fighters don't take "damage" in ACTA (they either survive or they don't), this would simulate those that break off in the face of withering defensive fire or those that spent so much time jinking and dodging it that they were unable to make an effective attack. The dead on a 6 (or less if they have a negative dogfight rating) are those that are simply blown out of the sky altogether. Second, those that aren't destroyed are right there in your sky, hounding your capital ships and forcing the fleet commanders to choose between using big guns on enemy warships or trying to sweep the gnats away from the picnic. (If I were truly vindictive, I'd make a rule that flights that are destroyed by AF fire get to make a Dodge roll, which if successful deals 1 hit to the target vessel anyway, simulating their wreckage impacting on the hull)
This also invites the use of close escorts. A close escort step could be inserted prior to the target ship performing its defensive fire representing them driving the incoming fighters off of the target. Ship with dedicated AF which stick close to the high value targets and attempt to protect the big boys.
Once all AF and fighter attacks have been resolved, play proceeds as normal.
Sorry in advance if that was too convoluted to follow. I know what I wish to say, but am not always articulate in how I present it.
Regards,
Larry
1) If fighters fire first, fighter heavy fleets will likely devastate their targets rendering their defensive AF weapons all but useless.
2) If fighters fire last, then AF weapons make fighters (and the fleets that are built around them) essentially impotent.
3) Fighter should be able to ignore stealth within 1", since as been pointed out elsewhere, when you firing up a target that is sometime a mile or more long, you cannot miss (you can only miss something vulnerable
)Logic would submit that we should seek a middle ground, the proponents of which would have the fighter and AF fire conducted simultaneously. But if the results above are valid, then we end up with both sides unhappy, only simultaneously. One side with their drifting, smoking hulks and the other with their fighterless carriers running from the field.
So, a very un-Babylon 5-ish situation. The ultimate goal is something that is fast, simple, and consistent with what we've seen on screen. Huge ships, swarms of fighters, lots of cinematic carnage.
My take on it would be to scrap anti-fighter as a trait for weapons and implement an interceptor like mechanic for those ships with anti-fighter capability. In essence, it would work something like this:
Determine target of all fighter runs.
If target has an AF rating, they roll a number of dice equal to that score.
A target number would need to be set for success. But success would not necessarily destroy the flight.
The AF envelope would remain at 4 inches from the center of the ship.
Ex:
Sharlin A has an AF rating of (for the sake of this example) 6. They roll 6 dice with a target of (again for the sake of this example) 4. This target number would be modified by the dogfight rating of the fighter (we'll need a number for breaching pods, perhaps -2, which would only apply to the AF roll). Roll higher than the modified number and the attack run is disrupted (rotate the flight base to face away from the target. Roll a 6 or higher and the flight is eliminated regardless. Sharlin A could continue to use its AF rating until it was expended (in the same manner as interceptor fire). The disrupted flights would not be able to attack the target but would be available next turn to try again and could move as normal in the Aux Craft portion of the movement phase. Destroyed flights are of course removed. Those flights that were neither destroyed or turned away conduct their attack as normal.
This serves a twofold purpose. First, since fighters don't take "damage" in ACTA (they either survive or they don't), this would simulate those that break off in the face of withering defensive fire or those that spent so much time jinking and dodging it that they were unable to make an effective attack. The dead on a 6 (or less if they have a negative dogfight rating) are those that are simply blown out of the sky altogether. Second, those that aren't destroyed are right there in your sky, hounding your capital ships and forcing the fleet commanders to choose between using big guns on enemy warships or trying to sweep the gnats away from the picnic. (If I were truly vindictive, I'd make a rule that flights that are destroyed by AF fire get to make a Dodge roll, which if successful deals 1 hit to the target vessel anyway, simulating their wreckage impacting on the hull)
This also invites the use of close escorts. A close escort step could be inserted prior to the target ship performing its defensive fire representing them driving the incoming fighters off of the target. Ship with dedicated AF which stick close to the high value targets and attempt to protect the big boys.
Once all AF and fighter attacks have been resolved, play proceeds as normal.
Sorry in advance if that was too convoluted to follow. I know what I wish to say, but am not always articulate in how I present it.
Regards,
Larry
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
That alone will be one of the more complex bits. How to keep track of where all the flights are heading while you adjudicate the results. You'd have to do it ship by ship.Daddy Dragon said:
4" is a long way, and invalidates fighter stand-off weapons (missiles, etc). Better with 2" range.
Complicates matters if some AD go one way and some another, but, yes, that is the point of escorts, so some mechanism for one ship to protect another is necessary.
Wulf
why dont you just use a rule already in place - defence network X. yes they are on space stations but if you replace antifighter weapons with this i think it would work better. you get to roll 1AD against each fighter within 4" upto your number on defense networks. perhaps simultaneously to fighters. Mini beams and such can still be antifighter within 4" but they would not get to fire at the same time as fighters. or maybe even allow defence networks to fire 1st as generally they would fire before a fighter and you only get 1AD on each fighter anyway so thunderbolts would prob get through. yep thats the way i think i would go, defence network fires, fighters fire, all other ship weapons fire.
you know what, surprised no one thought of this before, perhaps i have cracked the fighter problem
you know what, surprised no one thought of this before, perhaps i have cracked the fighter problem
katadder said:why dont you just use a rule already in place - defence network X. yes they are on space stations but if you replace antifighter weapons with this i think it would work better. you get to roll 1AD against each fighter within 4" upto your number on defense networks. perhaps simultaneously to fighters. Mini beams and such can still be antifighter within 4" but they would not get to fire at the same time as fighters. or maybe even allow defence networks to fire 1st as generally they would fire before a fighter and you only get 1AD on each fighter anyway so thunderbolts would prob get through. yep thats the way i think i would go, defence network fires, fighters fire, all other ship weapons fire.
you know what, surprised no one thought of this before, perhaps i have cracked the fighter problem
It sounds more doable than Daddy Dragon's idea, whcih incidentily I liked but I think might be too complicated for ACTA (advanced ACTA though...).
Would add though:
(a) agree with Wulf that 4" might be a bit excessive - could keep 4" and make the assignment of defence network dice "nearest fighters first".
(b) would still drop the anti-fighter - overall not adding to the number of rules
PHil
Daddy Dragon
Banded Mongoose
After posting this I went out and bought SFOS via drivethrurpg. Had I known that something like defense network existed, I'd have just suggested that. That's certainly a simplier way of handling it, although I am kind of partial to the ability to disrupt an attack run without having to destroy the flight. A fighter pilots sense of self-preservation has to account for something.
Either way, defense network sounds like the best use of an already developed concept.
Regards,
Larry
Either way, defense network sounds like the best use of an already developed concept.
Regards,
Larry
philogara said:katadder said:why dont you just use a rule already in place - defence network X. yes they are on space stations but if you replace antifighter weapons with this i think it would work better. you get to roll 1AD against each fighter within 4" upto your number on defense networks. perhaps simultaneously to fighters. Mini beams and such can still be antifighter within 4" but they would not get to fire at the same time as fighters. or maybe even allow defence networks to fire 1st as generally they would fire before a fighter and you only get 1AD on each fighter anyway so thunderbolts would prob get through. yep thats the way i think i would go, defence network fires, fighters fire, all other ship weapons fire.
you know what, surprised no one thought of this before, perhaps i have cracked the fighter problem
It sounds more doable than Daddy Dragon's idea, whcih incidentily I liked but I think might be too complicated for ACTA (advanced ACTA though...).
Would add though:
(a) agree with Wulf that 4" might be a bit excessive - could keep 4" and make the assignment of defence network dice "nearest fighters first".
(b) would still drop the anti-fighter - overall not adding to the number of rules
PHil
needs 4" range cos thats the range fighters can attack from, otherwise thunderbolts would just sit outside your range.
katadder said:
Which is presumably why certain fighters have these weapons - a long range strike capability to reduce susceptibility to defence systems. But I see the problem with this, thus the suggestion that dice could be assigned according to proximity to the ship (i.e. nearest first).
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Precisely (although they don't have Precise...). The whole point of having a 4" range is to keep a healthy distance from your target. And that's why you need escort ships.philogara said:
But I disagree. The priority targets should be the larger threats. If you're surrounded by 6 Kotha and two Sky Serpents, which would you want rid of first?
Wulf
but if you got a defense network, the rule is already there, and the range is already 4" so i not changing anything. just saying add it to ships. and you would get to choose which ships got hit with the AD too. as per space stations. most ships wouldnt have that high a defense network tho.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
The range is 4" on Space Stations, but they are damn big. Smaller platforms - ships - could be stuck with a smaller range.katadder said:
Wulf
Wulf Corbett said:
Perhaps but I'm not trying to nullify the potential of the longer range weapons, nor make them completely oblivous to close-in defence fire. Assigning dice by proximity just seems like an easier way to apply it. No user deliberation in "which one shall I assign this last dice to?" as well!
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
I don't know about that last bit. I mean, how precisely are you going to measure what's closest?philogara said:
Wulf
