Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
I'm liking the Adira more and more... now I just to plan a converted model...
Armageddon: WOW
- Thread starter katadder
- Start date
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Ripple said:
Pre-SFoS Starfury: Hull 5, 4AD Precise.
SFos Starfury: Hull 4, 2AD Twin-linked.
No. I can categorically state we are not going backward.
How on Earth do you get 16 fighters within 2" of one ship? I don't believe that is physically possible.
Twin-Linked Aldades
Mongoose
We solved that with a number vs level...
Due to the difference in basing, not only by Mongoose who frequently supplies vessels with wrong bases, I have had received three different sizes so far with my White Stars, people base to best balance the models, not to mention the dual basing of old AOG ships many of us had around etc etc...
This made the enforcement of saying that up to 4 fighters could swarm a vessel of Skirmish and patrol level, and up to 6 for bases above. Since some people around our club use the large scale fighters, some base them 3 to a round base, 2 to a small square base the size of a counter etc this doesn`t give disadvantages to the larger bases of the standard 6 fighter configuration. in other words: it works damn well and no-one complains about it...
Due to the difference in basing, not only by Mongoose who frequently supplies vessels with wrong bases, I have had received three different sizes so far with my White Stars, people base to best balance the models, not to mention the dual basing of old AOG ships many of us had around etc etc...
This made the enforcement of saying that up to 4 fighters could swarm a vessel of Skirmish and patrol level, and up to 6 for bases above. Since some people around our club use the large scale fighters, some base them 3 to a round base, 2 to a small square base the size of a counter etc this doesn`t give disadvantages to the larger bases of the standard 6 fighter configuration. in other words: it works damn well and no-one complains about it...
katadder said:obviously the anti fighter ships will come into play here more then, some of the vree, whitestars, drakh and the centauri liati. also the drakh have less to fear from small weaopns to the GEG which the royal adira also has a GEG3, yay centauri/drakh alliance
I wonder if anyone thought to make the guns on the halik fighter killer... anti fighter! I bet not.
Captain Kremmen
Mongoose
Guys,
One thing with the fighter rules that concerns me, that has not yet been mentioned, which means I am probably completely misunderstanding it, is this:-
My Drazi for example have a guardhawk ship with lots of anti fighter weapons. This is nice, BUT my understanding is that fighters MOVE last and FIRE first which means that no matter what I do or where I go the opponents fighters always have the option to just get out of my way and I can not ever fire at the fighters.
Even if I put the guardhawk next to say a storm falcon, with a bit of clever positioning you could probably get the fighters within attack range of the stormfalcon but still be outside of the 4 inch range of the guardhawk.
Have I made an obvious error somewhere? I guess this is actually true now in that the fighters always move after the capital ships, just didn't care before because the fighters were useless.
Kremmen
One thing with the fighter rules that concerns me, that has not yet been mentioned, which means I am probably completely misunderstanding it, is this:-
My Drazi for example have a guardhawk ship with lots of anti fighter weapons. This is nice, BUT my understanding is that fighters MOVE last and FIRE first which means that no matter what I do or where I go the opponents fighters always have the option to just get out of my way and I can not ever fire at the fighters.
Even if I put the guardhawk next to say a storm falcon, with a bit of clever positioning you could probably get the fighters within attack range of the stormfalcon but still be outside of the 4 inch range of the guardhawk.
Have I made an obvious error somewhere? I guess this is actually true now in that the fighters always move after the capital ships, just didn't care before because the fighters were useless.
Kremmen
Captain Kremmen
Mongoose
Does anyone know if in Armageddon it will be allowable for Drazi to take other league ships as allies? i.e. that rather nice Vree scout...
Kremmen
PS Someone told me that irregular miniatures sell a flying saucer similar to a Vree ship. Anyone got one, are they any good??
Kremmen
PS Someone told me that irregular miniatures sell a flying saucer similar to a Vree ship. Anyone got one, are they any good??
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Captain Kremmen said:
You can already field a combined League fleet as per the rules in Sky Full of Stars.
As for the anti-fighter gun comment, yes fighters move last, so they can move out of range of your anti-fighter guns, but that just means you have to position your ships better and use your anti-fighter guns to deny areas of space to the enemy. Area denial isn't just for artillery in land-based games.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
...and in the new fighters rules, fighters move last and shoot first. Doesn't mean that they can't be fired it, it just means they fire before you do.
Captain Kremmen
Mongoose
Ok let me give you an example. Lets say I have a squadron of 2 sunhawks on the wings and a darkhawk riding shotgun in the centre.
Because of the physical sixe of the stands it is for example reasonable that the centre of the darkhawk is 3 inches from each of the sunhawks. This means theoretically the enemy fighters could move to 2 inches from the sunhawks and fire but be 5 inches from the dark hawk and immune to counter fire even though the darkhawk is specifically there to deter fighters.
I can think of two interpretations of these rules that make escort anti fighter ships easy to use.
1) If a ship with dedicated anti fighter weapons is say within 3 inches of another capital ship then any fighter using weapons with a range of 4 inches or less are deemed to have flown within range of the escorting ship as well as the ship they are attacking.
I believe realistically the fighters would fly overhead attacking their target, loop around and have another go. At some point in that manouvre they would pretty much have to come within range of escorting anti fighter ships.
2) Alternatively and personally I don't like this option, but hey it's an option, when the capital ships move, if one with anti fighter weapons moves within range of the enemy fighters those enemy fighters can not then move away. they are effectively locked in a dog fight like fighter to fighter combat. I don't really like this idea.
Option 1 seems reasonable though, otherwise I can see lots of rules mongers arguing about whether the fighter is at 3.9 inches from the darkhawk or 4.1 inches.....
BTW I saw a suggestion that specific numbers of fighters be considered the maximum that can attack a capital ship. 6 for raid and above 4 for skirmish and below. I think something like this is a good idea. Maybe you would want to add that only half that number could attack any one arc? what do you guys think?
Cpt Kremmen
Because of the physical sixe of the stands it is for example reasonable that the centre of the darkhawk is 3 inches from each of the sunhawks. This means theoretically the enemy fighters could move to 2 inches from the sunhawks and fire but be 5 inches from the dark hawk and immune to counter fire even though the darkhawk is specifically there to deter fighters.
I can think of two interpretations of these rules that make escort anti fighter ships easy to use.
1) If a ship with dedicated anti fighter weapons is say within 3 inches of another capital ship then any fighter using weapons with a range of 4 inches or less are deemed to have flown within range of the escorting ship as well as the ship they are attacking.
I believe realistically the fighters would fly overhead attacking their target, loop around and have another go. At some point in that manouvre they would pretty much have to come within range of escorting anti fighter ships.
2) Alternatively and personally I don't like this option, but hey it's an option, when the capital ships move, if one with anti fighter weapons moves within range of the enemy fighters those enemy fighters can not then move away. they are effectively locked in a dog fight like fighter to fighter combat. I don't really like this idea.
Option 1 seems reasonable though, otherwise I can see lots of rules mongers arguing about whether the fighter is at 3.9 inches from the darkhawk or 4.1 inches.....
BTW I saw a suggestion that specific numbers of fighters be considered the maximum that can attack a capital ship. 6 for raid and above 4 for skirmish and below. I think something like this is a good idea. Maybe you would want to add that only half that number could attack any one arc? what do you guys think?
Cpt Kremmen
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
I think if you're worried about fighters attacking your ships you need to either take more ships with anti-fighter guns or use fighters of your own to screen your capital ships from attack. Drazi fighters may not be brilliant dogfighters, but getting tied up for a turn in a furball will give your opponent a reason to move away from your fighters... into the teeth of your anti-fighter ships. It's all down to positioning.
angelus2000
Mongoose
Posibly a small increase in AF gun ranges would be justified? Something simple like " Any weapon with the Anti-Fighter Trait currently listed in SFOS of Range 5 or lower may extend the ranges an additional 2"'. " Not all ships carry anitfighter weaponry, Centauri and Narn leap to mind. Since fighers now fire first according to what has been said so far, extending the range of the AF guns will NOT negate the offensive potential of said fighters, but will allow a mass of warships to take better advantage of what AF guns thay carry.
Then again, I still wish AF simply added a modifier to a fighers dodge score instead of completely negating it. Negating the doge completely both ignores the fluff and the fighters book stats and puts Nials and Sentris on the same playing field as frazis and starfuries. Then again just MO
Then again, I still wish AF simply added a modifier to a fighers dodge score instead of completely negating it. Negating the doge completely both ignores the fluff and the fighters book stats and puts Nials and Sentris on the same playing field as frazis and starfuries. Then again just MO
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Fighter guns are still relatively poor, for the most part lacking the nastier traits like Super AP, double & triple damage and precise.
Fighters firing first is a simple solution to the problem that fighters had become too weak. Other changes such as altering the criticals that fighters can cause, anti-fighter reaction fire, etc are beyond the scope of the current game and the simple changes that were warranted in Armageddon. Some of the changes may make their way into the proposed 2nd Edition.
For those who thing it makes fighters too powerful, remeber pre-SfoS every fighter had precise weapons, Thunderbolts had a hull of 6, the ISA could get 6 thunderbolts for a patrol point and a player could select fighters to shoot first.
Fighters firing first is a simple solution to the problem that fighters had become too weak. Other changes such as altering the criticals that fighters can cause, anti-fighter reaction fire, etc are beyond the scope of the current game and the simple changes that were warranted in Armageddon. Some of the changes may make their way into the proposed 2nd Edition.
For those who thing it makes fighters too powerful, remeber pre-SfoS every fighter had precise weapons, Thunderbolts had a hull of 6, the ISA could get 6 thunderbolts for a patrol point and a player could select fighters to shoot first.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
No. But having playtested them, I don't think it does.
The problem was to restore some of the fighters' power. Which could have been done:
1. By restoring Precise. Which people dislike because of the potentially nast crtiticals. Also meant rewriting the stats of every fighter, which would have taken up a big chunk of Armageddon.
2. Restoring the hulls. This would make fighters more difficult to kill, so more would have survived to fire at the end of the attack phase. Again would have meant reprinting all of the fighter stats.
3. Boosting the number of flights per wing. This would not have required a huge amount of reprinting, but would result in games being swamped in fighters.
4. Another solution, that would not require massive reprinting of stats or wholesale rewriting of rules.
The fighters fire first was probably the simplest solution.
I can understand the arguement that having the anti-fighter guns fire after the fighters is counter-intuitive. Reaction fire is something that has been suggested by one playtester but was too big a change to the current rules.
The problem was to restore some of the fighters' power. Which could have been done:
1. By restoring Precise. Which people dislike because of the potentially nast crtiticals. Also meant rewriting the stats of every fighter, which would have taken up a big chunk of Armageddon.
2. Restoring the hulls. This would make fighters more difficult to kill, so more would have survived to fire at the end of the attack phase. Again would have meant reprinting all of the fighter stats.
3. Boosting the number of flights per wing. This would not have required a huge amount of reprinting, but would result in games being swamped in fighters.
4. Another solution, that would not require massive reprinting of stats or wholesale rewriting of rules.
The fighters fire first was probably the simplest solution.
I can understand the arguement that having the anti-fighter guns fire after the fighters is counter-intuitive. Reaction fire is something that has been suggested by one playtester but was too big a change to the current rules.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Lord David,
I would suggest that we now think of anti-fighter not as area denial, but more of area-reprisal.
On fighters in general,
Remember that fighters that don't complete their tasks on first strikes will be subject to possible ship explosions should a cruiser finish the target off. That could kill a ton of fighter craft.
Greg,
18 fighters is pretty trivial stacking. Consider a hex tiling and a small ship. The hex bases supplied with the ACtA fighters is 1" from flat hexside to opposite hexside, and the radius from post to edge of small ship base is 1/2". Therefore, the first base is 1" from the target ship, which is in range of figher's typically 2". Because this is a hex pattern, we can do this 6 times around the target ship. This gets us to 6 fighters.
We can then place another fighter hexside on that opposite edge from the ship (in the center of the pattern). This will also be within 2", as a full hexside base is, again, 1" flat-to-flat. This makes an asterisk formation, all in range, of 12 fighters.
Between each arm of the asterisk there will be a hex shaped gap. This is also under 2", here, because of the triangle inequality. This is 6 gaps filled, now getting us to the stated 18-fighter strike.
Oh, what ... you're not using these base sizes? Hmm, doesn't that make it obvious that MONGOOSE AND ITS PLAYTESTING HAS TO STANDARDIZE BASE SIZING?! It's not like I'm using nonstandard stuff, I'm using Mongoose's own miniatures. See, the base size issue has finally caught up with you. God, we've only been saying that since forever. See, and now it makes a difference.
So now what ... do heavy ships get hit by fewer fighters because their plastic bases are bigger and deny more space? Do we all make new bases for our ships with 3" disks so we doin't get hit by Frazi strikes ever? Let the cheese begin!
Seriously, now that fighters are at minimum viable, we have to establish standardized bases. It's now getting critical.
Finally,
Nothing is "too big" if it means not getting it right. We've had a bazillion half-a**ed solutions in many different game systems over time. Take your time. Do it right, do it once. No one wants the ugly cousin of answers. Gimme time, and make it right. So what if you're reprinting. Games evolve. In the internet era where information and playtest results fly in as opposed to crawl in from just 5 years ago, it's the right direction for the gaming industry in general.
I would suggest that we now think of anti-fighter not as area denial, but more of area-reprisal.
On fighters in general,
Remember that fighters that don't complete their tasks on first strikes will be subject to possible ship explosions should a cruiser finish the target off. That could kill a ton of fighter craft.
Greg,
18 fighters is pretty trivial stacking. Consider a hex tiling and a small ship. The hex bases supplied with the ACtA fighters is 1" from flat hexside to opposite hexside, and the radius from post to edge of small ship base is 1/2". Therefore, the first base is 1" from the target ship, which is in range of figher's typically 2". Because this is a hex pattern, we can do this 6 times around the target ship. This gets us to 6 fighters.
We can then place another fighter hexside on that opposite edge from the ship (in the center of the pattern). This will also be within 2", as a full hexside base is, again, 1" flat-to-flat. This makes an asterisk formation, all in range, of 12 fighters.
Between each arm of the asterisk there will be a hex shaped gap. This is also under 2", here, because of the triangle inequality. This is 6 gaps filled, now getting us to the stated 18-fighter strike.
Oh, what ... you're not using these base sizes? Hmm, doesn't that make it obvious that MONGOOSE AND ITS PLAYTESTING HAS TO STANDARDIZE BASE SIZING?! It's not like I'm using nonstandard stuff, I'm using Mongoose's own miniatures. See, the base size issue has finally caught up with you. God, we've only been saying that since forever. See, and now it makes a difference.
So now what ... do heavy ships get hit by fewer fighters because their plastic bases are bigger and deny more space? Do we all make new bases for our ships with 3" disks so we doin't get hit by Frazi strikes ever? Let the cheese begin!
Seriously, now that fighters are at minimum viable, we have to establish standardized bases. It's now getting critical.
Finally,
Nothing is "too big" if it means not getting it right. We've had a bazillion half-a**ed solutions in many different game systems over time. Take your time. Do it right, do it once. No one wants the ugly cousin of answers. Gimme time, and make it right. So what if you're reprinting. Games evolve. In the internet era where information and playtest results fly in as opposed to crawl in from just 5 years ago, it's the right direction for the gaming industry in general.
Similar threads
