Armageddon: WOW

Okay, some responses

16 flights is quite possible, actually put the hexes on the table. And that was assuming 2 inch range. Many fighter have greater than 2 inch range allowing for even more than 16. And that is not even including anyone cheesing out the fighter stands down to the 20 mm playtest standard Wulf uses. Again I ask did the playtesters try to break the rule or just play 'nice' and 'to the spirit of the rule'.

Captain K has hit the drazi nail on the head. Fighters move last and therefore can make the most of the premeasure system. With the anti-fighter guns barely clearing the base directly next to them you cannot even guarantee a reprisal shot at the fighters that just pummeled your warbird. Having had several warbird/strikehawks crit'd out/destroyed by nials and thunderbolts under the old system this is a concern.

Several other solutions were floated on this forum that amounted to changes to the fighter stat. Far less work than reprinting when fighters attack, and playtesting out the effect.

You are reprinting three whole races but putting out a page of collected fighter stats was too much?

And no offense but the fact that fighters have fewer ad and are not precise is in no way an indication that this is not a step back. It may not be a step 'all' the way back, but it is certainly a return to a style that nearly ruined the game. Can a single fighter stand still render irrelevant a War level hull before it can fire, yes. Is there any way to stop the fighter stand from getting there? Sure, fire you battle laser at it, nothing else will have the range to hit it before it has a chance to hit you.

The starfury from before is mentioned as having 4 AD and hull 6 in its 'fighters are broken!' timeperiod. I fully agree that the great hulls are gone from fighters. Now we have T-bolts with hull 5 and 4 AD instead, but hey they are not precise.

Please, lets talk about specific situations. General comments like 'use tactics' or 'position better' do not address some of the concerns. Sixteen fighter bases on a whitestar is completely possible with the base sold by Mongoose. How does it defend against this? Each of those stands could have 3 AD or more, how does it survive this? Lets call them T-Bolts as this could even be fluff accurate, so 4 AD (though this could mean even more fighters on the one 'star, the out ring only using the 4 inch guns).

Remember the fighters move last, are sm, and move somewhere between 0 and 15 inches. How can they not position themselves safe on the turn before they attack but in position to take out your best hull the following round. Safe meaning safe from anything other than a ships 'main gun'.

This is a serious discussion not just a rant. Our group is very aggressive in finding ways to win, and I am looking at this and wondering how to win against a large fighter support wing. I fly mostly League races so I tend to lose out in the dogfight wars. The dogfight pass will allow me to shoot at my opponents fighters now as I expect many of mine will lose but not sure that will be enough. My opponents may also take less dogfight capable fighters now in favor of additional dice to attack ships.

Ripple
 
Fighters firing first also allows for a, rather odd, anti-fighter tactic:

If you get to move your fighters first than position your AF weapons so they point at where the enemy's fighters are currently. Position a cheap, bad dogfighter (Kotha) so that as many are in dogfights as possible. Your fighters die in the dog fight during the fighters round of fire, allowing the AF weaponry to shoot the fighters that are no longer dogfighting, but not in position to shoot anybody.

Probably not the best possible idea (especially for the poor pilots), but it should work.
 
I can also see serious "crit fishing" ala old emines with the new fighters. Fly every single flight up to the biggest target the enemy had and hope for a good crit.

I forsee hordes of rutarians with their percise ion bolt. Vorlon fighters too.
 
CZuschlag said:
Greg,
18 fighters is pretty trivial stacking.

Okay, granted, you can get a large number of fighters around a small ship. This has not changed in any variation of ACTA.

The point we were discussing was whether the change in the firing sequence made fighters excessively powerful. Now if 18 flights surround a Sunhawk it is still going to suffer an large amount of damage whether it or the fighters fire first.

Also 18 Starfury flights around a patrol-level ship is is equivalent to parking an Omega next to it and firing.
 
YOu have NO idea how strange it is to read all of this.

Parking 18 flights of SF's in the side of a bintak was a dead battleship
 
Greg Smith said:
CZuschlag said:
Greg,
18 fighters is pretty trivial stacking.

Okay, granted, you can get a large number of fighters around a small ship. This has not changed in any variation of ACTA.

The point we were discussing was whether the change in the firing sequence made fighters excessively powerful. Now if 18 flights surround a Sunhawk it is still going to suffer an large amount of damage whether it or the fighters fire first.

Also 18 Starfury flights around a patrol-level ship is is equivalent to parking an Omega next to it and firing.


Greg,

The thing you are missing is the criticals scored by the fighters. Frankly the fighters that scare me under this ruling are: Thunderbolt(4AD), Frazi(4AD), Rutarian(3AD, one of which is DD, Precise), The Nial(3AD), The Sky Serpent(8AD), Double-V(6AD), The Vorlon(1AD, AP,Beam, Precise) and the Tzymm(5AD). Except for the Double V and the Sky Serpent, all of these fighters are speed 10 or higher, which means that they will likely be out of most of the ships secondary batteries(a majority of them are range 8 or less).

Heck if I send 6-8 flights of fighters(which is 2-3 patrol) at a raid or higher level ship and I get a 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 4-4,4-5, 4-6, or frankly any of the Vital crits they have paid for themselves. Oh I'm sorry Mr. Warlock, did I just eliminate that boresight weapon on you when you had my ship lined up? :roll:

There needs to be a middle ground somewhere on this Greg.


Dave
 
I agree 2-3 patrol points of fighters massed against one ship will throw a lot of dice and score criticals.

The point we were discussing was whether the changes in Armageddon would make fighters too powerful. The opinion on the boards was generally that fighters were underpowered and Armageddon made a small change to remedy that.

Before the change in Armageddon 2-3 patrol points of fighters massed against a single ship would throw a lot of dice and score criticals.

Now quite a few people have made points about the effectiveness of fighter swarms - I don't dispute that. I do dispute that the change in Armageddon will encourage people to use fighter swarms any more than they did before.
 
So the game is back to needing fighter screens again. I can see carriers being used a lot more often. I can see the odd independant fighter wings being purchased more often to supplement the hanger space in a fleet or for protection against the enemy fleets fighters.

As to the giant fleet o' fighters o' doom. I don't think it is likely to be a problem as most scenario games are lost when you no longer have any ships left (fighters are auxillary caft). If you can actually surround a ship with 16 flights of fighters (a Poseidon or 2 Morshin's loadout worth) it is obvious that your opponent did not bring enough to stop it happening.
 
Del Putani said:
You have NO idea how strange it is to read all of this.

Parking 18 flights of SF's in the side of a bintak was a dead battleship

Let's do the maths:

18 Starfurys: 36 AD twinlinked.
Bin'tak: Hull 6, 85 damage.

Average of 11 hits. Average (roughly) of 2 bulkheads, 7 standard hits, 2 criticals. Of the 85 damage, the Bin'tak is likely to be left with 72.

18 Starfuries would have trouble killing a Maximus.

Park 18 Starfuries next to a G'karith and they would kill it.

But then the whole Hull 6 debate rears its ugly head.
 
Can we take the fighter debate to another thread? And leave this to those who want to ask Katadder about his look at Armageddon.
 
Good call Greg - much as I'm enjoying the fighter debate it's best to separate it out so the original thread isn't lost in the melee.
 
I was told a while ago that the guys gave about half a dozen related replies to the initial thread and then rambled off on anything unrelated. So far I have noticed that advice to be very accurate....

perhaps even optimistic....

K
 
Captain Kremmen said:
I was told a while ago that the guys gave about half a dozen related replies to the initial thread and then rambled off on anything unrelated. So far I have noticed that advice to be very accurate....

perhaps even optimistic....

K

That does ususally happen. If the original thread is an easily answered question that has been answered, then it isn't a problem. In this case people may have more queries about Armageddon.
 
some thoughts on the new fighter rules, and why I DON´T think they´re broken/to powerful/whatever:

- fighters don´t shoot any better than before, there will just be more of them to fire before getting blown up. So they might actually do some damage for a change...

- now, those fighters who have better dogfighting abilities will finally be of some use

- The advanced fighter rules will now actually mean something: dogfighting, protecting ships with fighters, and protecting fighters with fighters against fighters protecting ships will all become important tactical options, instead of just using up space in the rulebooks

- the fighter rules seem to have been thoroughly playtested, and there´s not been a single playtester here who called them unbalanced, broken or anything like that

- carriers (AND fleet carriers!) will now be a worthwhile choice equal to other ships in their respective priority levels

- even IF swarms of fighters were able to drown bigger ships, they would have to get within 4" of their target - one exploding ship later,no more fighters left to worry about...

- the new fighter rules apply to all fighters in the game, so everyone can use them for his own benefit

- WHO ON EARTH would REALLY use ALL (or most) his fleet points JUST ON FIGHTERS? Come on guys, just because it may technically be possible to swarm your opponent with loads and loads of fighter bases, and there might be some people who would use smaller fighter counters to get more flights into range, anybody who is stupid enough to do that will find himself running out of opponents soon - it´s still a game after all, and you always need two sides who are both having fun to play a game!

The same should apply to tournament games - while some may still tend to ignore that just to win, those are people I a) feel extremely sorry for, and b) will never, ever play against.

Why don´t we just wait another month (let´s just hope there won´t be any more delays), until we all can use the rules and give them a fair try before starting to cry over them?

As with any new tactical opion, it might take some getting used to; but instantly whinning about something new, just because it might make a certain change of perspective neccessary, is SO Games Workshop... :x
 
Lord Aldades said:
One final question: fighters will overload interceptors or not with this ruling?

There is no change there, so yes. Which is something I hadn't though of - fighters are less likely to get through ships with interceptors, but will wear down interceptors for other weapons.
 
...which would make it all the more reasonable to protect your ships with fighters of your own, regardless of wether your ship has interceptors or not...
 
Back
Top