[ATCA-SF] Looking Ahead - Phaser-G

[scoutdad]

Garth raises a valid point. The Ph-G is a little bit more than 4 Phaser-3s duct-taped together.

How about this one:
Duplicate the Phaser-3 stats...
Accurate +1, Kill Zone 2, Precise and then add "Multi-hit 4"

Then you add a line to the rules stating that if fired in defense, the 4 hits (or pulses) can be targetted on several seeking weapons as desired. This would enable you to target one, two, or more seekers; although the fire would have to be declared prior to the first die roll.

This would still leave open the possibilty to add escorts / aegis at a later time.

 

[Rambler]

With respect Garth and Scoutdad the driving force on every ruling hand down so far has been using the KISS principle. In a Fleet setting the Admiral in charge does not carry if it is a Gatling Phaser or 4 Phaser 3s. As far as he is concerned they both have the same effect. So why make special rules. If you are using Intensify Defensive Fire or Defencive Fire you will haveto fire all 4 shots at the same seeking weapon wiether it is a Type R Torpedo or 12 Drones. And if you fire it offensively and want to put one phaser 3 into 4 different shuttles or firing the entire shot into the rear of a F5 at range 1 does it matter? To make gatlings effective due to the offensive/defencive firing each Gatling is going to have to be an individual weapon system anyway.

Scoutdad a Multihit would probably the worst thing you can do to the antidrone aspect of a Gatling phaser as a bad roll screws not just one attempt but all 4.

 

[Sgt_G]

That's not what he said, Rambler.

In offensive mode: 1AD, Multihit 4
In defensive mode: 4AD, no Multihit

How hard is that??

 

[Nerroth]

Making the phaser-G an all-or-nothing weapon offensively doesn't seem to fit right; I'd rather roll four dice and see how many hits I'd get rather than have them abstracted down into just the one.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Keep it simple guys.

It works just like a P3 with 4AD, that’s it. If you want to spread the fire between 2 ships at 2" that’s your choice, if you want to fire all 4 shots at a drone wave or two shots at this drone wave and 2 at that drone wave its your choice.

Its a gatling P3, its not a super weapon. Yes at point blank range it does as much damage as an overloaded photon, don't end up 2 " from a methane suckers ship :twisted:

No special rules, no special circumstances.

P-G 4AD, stats as P3.

Consider how much argument the ongoing "Simple" Fed G rack is causing.

 

[Lincolnlog]

Captain,

I don't think IMHO, that keeping track of how many AD fire now and then later during a single combat phase is simple. When a Phaser-G fires it chooses a target and fire. The split fire rule does not allow splitting AD from a single weapon. In the case of all Phasers currently when there are multiple attack die it is because there are multiple weapons in that mount.

Phaser-G should only be able to fire at multiple targets in defensive fire mode. And still only once per combat round. So, you have a wave of 3 drones incoming, you fire 4 AD, and get 4 hits, 1 AD is lost. The weapon fired, your done. Same in Offensive fire, each Phaser-G weapon gets to fire at 1 target, and must fire all at that target. :?

Scoutdads proposal makes sense in that it makes the weapon simple in both offensive and defensive mode. :twisted:

I basically started this thread to work out Escort stats. You are going to have to figure out Phaser-G inorder to work escorts. In the other thread on Drone Spamming, I think that Aegis or dedicated escort ships should have a auto "Intensify Defensive Fire", after all that's what dedicated escorts do, they defend larger more important ships. To have to roll a CQC to perform an action that the ship was purpose built for doesn't make sense.

My .02

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Rules as stand support your point, the only time you 'hold' AD is if you asign that bank to 'Defensive Duties' - ie, drone defense. In all other situations the weapon fires ALL (or as many AD as wished) its AD, and is then used.

As the Captian says (and he a Gorn, so RIGHT :lol: ), simples.

 

[Sgt_G]

I don't think that keeping track of how many AD fire now and then later during a single combat phase is simple

WARNING: Snarky Comment Alert!

I'm sorry, but anyone who finds that too complex needs to stay far away from Star Fleet Battles.

Yes, we all know ACTA is inteded to be a fast, simple game. But when I was reading early comments from players, I wondered if some of them might not be happier with placing the minis on the table, flip a coin for each, and remove any that come up "tails".

I'm in the camp where I would like to see a nice balance between quick & easy game-play and trying to capture the "flavor" from SFB/FedCmdr. Obviously, some things just won't translate well. Perhaps the Ph-G is one of those things. If so, we'll live with it and move on to the next system to port over from the other games.

 

[Da Boss]

I don't think that keeping track of how many AD fire now and then later during a single combat phase is simple

WARNING: Snarky Comment Alert!

I'm sorry, but anyone who finds that too complex needs to stay far away from Star Fleet Battles.
.

we have, :mrgreen: thats why we play ACTA :wink: To be honest - its not that we find it a pain (although it is ) for one ship - it is when you have 10 ships. Several players have already commented on how much of a pain it is to remeber whihc ship has fired which phaser defensively.........

Yes, we all know ACTA is inteded to be a fast, simple game. But when I was reading early comments from players, I wondered if some of them might not be happier with placing the minis on the table, flip a coin for each, and remove any that come up "tails".

And I often thought that everything had to be overly complex and require thousands of counters on the table, cross referncing dozens of tables and pages and pages of rules to even play the game.............it is two very different gaming cultures meeting and hopefully finding a compramise.

 

[Captain Jonah]

As the Captian says (and he a Gorn, so RIGHT :lol: ), simples.

8)

 

[Jean]

WebMom *looks* at Sgt_G.

Play nice. ACTA folks have different tactics, but the same goal -- to have fun playing a wargame. Let's keep that in mind and not have snarkiness here ... unless you wish to import the #8 Griswold cast-iron frying pan ...

 

[Sgt_G]

Jean, it was in good fun. If I had really meant it, I would not have given any warning. Next time, I'll be sure to include a smily. :lol:

 

[Captain Jonah]

WebMom *looks* at Sgt_G.

Play nice. ACTA folks have different tactics, but the same goal -- to have fun playing a wargame. Let's keep that in mind and not have snarkiness here ... unless you wish to import the #8 Griswold cast-iron frying pan ...

RED ALERT. BATTLE STATIONS.

Shields to full.

Annoyed Webmom on sensors :shock:

:wink: :lol:

 

[Lincolnlog]

I don't think that keeping track of how many AD fire now and then later during a single combat phase is simple

WARNING: Snarky Comment Alert!

I'm sorry, but anyone who finds that too complex needs to stay far away from Star Fleet Battles.

Yes, we all know ACTA is inteded to be a fast, simple game. But when I was reading early comments from players, I wondered if some of them might not be happier with placing the minis on the table, flip a coin for each, and remove any that come up "tails".

I'm in the camp where I would like to see a nice balance between quick & easy game-play and trying to capture the "flavor" from SFB/FedCmdr. Obviously, some things just won't translate well. Perhaps the Ph-G is one of those things. If so, we'll live with it and move on to the next system to port over from the other games.

SGT G,

I'm an old SFB player, and I don't find lots of detail all that complicated either. But as a player of Mongoose games for several years now, they have to be super simple. By the way didn't take any offense to the snarkieness.

 

[Jean]

:lol: If I were truly annoyed, there would have been a WHANG!!! accompanying the * look *. I just didn't want to see another outbreak of us/them get started again.

Jean

 

[Captain Jonah]

:lol: If I were truly annoyed, there would have been a WHANG!!! accompanying the * look *. I just didn't want to see another outbreak of us/them get started again.

Jean

What you mean there may be some of THEM in here.

Did someone leave a door open and let THEM in :shock:

Thats all we need, civilians, non gamers.

"Oh look they are playing with toy space ships, isn't that cute"
"Star trek, thats a kids show" :?
"Oh yes, my son used to play wargames, he grew out of it when he was 12" :roll:

Just keep the doors shut, we don't need any of THEM around. :wink: :lol: