Beam-Burger Compromise?

[Burger]

Nooo, BBS is bad! Support TBS (Triggy's Beam System) :lol:

 

[H]

TBS still allows re-rolls which are the problem in the first place.

BBS brings that to an end, and helps balance the beam shot somewhat more predictably.

 

[Burger]

Although TBS rerolls happen on a 5+ instead of a 4+, which doesn't seem like much of a difference, it actually makes a huge difference. The sequence converges much quicker. You have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a reroll (which multiplies to a 1 in 9 chance of 2 rerolls, 1 in 27 chance of 3, 1 in 81 chance of 4) compared to currently a 1 in 2 (multiplies up to 1 in 4 of 2 rerolls, 1 in 8 of 3 rerolls, 1 in 16 chance of 4). As you can see the wacky beam rolls will be MUCH less likely: getting 4 rerolls is 1 in 81 compared to 1 in 16!

 

[H]

wha?!

 

[Greg Smith]

I think you broke Hiff's brain!

 

[H]

how in the blue hell did i ever pass my accouting exams? (no i'm not an accountant, but it was part of my business studies stuff)

 

[Triggy]

hif - the odds of rolling 4+ hits with TBS are 1/81 per AD rolled, getting 4+ hits with the current system happens once every 16 AD rolled.

The odds of huge beam rolls are massively reduced, the odds of large-ish beam rolls are slightly reduced, the odds of small-ish beam rolls are slightly reduced, the odds of complete misses are massively reduced and the odds of average rolls are significantly increased.

 

[H]

see, how hard is it too use simple speak eh burger, right I get that.

I will admit on paper I still prefer the BBS as a lot more predictable, however IF I can ever find anyone to play ACTA with again, I will give TBS a run out.

 

[Foxmeister]

Personally, I like it.

I know BBS was mooted as potentially an optional replacement for the standard beam system in P&P, but the general concensus here is that TBS is probably an improvement on both the BBS and the original rules.

Can I suggest Mongoose comes up with a set of "experimental" rules, much like Battlefront did in Lessons from the Front for FOW, in a PDF format so that ideas such as these which have considerable merit can be included in the game, but in such a way that they can be retracted or revised without requiring changes to existing printed material?

i.e. they don't form part of the official ACTA V2 line, but are pseudo-officially sanctioned "house" rules that can be used if all parties agree to them?

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

I would definitely advocate TBS for S&P inclusion, as an optional rule. In fact I might even write it up complete with graphs, if given sufficient encouragement?

 

[H]

burger do it....

but do BBS as Well, I'd still like to see both in practice rather than theory.

 

[Triggy]

This would much more likely be an S&P article than a P&P inclusion as it would be optional (for now at least). Burger - if you did a writeup with some background, the perceived issues with the current beam system, the ideas process, graphs/data to back up each option and maybe even a (quick) battle report to show some results in action then I'm sure S&P would be happy to run the article. I'd certainly love to see it.

 

[Da Boss]

I still have comparative games / data from several games using BBS if that helps................previously posted some.....

 

[Target]

I'd actually like to see a ACTA to go more like VAS. I really like the targeting roll & then damage roll. Things like traits adaptive armour could force rerolling of sucessfull armour rolls. Beams could have few targeting dice but lot's of damge dice. Just my thought's.

 

[Triggy]

I'd actually like to see a ACTA to go more like VAS. I really like the targeting roll & then damage roll. Things like traits adaptive armour could force rerolling of sucessfull armour rolls. Beams could have few targeting dice but lot's of damge dice. Just my thought's.

Likely how it would go for a 3rd edition, then you could incorporate stealth and dodge into the hit roll, and ap, super ap, weak and hull values into the damage roll and precise into the attack table/critical table rolls.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

We can but hope.

 

[katadder]

I'd actually like to see a ACTA to go more like VAS. I really like the targeting roll & then damage roll. Things like traits adaptive armour could force rerolling of sucessfull armour rolls. Beams could have few targeting dice but lot's of damge dice. Just my thought's.

Likely how it would go for a 3rd edition, then you could incorporate stealth and dodge into the hit roll, and ap, super ap, weak and hull values into the damage roll and precise into the attack table/critical table rolls.

why is this likely? I dont like it that much tbh.

 

[Da Boss]

not played it myself so I can't comment on if its better............ so do you have to roll 3 times for a successful hit? :?

Doesn't ACTA have this already with the damage table - ie 1 is a bulkhead.

 

[Scipio]

Da Boss: 3 rolls is not so bad considering today you have to roll 4 times for a successful hit...

Stealth roll -> Hull roll -> Attack table roll -> critical table roll.

And possibly even more rolls considering that the defender could have dodge and interceptors as well.


I think it would be a move in the right direction. It could make it easier to add some more flexability and logic to an already good system.

 

[Da Boss]

Hmm ok so

its Target roll - Damage roll - Critical roll?

I would hope dodge and interceptors stay as a reactive roll? Can you Dodge in VAS - aircraft / small ships?

I guess modern day VAS would have the equivalent of interceptors against missiles?

I have not got the rules so not sure how it all works??