Beam weapons

[cthol24601]

I;ve heard it said now that beams work by hitting on a 4+. If so then why do they still have AP and super AP and does the difficulty to make subsequent hits still go up by a point for each subsequent hit.

 

[emperorpenguin]

no they don't, not yet.

in 2nd ed they will hit on a 4+ so will no longer have AP/SAP, until then play as normal

 

[Banichi]

no they don't, not yet.

in 2nd ed they will hit on a 4+ so will no longer have AP/SAP, until then play as normal

Does that mean even a hull 4 ship only gets hit on 4+? No more modifing for AP or supper AP? Wouldn't that mean something with hull 6, ie lots of armour, will be hit with the same ease as something with hull 3, ie next to no armour?

 

[LaranosTZ]

Basically, this change is to indicate that it really doesn't matter how thick or tough your hull is, a beam is so powerfull that if it hits your ship, it will hurt it, no matter the structure. IE, it -always- hits on a 4+, because if you are in the beam's way, it doesn't matter if you have 1/2" of plate, or 2' of plate.

 

[Banichi]

Hmmm, that makes sense. But it does kind of make all beams equal, from abbai to shadow, in the armour penitrating stakes. I guess the differences will be in the other traits.

 

[tneva82]

Hmmm, that makes sense. But it does kind of make all beams equal, from abbai to shadow, in the armour penitrating stakes. I guess the differences will be in the other traits.

It also means hull 4's aren't such a death trap anymore...And SAP isn't such all-important trait that defines wether beam is crap or good.

Come to think about it...This could make nova's lasers actually worth using!

 

[Banichi]

But some ships were never designed to stand up to a warships big guns. For example in WW2 the shells from a battleship would rip a destroyer a new one. But this didn't mean that destroyers were useless, but they relyed more on speed an menourverablity (yes, I know, I forgot to stop spelling that word) than huge amounts of armour to servive. My point is that while a SAP beam would have a harder time on a hull6 ship, you would expect it to maim a hull 4 ship. After all hull4 means that the ship has a lot less armour.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging the new rule. I'm just not sure why the change.

 

[tneva82]

But some ships were never designed to stand up to a warships big guns

Yes but as it was hull 6 was ridiculously important and hull 4 was pretty much that bad that barring scouts/hermes type long range initiave sinks hull 4 ships weren't worth fielding at priority levels above patrol...

They are still going to rack up lots of damage but atleast they aren't one shot, one kill death traps.

But this didn't mean that destroyers were useless

Short of scouts/hermes types long range initiave sinks hull 4 ships WERE pretty much useless...

, but they relyed more on speed an menourverablity

Too bad it doesn't help that much in ACTA...In WW2 hitting them would be harder which in ACTA terms would mean higher hull score...

you would expect it to maim a hull 4 ship. After all hull4 means that the ship has a lot less armour.

It's still going to take heaps of damage. Now it just might survive first salvo and actually be, horror of horror, of some USE before destruction...

 

[Banichi]

You make good points. I guess that in some cases you have to forget historic/realworld examples in order to balance a game, that is after all, set in space, in the future. After all, a game mechanic that is fun to play(as ACTAs is) is better than one that has a thousand realistic rules to remember.(or to continually forget :lol: )

 

[Ripple]

It was a too fold problem.

One was that hull represented both maneuverability and armor. Some ships got dodge to indicate they were VERY maneuverable, but mostly you had one net 'defensive trait' with a number of offense traits that could effect it. (namely ap, sap, twin link and beam)

The big issue with the new rule is that to reduce the effect on the low end of defense (ie hull 4) they have exposed the high end to the same kind of hits the low end used to get. The 4+ on all re-rolls produces some really extreme hits, and make beams less predictable overall. This increases the 'luck' factor in the game, something I sometimes find less than satisfying.

Ripple

 

[Ripple]

Also hate to see the various flavors of beams disappear. I liked that a brakiri beam was very different from an abbai beam from a drazi beam from the shadow beam...all the same now. (only two slots now really...(damage x, and precise/non-precise...maybe twin link I suppose.)

Ripple

 

[emperorpenguin]

Come to think about it...This could make nova's lasers actually worth using!

hmm about that tneva......... *whistles*

 

[emperorpenguin]

But some ships were never designed to stand up to a warships big guns. For example in WW2 the shells from a battleship would rip a destroyer a new one. But this didn't mean that destroyers were useless, but they relyed more on speed an menourverablity .

which works fine in VAS but the rather straightjacketed one roll vs hull of ACTA doesn't allow fast ships any protection

 

[tneva82]

Come to think about it...This could make nova's lasers actually worth using!

hmm about that tneva......... *whistles*

?

 

[emperorpenguin]

Come to think about it...This could make nova's lasers actually worth using!

hmm about that tneva......... *whistles*

?

Nova and lasers aren't an item anymore......

 

[tneva82]

Nova and lasers aren't an item anymore......

You mean there's no laser mode for Nova in 2nd ed?

You got to be kidding?

I knew there was that plasma version coming for early age but that would still leave 3rd age version which should have original weapons...

 

[Methos5000]

It was a too fold problem.

One was that hull represented both maneuverability and armor. Some ships got dodge to indicate they were VERY maneuverable, but mostly you had one net 'defensive trait' with a number of offense traits that could effect it. (namely ap, sap, twin link and beam)

The big issue with the new rule is that to reduce the effect on the low end of defense (ie hull 4) they have exposed the high end to the same kind of hits the low end used to get. The 4+ on all re-rolls produces some really extreme hits, and make beams less predictable overall. This increases the 'luck' factor in the game, something I sometimes find less than satisfying.

Ripple

I think there will still be some variety in the different beam types. Abbai and Brakiri beams have gotten a little better since before they were AP or less. However there will still be differences. The Minbari beams will be Double Damage(or is some cases Triple Damage), Precise, the Abbai have Precise beams and the Brakiri have Double Damage Slow loading with loads of attack dice (watch fleets APTE as quickly as possible to stay away from the F arc of Brakiri ships now, sure they can only fire every other turn but I would not want to be infront of one on the turn they can fire). So the Minbari will still have some of the best beams doing lots of crits and damage, the Abbai will do little damage but lots of crits and the Brikiri wont care about crits because they will just blow up whatever they shoot at every other turn

Now granted I dont know what changes are being made to each races beams for 2nd ed. so the above is purely conjecture (since I would imagine Mongoose would prefer the playtesters not give away too much until the 2nd ed. is released.

In the end I dont thing its going to change most races tactics too much since the main races had SAP beams most of the time they started of 4+ anyway, now they just get to stay there. The Brikiri however I think got a huge boost from this, now their slow loading beams are actually useful, which means there is actually a reason to take their raid level chioces and something other then the Kaliva at battle level (plus I hear the Avioki is pretty nasty now, its actually on par with other battle level ships instead of being a useless piece of junk)