Beams Why?

[Da Boss]

In the latest update beams are apparently changing :?:

Beams and Mini-Beams work a little differently

Really wondering why? They seem to work fine at present - the main arguments seem to be who should have them, their range and how many etc - not how they work.

They also seem to represent their power in the show. are easy to uderstand and use

The AP SAP system works well as a way to balance things and means they are devestating against low hull ships - as it should be

anyone able to say what the new rules are and the reasoning?

regards

 

[katadder]

as stated in the 2e thread, its to encourage use of more of the hull 4 ships that never see light of day due to being SAP beam fodder if they do.

 

[Da Boss]

ah I see - but shouldn't SAP beams be devestating against low hull ships - especially civlian ships.

how will it work then - if that is not giving too much away?

 

[emperorpenguin]

ah I see - but shouldn't SAP beams be devestating against low hull ships - especially civlian ships.

how will it work then - if that is not giving too much away?

well maybe they should and maybe they shouldn't but something needed to be done to boost the humble hull 4 ship

 

[Court Jester]

If I were you I'd stop worrying about all these wispering of how 2e will totally ruin the game you love and wait for something much more concrete to appear.

None of us can really formulate any opinion on the new rules until we are able to read them as a whole and see each rule relative to the others.

 

[Da Boss]

perhaps you are right - just hoping for discussion on it - presume that is why the big post on what is being done - for reaction / interest etc?

at the risk of being reactive - perhaps there could be a "civilian" trait that means non warships / are easier to kill.

regards

 

[Iain McGhee]

All the civilian ships are easy to kill as they are, even with a wing or two of fighters. Don't need any special rules to make them blow up any quicker

I've been using loads of Drazi recently and any help against beam equipped ships would be welcome. I was thinking of experimenting with giving all Patrol-level ships (regardless of Hull score) Dodge 6 but this may well over-power them. It'll be interesting to see how they adjust the rules to make light ships less vulnerable but keep Beams effective against heavily-armoured ships. Maybe give them a bonus to their hull score against Beams or limit how many rolls a single Beam can do against them or somesuch.

 

[Target]

I've always thought beams should be for close up attacking with other weapons being long range but this would totaly rejig the whole game so probably isn't a good idea. It's always appealed to me to have the longest range weaponary to be the ones with no modifiers, AP for medium & SAP for close up with exception being missles & torps.

 

[Da Boss]

hmm just tried to trash a EA convoy (5pt Raid) with my Centauri (2 1/2pt raid) - the damn things took enough time to kill - and still would not blow................probably just me though

 

[Tankdriver]

I always thought that the priority system protected the little guys. If you are playing low priority battles, a skirmish of patrol ship has a chane, even against a beam weapon because it will likely have one AD. In larger battles, these guys should be fodder.

Of course, I am a newbie.

 

[katadder]

hmm just tried to trash a EA convoy (5pt Raid) with my Centauri (2 1/2pt raid) - the damn things took enough time to kill - and still would not blow................probably just me though

dont worry then as the centauri are being changed anyway, less beam reliant.

 

[Iain McGhee]

Trouble with that is that some races have mostly low PL ships (esp. Drazi)
or weak hulls(esp. Vree) and have to use them in high PL battles. In fact, I've got a 5-pt War PL game tonight as part of my current campaign and about 2/3 of my fleet will be Sunhawk and Warbird variants, the rest being Brakiri heavies against an EA force which includes a Warlock and 4 Omegas. I'm dead

 

[katadder]

and the new beam rules would allow your hull 4 ships to last longer against that beam heavy fleet (that currently hits you on 2s alot).
thats part of the reason for changes, i mean how many drazi players use sunhawks? or how many others of you skip the hull 4 ships in your fleets cos you know they are beam fodder?

 

[Tankdriver]

I se the point. But in that type of battle, you have numbers on you side. And speed. In the long run, you are probably dead, granted, but a few good hits with your beam weapons, and it could even out. I see the problem in that the Drazi and Abbai beams are only AP while the others are Super AP. No real chance there.

 

[Green_Knight]

Don't underestimate the Vree, the last 5 point Battle against Minbari
i won. The board was cluttered with terrain that i could use to best
effect. The Minbos seldonly got their beams to bear as most of the
time i managed to get into their side arcs.
And the Vree weapons do massive damage to their ships.

I'mm in the "the low hulls are ok in low priority" group. If you
play campaign you are happy to have some small vessels when it comes
to a 5 point patrol battle. The Minbos suck every time at patrol (as they trump when we get 5 War priority).

 

[emperorpenguin]

The Minbos suck every time at patrol (as they trump when we get 5 War priority).

Not exactly a good point about ACTA's current incarnation though, the "I win at certain PLs feel"

 

[sidewinder]

I was just wondering, is there really a reason why none of the playtesters, or Matt, can't tell us about the new rules, or at least a quick overview? I would think they might like some input from everyone before they publish a book and then get chewed out on here for stuff. Otherwise I would rather you guys keep to yourselfs and not say anything at all cause then its like your just teasing us which kind of pisses me off. You dont have to put the whole damn book online but it would be nice too see the new rules so we know what your talking about and can comment on them.

 

[Poi]

I was just wondering, is there really a reason why none of the playtesters, or Matt, can't tell us about the new rules, or at least a quick overview? I would think they might like some input from everyone before they publish a book and then get chewed out on here for stuff. Otherwise I would rather you guys keep to yourselfs and not say anything at all cause then its like your just teasing us which kind of pisses me off. You dont have to put the whole damn book online but it would be nice too see the new rules so we know what your talking about and can comment on them.

That's what playtesting is for. (Although they seem to have dropped the ball more than once)

 

[katadder]

matt occasionally does come on to tell you how things are progressing, hence the progress on 2e thread.
now if you saw the current rules and saw something you didnt like and kicked up a fuss how would that help? the current ones might not be final, thats the point in playtesting etc so no point releasing things until we know where they are going, which is why you only occasionaly gets bits and pieces plus matts update threads.

 

[emperorpenguin]

I agree with Katadder, Matt released LOTS of info in the 2nd ed progress thread, far more than I would if I were a publisher! (Maybe that's just the ex-GW employee in me speaking?)