Beams Why?
- Thread starter Da Boss
- Start date
I think that beams and interceptors are the games 2 best mechanisms. They're really original and play well. I love teaching new players how a 1 AD beam can gut a ship while 10 AD can be shrugged off in the right circumstances.
and hence back to my original post - circles are nice.
This doesn't happen with other defense systems (or with enhanced damage like the narn have) as there is no threshold you have to overcome.
does it not with the Drak/Centauri shields? or Stealth? Also it only does not work if you make all your interceptor roles -
chance - aint it wonderful - having jist had a game where a Octurion went head to head with a Victory (part of a larger battle) and missed with its beam at 4" range! Oh and my estemed opponent - you know who you are only needs one damage to hit to roll a "weapons destroyed criticial" or similar every other turn
hage fun
and hence back to my original post - circles are nice.
This doesn't happen with other defense systems (or with enhanced damage like the narn have) as there is no threshold you have to overcome.
does it not with the Drak/Centauri shields? or Stealth? Also it only does not work if you make all your interceptor roles -
chance - aint it wonderful - having jist had a game where a Octurion went head to head with a Victory (part of a larger battle) and missed with its beam at 4" range! Oh and my estemed opponent - you know who you are only needs one damage to hit to roll a "weapons destroyed criticial" or similar every other turn
hage fun
I did forget the Drahk GEG that has a threshold.
And yes, you see something like this in the show, not saying it does not have some accuracy.
BUT...
accuracy is not the point of the post. If we were being accurate the Vorlons and Shadows just win in any one on one fight that does not involve a telepath. The point was that accurately pointing interceptors within the system is very difficult. A patrol point is not always a patrol point worth of ability if you have a mismatch of systems and something that is a big deal in small fights can be irrelevant in big fights.
There was a post above that raised the point that interceptors power may be on the rise with the changes to beams. That seemed a good time to mention that interceptors ARE a fairly small issue in big fights with a time limit but much more of an issue in small fights, or long fights. As we go into 2ed and a lot of things are being reviewed, now would be the time to mention this and see if this scaling issue is something they have thought of and are taking into account. Especially as it will be nearly invisible in most 5 to 6 point games of turn limited call to arms scenario games. Play a 3 point annihilation game and it shows up more.
I noticed this to be a significant issue in games with single Kalivas trying to fire at range (useless against most interceptor ships, death to a narn skirmish hull) and lately the Pak. Small number of high threat AD produce huge variance against an interceptor laden foe. While chance is wonderful, if the variance gets too large there ceases to be much in the way of tactical choices to be made and you might as well skip the minis and just throw some dice against the wall. Craps anyone?
Anyway, just saying that interceptors can produce that feeling of a 'broken' matchup due to being a threshold system, and that those feelings can turn a person off a game fairly quickly, thus should be minimized if possible. Big moments are cool and fun, so I understand how cool chance is, but high amount of negating an opponents actions such as the whitestar did with dodge 3+ can be frustrating. The dodge was not that big a deal if you threw enough dice at it, but that was something you could only do in really big fights. The same thing can happen with interceptors in really small fights or fight that have become really small.
Personally I like interceptors, and for the most part even how they work. Just have some concerns that they be pointed with that interaction in mind. Much like I have some concerns that folks remind themselves that the difference between 2 interceptor dice and 8 is pretty much nothing, even though it looks huge.
Ripple
And yes, you see something like this in the show, not saying it does not have some accuracy.
BUT...
accuracy is not the point of the post. If we were being accurate the Vorlons and Shadows just win in any one on one fight that does not involve a telepath. The point was that accurately pointing interceptors within the system is very difficult. A patrol point is not always a patrol point worth of ability if you have a mismatch of systems and something that is a big deal in small fights can be irrelevant in big fights.
There was a post above that raised the point that interceptors power may be on the rise with the changes to beams. That seemed a good time to mention that interceptors ARE a fairly small issue in big fights with a time limit but much more of an issue in small fights, or long fights. As we go into 2ed and a lot of things are being reviewed, now would be the time to mention this and see if this scaling issue is something they have thought of and are taking into account. Especially as it will be nearly invisible in most 5 to 6 point games of turn limited call to arms scenario games. Play a 3 point annihilation game and it shows up more.
I noticed this to be a significant issue in games with single Kalivas trying to fire at range (useless against most interceptor ships, death to a narn skirmish hull) and lately the Pak. Small number of high threat AD produce huge variance against an interceptor laden foe. While chance is wonderful, if the variance gets too large there ceases to be much in the way of tactical choices to be made and you might as well skip the minis and just throw some dice against the wall. Craps anyone?
Anyway, just saying that interceptors can produce that feeling of a 'broken' matchup due to being a threshold system, and that those feelings can turn a person off a game fairly quickly, thus should be minimized if possible. Big moments are cool and fun, so I understand how cool chance is, but high amount of negating an opponents actions such as the whitestar did with dodge 3+ can be frustrating. The dodge was not that big a deal if you threw enough dice at it, but that was something you could only do in really big fights. The same thing can happen with interceptors in really small fights or fight that have become really small.
Personally I like interceptors, and for the most part even how they work. Just have some concerns that they be pointed with that interaction in mind. Much like I have some concerns that folks remind themselves that the difference between 2 interceptor dice and 8 is pretty much nothing, even though it looks huge.
Ripple
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Ripple said:
How would Telepaths effect the Vorlons?
They created them...
Some evidence would suggest that some Vorlons are telepaths (They all seem to be Telekinetic anyway...) where as the Shadows are not, although the Shadow weakness is through their use of pilots in their ships, Vorlons seem to fly theirs themselves.
Nick
I always thought it would have been cooler if the ships were the Vorlons and the "pilots" just things they used to comunicate with "humanoids" so as not too scare them - started righting a rpg campign with that in mind - but anyway................
re interceptors - they seem to work well but I do see you points and also agree this is a good time for us to raise this issues - hence my varied posts which are probably boring people.
also agree that more than 2 interceptors are not that useful
re interceptors - they seem to work well but I do see you points and also agree this is a good time for us to raise this issues - hence my varied posts which are probably boring people.
also agree that more than 2 interceptors are not that useful
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
more than 2? No I'd say about 4 or 5 is as good as interceptors get
But in terms of averages - the increase in hits stopped between Interceptors 2 and Interceptors 50(!) is only one extra hit stopped. The difference between Interceptors 1 and Interceptors 2 is also one extra hit stopped a turn. Of course the variance changes but the averages aren't too different.emperorpenguin said:
Triggy said:
Now this is a problem i have with interceptors......
They just dont scale very well......A hyperion has a marginally worse interceptors grid than a Omega......ye the difference in dice used is something else entirely. And to top it off, the Abbai Lakara is barely worthy of its 8!!! dice. Sure they stop something, but the difference between 5 and 8 dice is just not truly worth mentioning.....In big battles, where the Lakara makes an entrance, its vast interceptor grid doesnt really play any part. It plays just like a Chronos, sure the first salvo is stopped cold, but then theres a 2nd-5th salvo still coming........
Beams play really nice, but i think that interceptors can use some attention....
Interceptors are kind of like Beams due the the larger variances involved.
With both, above average early successes will result in more dice for you to re-roll in your subsequent rolls, with the potential for more successes. Below average opening roll will skew the result the other way (like me rolling AD for Mag Guns
).
With the mechanics of interceptors to block incoming shots, the hull value will also affect the performance of interceptors, generally the higher the hull the less shots will hit and need to be intercepted, meaning more dice are available for later.
As to what numbers are 'optimal' I'd say somewhere around 5-6, as this kind of allows for dice to be dropped from the initial roll on average, while maintaining a reasonable availability of dice for the higher vaulues needed. Any higher than 6 and the extra dice really do not matter except as padding in the first 2 perhaps 3 rolls. Ulitimately, and no matter how many dice you start with, it will all comes down to 1 dice on 6.
With both, above average early successes will result in more dice for you to re-roll in your subsequent rolls, with the potential for more successes. Below average opening roll will skew the result the other way (like me rolling AD for Mag Guns
).With the mechanics of interceptors to block incoming shots, the hull value will also affect the performance of interceptors, generally the higher the hull the less shots will hit and need to be intercepted, meaning more dice are available for later.
As to what numbers are 'optimal' I'd say somewhere around 5-6, as this kind of allows for dice to be dropped from the initial roll on average, while maintaining a reasonable availability of dice for the higher vaulues needed. Any higher than 6 and the extra dice really do not matter except as padding in the first 2 perhaps 3 rolls. Ulitimately, and no matter how many dice you start with, it will all comes down to 1 dice on 6.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Silvereye said:Below average opening roll will skew the result the other way (like me rolling AD for Mag Guns
.
Good to see I'm not the only one who can never hit with a mag gun!
I've said the same thing in the past and had lobbied for allowing the Abbai to selectively allocate their interceptors in the same manner as space stations. From what I understand though, the abbai will be getting a shield mechanic in second edition so the "problem" goes away or at least changes.
That would be definitely great though.
Currently Abbai are not really better protected than EA, yet they are supposed to have high-tech gravitic shields and whatnot.
However the Abbai problem is solved it acceptable, but id still like a small change at making interceptors a little bit better on war lvl ships. The most important interceptor die is the first one, with the 2nd one being a great boost, after that its not really such a boon anymore.......
Currently Abbai are not really better protected than EA, yet they are supposed to have high-tech gravitic shields and whatnot.
However the Abbai problem is solved it acceptable, but id still like a small change at making interceptors a little bit better on war lvl ships. The most important interceptor die is the first one, with the 2nd one being a great boost, after that its not really such a boon anymore.......
Again back to my original point - the actual mechanisms for Beams and interceptors seem to work fine - I think the problem is more ranges and arguments if some ships are too powerful. If beams are rarer than perhaps their effect on low hull ships (which makes sense) may be more palatable.
Again if ships are being rewritten hopefully large amounts of inteceptors will be changed to mixture of antifighter and interceptors and where appropriate shields.
Again if ships are being rewritten hopefully large amounts of inteceptors will be changed to mixture of antifighter and interceptors and where appropriate shields.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
animus said:
Stations have something like that with their Defence Network whatsit.
LBH
Well actually the basic of the interceptor rule is fine.
BUT: if you do everything in an allocation mode, would become quite tedious to keep track of, unless you do something simple, as every interceptor is used only once on a 2+ or somesuch, and then it is discarded.
Or you keep the system, but some such, just do not stand out, unless you would give them hugely inflated interceptor dice numbers ........
BUT: if you do everything in an allocation mode, would become quite tedious to keep track of, unless you do something simple, as every interceptor is used only once on a 2+ or somesuch, and then it is discarded.
Or you keep the system, but some such, just do not stand out, unless you would give them hugely inflated interceptor dice numbers ........
