Couple of questions
- Thread starter stryve
- Start date
Burger said:Since Comms Disrupters can kill fighters, DD Comms Disrupters might be useful against Shadow fighters
Beg pardon? Where do you get that from?
The Comms Disruptors special rule for the Abbai explicitly states
Fleetbook pg 90 said:
How can they kill fighters if they do no damage?
Comms disrupters are listed along with weapons, and are considered a weapons system for all game rule purposes. To use them you roll against the hull of the opponent.
Successful rolls are called "hits".
A successful hit against a fighter flight destroys it, according to rules as written. It does not require "damage" to destroy a fighter (hence there can be no bulkhead hits on a fighter).
Hits from Comms Disrupters can also be dodged... stopped by shields... etc... anything that affects hits not damage (so GEG or AA or CBD won't help).
Absurd isn't it!
Successful rolls are called "hits".
A successful hit against a fighter flight destroys it, according to rules as written. It does not require "damage" to destroy a fighter (hence there can be no bulkhead hits on a fighter).
Hits from Comms Disrupters can also be dodged... stopped by shields... etc... anything that affects hits not damage (so GEG or AA or CBD won't help).
Absurd isn't it!
Therefore how would a DD Comms Disruptor be any more useful than the regular variety against Shadow fighters?Burger said:
I don't see why it's absurd that other defences don't work. As it's a directed weapon, I'd see the Comms Disruptor as something like Star Wars' ion cannon, which does more or less the same thing. It knocks down shields, then it fries the ship's controls - great for disabling a ship without actually harming it, which is nice for certain missions in the "X-Wing" series of PC games, and also fits in with Abbai pacifism.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
The Comms Disruptor is clearly an electronic warfare system, not a weapon of any sort by any traditional measure.
ACtA really needs proper rules for electronic warfare, maybe for a third edition we could hope for something. Annoying rules like stealth and scout would go, then and be absorbed into a larger set of rules.
ACtA really needs proper rules for electronic warfare, maybe for a third edition we could hope for something. Annoying rules like stealth and scout would go, then and be absorbed into a larger set of rules.
I can certainly see why a fighter would not recover from having its electronics fried. Not like it has protected core's to reboot from.
Shields stop hits, but they lose boxes based on the number of DD/TD/QD the weapon has. So might be useful against any shielded target. At least I think that's how it works... books are elsewhere... if they snuck a damage reference in there (as in, based on the number of damage points weapon would do...).
Ripple
Shields stop hits, but they lose boxes based on the number of DD/TD/QD the weapon has. So might be useful against any shielded target. At least I think that's how it works... books are elsewhere... if they snuck a damage reference in there (as in, based on the number of damage points weapon would do...).
Ripple
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Technically a double damage comms disruptor will drop a shield by two points rather than one.
It has no benefit against shadow fighters since shield 1 will stop a single hit, whatever the damage multiplier.
It has no benefit against shadow fighters since shield 1 will stop a single hit, whatever the damage multiplier.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Comms disruptors don't affect damage and crew, so double damage won't apply. I would probably reroll any result that gave comms distuptors DD.
Space stations are placed first, "Space stations may be deployed anywhere in a player’s deployment zone at the start of a scenario."
Space stations are placed first, "Space stations may be deployed anywhere in a player’s deployment zone at the start of a scenario."
