Do you change rules for purposes of Canon???

[Arcadia]

It is less simple than forward arc, but less complex than two separate arcs that only give maximum firepower when they overlap.

Of course boresight then gives rise to tactical complications. Of course the same can be said for anything else that is simplified in the game.

Well you could go with using the Omega for example 6 AD Boresigth but allow it to have a Fore arc at 3 AD. Give the player the tactical option.

Arcadia

 

[emperorpenguin]

Now one of the other playtesters pointed out to me that the B5 Wars Omega had two laser mounts on the front, both with arcs of fire. However when it did get a target directly ahead (ie boresighted) it could fire both. If you simplify this, you get an Omega with a boresight. It's not ideal, not wholly reflective of the show, but it's simple and fast.

actually I just thought to myself the Primus could only fire its four lasers together in a boresight too.
Otherwise they were two left and two right, so that isn't a very good reason for boresighting an Omega

 

[H]

I think the big issue is still using canon to explain one thing, but then ignoring it on something else. All that is needed is a consistent approach, either go with what is seen on screen, or don't use it as an excuse from something that people might not like. thing is, on screen only affects a small number of overall ships, so it shouldn't be "that" hard to do anyway!

 

[Ripple]

Locarno's comment above was dead on.

The issue with boresights is that the other guy can buy up to his beam weapon survivable ships and you can't as you must buy down more than he does to your initi sinks. Centauri did this the worst as they had a good patrol choice (Corvan). This ment you had to buy down a lot of points in a hope to be able to shoot a beam ship.

Ripple

 

[vitalis6969]

I don't usually have too much of a problem with boresights, since I usually take plenty of initiative sinks (or Narn ships with both B and F beams). But we playtesters are discussing this at the moment.

Please discuss it heavily because as an avid Narn player and lover of all things Narn, I don't even TAKE a G'quon because of the boresight beam, in fact, I take everything Narn that DOES NOT have a beam if at all possible becuase boresites combined with the low amount of attack dice the Narn receive are not worth it. I would rather take mag cruisers and all power to engines my way into range just for the forward arc.

This hurts every time I do it as the G'Quon is the premier Narn ship. I feel like I am betraying my peeps.

-V

 

[vitalis6969]

Well you could go with using the Omega for example 6 AD Boresigth but allow it to have a Fore arc at 3 AD. Give the player the tactical option.

Arcadia

You beat me to it. Wonderful idea And simple as hell to use.

 

[Silvereye]

Well you could go with using the Omega for example 6 AD Boresigth but allow it to have a Fore arc at 3 AD. Give the player the tactical option.

Perhaps turning the idea on its head. Add a Boresight trait in to the Weapon Notes. When using the Boresight trait, it allows you to fire the weapon with double the normal AD of that system, but restricts you to the boresight arc.

For example, the G'Quan Heavy Cruiser could have:
Heavy Laser - Fore - 2AD - Boresight, Beam, Double Damge Super-AP.
When this system is fired as a Boresight, the AD would be increased to 4.

 

[Burger]

Nice idea Silvereye It gets the Burger Stamp Of Approval!

 

[Greg Smith]

Well you could go with using the Omega for example 6 AD Boresigth but allow it to have a Fore arc at 3 AD. Give the player the tactical option.

Arcadia

You beat me to it. Wonderful idea And simple as hell to use.

We playtesters have already thought something similar to that. How would you do it? Simply a rule for all boresights? A special action? Would you allow Drazi ships to do it?

 

[Matt]

nope

 

[H]

again it comes down to reasoning. The whitestar in the show has boresight, yet gets a forward arc the argument that it is maneuvreable is pointless, as, well, it's maneuvreability (2*90) shows it's maneuvreability!. So why should the drazi, or anyone else, be lumbered with a boresight?

 

[Burger]

Ships that you want to keep as boresighted, keep the B arc. Ships that you want to allow to do the special thingy, change to F arc but have the "Boresight" weapon trait (if they boresight, they get double AD).

 

[Da Boss]

Sounds simple and easy...............all in all a good idea

 

[Arcadia]

Well you could go with using the Omega for example 6 AD Boresigth but allow it to have a Fore arc at 3 AD. Give the player the tactical option.

Perhaps turning the idea on its head. Add a Boresight trait in to the Weapon Notes. When using the Boresight trait, it allows you to fire the weapon with double the normal AD of that system, but restricts you to the boresight arc.

For example, the G'Quan Heavy Cruiser could have:
Heavy Laser - Fore - 2AD - Boresight, Beam, Double Damge Super-AP.
When this system is fired as a Boresight, the AD would be increased to 4.

Yes Silvereye, that way you can still have the only boresight ship and only benefit some selected ships. Thanks great improvement. That could be your answer Greg.

Arcadia.

 

[vitalis6969]

I agree, this is the way to go Greg. Make it a trait, that way no extra crew rolls, no special action. Leaves the decision to the commander of the fleet.

Take the G'Quon that was used in the example, it keeps it in the fight while maneuvering until it can line up its beams in a horrific display of boresight bombardment. Keeps it in the fight. Same for pretty much the rest of the Narn fleet or the EA fleet.

-V

 

[lastbesthope]

If you give half the number of AD in the forward arc to Boresight BEams, would you do the same for B(a) beams? Also, would F and A arc vbeams be able to trade down to B or B(a) arcs and get double the dice?

LBH

 

[Target]

Can't see why not, not that many ships have rear arc boresight, 3 comes to mind straight off.
With this idea the Hyperion is 2AD Fwd, 1 AD Back, so since it has the boresight trait, doubles when boresighting.
Would it be so bad if all ships could do it ?
Primus 3 AD fwd & so on. It would change the tactics a bit but will be for the better not sure?
All in all i like the idea.
Just thought of the Ka Toc so the trait would have to be listed in weapon traits not traits section. I could imagine all the Narns grinning with a 2 AD Mag gun.
Guess i'd just answered my own question about if all ships could do it with the current stats.

 

[katadder]

thing is the teshlan only get a 2AD beam, and thats deemed enough for a raid level ship in the forward arc. a hyperion matching this unless it gets boresight in which case it doubles is a bit much IMO. it puts the EA on par with the minbari ships at a far earlier age than they should be. do you really want to face a 4AD boresight precise beam from a teshlan? or an 8AD one from a tinashi?
if the earthers and the rest can do it why not the advanced races? they already have less dice for have fore arc beams (apart from centauri but they being sorted anyway) so would they also get to double up on boresight?
and as the previous poster already pointed out - the ka'tan would have 4AD of beams boresighted with these rules, except one of the beams is a TD one for 2AD at skirmish? no just no.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I thought the point of this trait was to simulate the Omega and Primus beams being fired from two mounts that can converge on a single target, but the whole beam "system" can fire on targets outside the narrow cone where the beams can converge.

Given that very few ships use this arrangement of weapons I see no reason for every boreight ship to get the benefit.

However.

I'd much rather see the Omega and Primus have two beams that have overlapping arcs. In BFG you get weapons that fire in multiple arcs, and in some cases these overlap. For instance, the Emperor-class battleship has a dorsal weapons battery and a prow battery that share the same port/front/starboard arc. They can fire seperately or combine to fire on one target for greater firepower.

So, give the Omega two forward beams, one front/left and one front/right, and the borsight line representing the narrow cone where both can be brought to bear. Of course this needs a change to the way firing arcs work in the game, but it's a not a complicated one...

 

[H]

thing is the teshlan only get a 2AD beam, and thats deemed enough for a raid level ship in the forward arc. a hyperion matching this unless it gets boresight in which case it doubles is a bit much IMO. it puts the EA on par with the minbari ships at a far earlier age than they should be. do you really want to face a 4AD boresight precise beam from a teshlan? or an 8AD one from a tinashi?
if the earthers and the rest can do it why not the advanced races? they already have less dice for have fore arc beams (apart from centauri but they being sorted anyway) so would they also get to double up on boresight?
and as the previous poster already pointed out - the ka'tan would have 4AD of beams boresighted with these rules, except one of the beams is a TD one for 2AD at skirmish? no just no.

I certainly appreaciate your point, but surely it is a mechanism that should at least be reviewed, severla ships have "incorect" firing arcs if we are to use the show as reference.