Do you change rules for purposes of Canon???

[Burger]

not being rediculous, if a EA ship around in the E-M war has the tactical flexibility to have the same AD of beams forearc as a teshlan but doubel boresighted then theres no reason a teshlan cannot do the same thing.

Except that the Hyperion was the height of EA tech in the E-M war. Whereas the Teshlan was a small patrol boat to the Minbari.

This is supposed to be a balanced game, where some ships favour high firepower and some favour high defences. Teshlan has stealth. Hyperion has high firepower. Teshlan's beams are also Precise.

The average Beam dice on Centauri Raid ships is 2.6.. plus they often have hull 6, and 6AD double damage secondary weapons.

 

[katadder]

like i said, dont mind a hyperion having 4AD if its boresight only. or it can have 2AD foreward arc. but no inbetween where you get both.
and it might have been the height of Ea technology but it didnt help them much

 

[Silvereye]

not ignoring the sullust, but it doesnt fall into the beam averages does it?

It affects the mean.

Yes, but it is likely to skew the mean for that fleet towards the high end (much like the Olympus Gunship does). Certainly you could argue that it is an 'anomolous result'. A Median value would give you 2 AD.

Raid Beams
Centauri:
Magnus: 2AD - 20"
Centurion: 2AD - 25"
Prefect: 3AD - 25"
Dargan: 2AD - 25"
Sulust: 4AD - 25 "
Minbari:
Teshlan: 2AD - 20"
EA (Boresights):
Hyperion: 4AD - 18"
Olympus Gunship: 6AD - 18"
Oracle: 2AD - 15"
Brakiri:
Haltona: 6AD - 18" (Slow-Loading)
Drazi:
Sunhawk: 6AD - 18" (Slow Loading)
Raiders:
Battlewagon: 3AD - 20" (Boresight)

 

[Tank]

Things are skewed in favour of the centauri on that list as mostly they have higher damage, better hull, longer range and just as good if not better secondaries.

You can't really just look at number of AD of a single weapon system in isolation, ships are a whole package with different abilities/attributes to "balance" them in that PL.

 

[Burger]

Well said Tank

 

[Tank]

Scary, I must have made some sense :lol:

 

[katadder]

true but on balancing beams that want to lose boresight then its a differant matter. we were looking in that list at the averages for beam AD, which for forward arc beams is around 2AD.

 

[Tank]

But your not "balancing" beams, your still "balancing" the ship I see where you're coming from but I think that your focused too tight on just one aspect.

 

[Burger]

Yes exactly, using your arguement katadder, the Tinashi should have 6AD of beam since that is the average Centauri beam dice at Battle level.

 

[katadder]

well all i am trying to say with the beam averages is that giving boresight ships the flexibility of forearc weapons usually only brings them down to around the average for that level. I would say that at battle level for the most part 4AD is around the average. Omegas have it currently, tinashis have 4AD, same as veshetans, marathons are 4AD. yes the centauri have 2 ships with 6AD there. it doesnt matter what say though cos theres always a ship, maybe 2 that breaks the mould of these averages.

 

[CZuschlag]

I think Katadder's point might be describable as:

Giving the additional property of half dice on boresight systems will leave no ship worse than it started. Actually, it will leave every ship better than it started.

Given that, and that many of these ships have already had attempts to balance to fit the level ....

.... what are the boresight ships going to give up to get this new half-dice privilege? Hits and Crew?Nothin comes for free. Maybe Hull values go down. Maybe a few hits, crew, and all the auxiliary craft.

"For everything gained, something of equal value must be given in return. That is the law of Equivalent Exchange."

Most boresighted ships are reasonably balanced right now --- Warbirds, Strikehawks, G'Quan (is close), Hyperion, Ka'Tan (already too much!), Ka'Toc, Thentus, Battlewagon, Ochliavita, Bin'Tak, Omega, Command Omega. There are only a few that are not: G'Quonth, some argue the Solarhawk (I like it, but that's me), Sunhawk, Command Hyperion, T'Loth (I'll begin to concede this one...)

So, you Alchemists out there --- what item, of equal value, are you willing to give up? This upgrade to boresighted weapons will NOT be cheap.

 

[Locutus9956]

The problem with that argument as I see it is that your reducing things to down to just the beams. Sure Centauri ships have more beam AD than Narns but Narns have tougher ships, and Emines, Tinashi may only have 4AD of beams but theyre precise and the ship has stealth protection.

The main issue though is that it does improve boresight ships but the argument is that they NEED improving. Personally I dont agree but dont think that this need necessarily be a HUGE improvement and only need have a small reduction in fighting power to compensate.

ps. Im very tired today so if the preceding post makes little to no sense (as I suspect is likely, just assume my brain has shut down (which it probably has )

 

[Arcadia]

So, you Alchemists out there --- what item, of equal value, are you willing to give up? This upgrade to boresighted weapons will NOT be cheap.

What if they lost some Range too??? And please mind Silvereye’s idea is only fore some ships not all.

Arcadia.

 

[CZuschlag]

Consider that this change will give these ships some access to CAF for beams! That's not a small deal in 1e.

 

[Burger]

Give up some secondary weapons. Or reduce the AD by 1.

 

[H]

at this rate the G'Quan, one of the poorer Beam owners will end up with 1AD forward arc 4" range :-(

 

[Tank]

Just to point out in relation to my beloved EA, the Centauri beam ships at Raid:

A) Have greater distance
B) Better Damage
C) better secondaries
D) Better Initiative
E) More use of special actions

so yes what shall we balance? the Hyperion is already a fragile ship, decent weapons loadout, but shorter ranged primaries and secondaries IIRC, not bad speed for EA, interceptors, useless when talking about beams, and a fighter flight.

Of course the Sullust has 4 beams, interceptors, more damage, twinlinked secondaries, speed on a par or better

The Prefect, better hull, better damage, better secondaries

Not forgetting that at the very least they have a +1 Initiative advantage.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Personally, I like the massively overgunned Hyperion as it is (but a bit more damage would be nice )..

or a bit less fire so it's not such a big target! :wink:

 

[CZuschlag]

<sarc> Certainly, lt's compare the boresighted ships to broken ones -- we want more broken ones, too!

Where do I get my Rohric with 12 dice of Heavy Bolters?
</sarc>

C'mon, Tank, you're better than that. You know the Prefect is a problem on the way up --- we're talking about more balanced hulls. The comparison at Raid that you should be using is the Centurion or Dargan.

 

[katadder]

Just to point out in relation to my beloved EA, the Centauri beam ships at Raid:

A) Have greater distance
B) Better Damage
C) better secondaries
D) Better Initiative
E) More use of special actions

so yes what shall we balance? the Hyperion is already a fragile ship, decent weapons loadout, but shorter ranged primaries and secondaries IIRC, not bad speed for EA, interceptors, useless when talking about beams, and a fighter flight.

Of course the Sullust has 4 beams, interceptors, more damage, twinlinked secondaries, speed on a par or better

The Prefect, better hull, better damage, better secondaries

Not forgetting that at the very least they have a +1 Initiative advantage.

the hyperion useless when takling about beams? its got 4AD of beams, and its secondaries beat the sullust hands down. ok its currently boresighted, but 4AD beam is bloody good. as i already said i did a 5 hyperion game versus the league and won that. the hyperion also gets 2 turns over the sullusts one. has longer range secondaries and the ones same range as sullust are AP and TL. plus you can carry a t-bolt.

as this is not likely to be a 1e change either the person who mentioned CAF as an argument has that argument thrown out as beams cannot CAF. plus taking the sullust as an example doest work against the hyperion in 2e, which whilst most of you dont know this Tank does.

I really cannot believe how much some of the EA players have problems with boresights. when using them I never really do. and when using narn i never really do. in a game today I even managed a double boresight with a hyperion, which is actually alot easier than these EA whingers would make out.