Drakh Raiders and campaigns

[Sulfurdown]

Out of idle curiousity - Let's say you have your Carrier with all it's Raiders. The Raiders all have the CQ of the Carrier. When the Raiders start accumulating XP do you end up tracking CQ independently on each raider? What happens when the Carrier get's a CQ boost?

The more I read the specific rules between Huge Hangars and the Campaign Carrier Deployment, the more I feel like it can be argued both ways. Does the campaign Carrier use count as "Launching" the fighters?

 

[Spideredd]

we've been playing that you can gain experience for lauched ships, after all, they are not fighters.
the CQ, now that is an intersting question. To be perfectly honest though, it is far more efficient to increase the CQ of the carrier/mothership

 

[Voronesh]

And since fighters are often consiered ships nowadays (eg last ship on the board and other stuff) one could argue that Drakh radiers be treated the same as fighter flights.

That is like saying peas are green and beans are green, therefore peas are beans!

Yep thats what im doing. And yes i know its way too powerful, and thats why im actually against it.
Its just that rules need to be formed rather precisely, when concerning rule exceptions. Standard rules that apply to everyone are easy to write, but when you get exception A or B or whatever, it gets quite a bit harder to keep it just as clear. For example adding the sentence, "they are never considered a fighter flight under any cirumstance except for launching or recovery from a ship with the huge hangars trait." would clear this mess up.


Players will always try to find that loophole, and sometimes fall into it without actually realizing that it isnt supposed to work that way.
Thats actually the reason why im trying to argue in such funny ways ^^.

 

[Sulfurdown]

we've been playing that you can gain experience for lauched ships, after all, they are not fighters.
the CQ, now that is an intersting question. To be perfectly honest though, it is far more efficient to increase the CQ of the carrier/mothership

That raises a lot of questions about how the carried ships operate once the campaign is underway. If I start with the Carrier at CQ4 and increase the Raider-1 to CQ5, later I boost the Carrier to CQ5, do all the Raiders rise to the Carrier CQ if they were below it? Does the Raider-1 go to CQ6? Do the Raiders remain at CQ4 since they were already in play?

 

[Spideredd]

I would say that as the ships are being carried by the carrier, all ships would increase to that of the carrier, except for those that are already higher (in the example you give, the CQ5 raider would remain at CQ5, and all of the others would increase to CQ5)

To be perfectly honest, I would like to see this cleared up, because I'm not sure that my way is the right way.

 

[Tzarevitch]

If there IS such a campaign rule exception and someone can find it and quote it, then question resolved. I am guessing there isn't such a rule because no one has been able to quote it.

How about this one, under Huge Hangars:

"They are launched and can be taken back on board the carrier as if they were Fighters, though they can never start the battle deployed."

If they were to be fielded independently of their carrier, then they would count as beng "deployed". Therefore, this is not allowed.

That does nicely close the case on this question. There is a specific rule and the answer is "never". Oddly, raiders can never be deployed independently of their carrier (despite being ships) but fighters can under certain circumstances. It is presumably to prevent the Drakh from misusing their free Raiders. Oh well though, at least the rules have clearly spoken.

Tzarevitch

 

[Tzarevitch]

Actually "deployed" would mean that they are placed on the board along with their carrier. One could argue that they never start the battle deployed from their carrier if you just place them independently without its mothership.

Yes i know, its playing the rule and not the game. But thats what you get for one half sentence trying to rule mutiple possibilities.


And since fighters are often consiered ships nowadays (eg last ship on the board and other stuff) one could argue that Drakh radiers be treated the same as fighter flights.



^^

That is still "deployed". It doesn't matter where the mothership is. If the raiders belonging to that ship aren't on it they are "deployed".

Tzarevitch

 

[Hans Olo]

If there IS such a campaign rule exception and someone can find it and quote it, then question resolved. I am guessing there isn't such a rule because no one has been able to quote it.

How about this one, under Huge Hangars:

"They are launched and can be taken back on board the carrier as if they were Fighters, though they can never start the battle deployed."

If they were to be fielded independently of their carrier, then they would count as beng "deployed". Therefore, this is not allowed.

That does nicely close the case on this question. There is a specific rule and the answer is "never". Oddly, raiders can never be deployed independently of their carrier (despite being ships) but fighters can under certain circumstances. It is presumably to prevent the Drakh from misusing their free Raiders. Oh well though, at least the rules have clearly spoken.

Tzarevitch

If we take that as given, what happens to Raiders that loose their carrier / Mothership in battle?
Are they added to the Fleet rooster or are they lost because they lost the carrier and can't be deployed separately.
I would guess, and hope, that they are lost!
A official answer would be very nice in deed.

 

[Z Baron]

Its just that rules need to be formed rather precisely, when concerning rule exceptions. Standard rules that apply to everyone are easy to write, but when you get exception A or B or whatever, it gets quite a bit harder to keep it just as clear... Players will always try to find that loophole, and sometimes fall into it without actually realizing that it isnt supposed to work that way.
Thats actually the reason why im trying to argue in such funny ways ^^.

I appreciate the desire for clarity, and the value of playing Devil's Advocate from time to time. However, I'd rather not have rules die-cast set in stone for every circumstance. Maybe a rule may seem "broken" for you and your crew, and A-OK for mine, or vice-versa. Rules that are flexible enough for both groups to interpret for maximum enjoyment of whatever group is playing at the time are great by me.

Honestly - do we need an interpretation for every possible situation? Are we that reliant on the Mongoose crew to interpret the game every time an unforeseen tactic emerges? Must we get a set-in-stone ruling to make certain everybody plays the same way? It sounds like a lot of people are using house rules that work fine for them - so why don't we just "Play and let play?"

 

[Tzarevitch]

How about this one, under Huge Hangars:

"They are launched and can be taken back on board the carrier as if they were Fighters, though they can never start the battle deployed."

If they were to be fielded independently of their carrier, then they would count as beng "deployed". Therefore, this is not allowed.

That does nicely close the case on this question. There is a specific rule and the answer is "never". Oddly, raiders can never be deployed independently of their carrier (despite being ships) but fighters can under certain circumstances. It is presumably to prevent the Drakh from misusing their free Raiders. Oh well though, at least the rules have clearly spoken.

Tzarevitch

If we take that as given, what happens to Raiders that loose their carrier / Mothership in battle?
Are they added to the Fleet rooster or are they lost because they lost the carrier and can't be deployed separately.
I would guess, and hope, that they are lost!
A official answer would be very nice in deed.

If they can't be deployed independently, I would assume they are lost after the battle. You kinda have to infer that though. Also, can another Mothership or carrier take on orphans to replace its own losses on the spot?

Tzarevitch

 

[Silvereye]

If we take that as given, what happens to Raiders that loose their carrier / Mothership in battle?
Are they added to the Fleet rooster or are they lost because they lost the carrier and can't be deployed separately.
I would guess, and hope, that they are lost!
A official answer would be very nice in deed.

Not official, but common sense:
Those that are still in the carrier/mothership will be lost alongside (inside?) it. Would the opponent score more VPs for them?
Those that have been launched, like fighters, would be eligible to replenish ships lost from other Huge Hangers or form independent slots in the fleet roster.

As to the Crew Quality. Once the campaign starts, I'd track the Crew Quality of the Huge Hanger ships and their carried ships independently. It stops people doing beardy things like "I'll buy a Scout to replace that Light Raider I lost for my CQ6 Carrier...."

 

[Voronesh]

I appreciate the desire for clarity, and the value of playing Devil's Advocate from time to time. However, I'd rather not have rules die-cast set in stone for every circumstance. Maybe a rule may seem "broken" for you and your crew, and A-OK for mine, or vice-versa. Rules that are flexible enough for both groups to interpret for maximum enjoyment of whatever group is playing at the time are great by me.

Honestly - do we need an interpretation for every possible situation? Are we that reliant on the Mongoose crew to interpret the game every time an unforeseen tactic emerges? Must we get a set-in-stone ruling to make certain everybody plays the same way? It sounds like a lot of people are using house rules that work fine for them - so why don't we just "Play and let play?"

Absolutely you are right. But this is not a special case. This is more of a going to happen in every single campaign a Drakh player is going to participate in. If we were talking about the speed a WS has when crossing three planets at once, who cares, most people wont put more than one planet on the board anyway.

 

[jimmor]

Hi,
please compare drakh rider to another similar craft - for example Drazi Warbird-class Cruiser. Really the rider much more like Sunhawk which is PATROL. Forcing a drakh player to buy his riders at skirmish cost for a campaign, just to be able to use them in some 3 point skirmish battle makes playing drakh even more tricky. And it's already quite tricky when you are facing oponents with potential of 30-50 fighter bases in their fleets.

I would consider a ban of regenerating ships from huge hangars on way home (after all Drakh don't have a homeworld). Having 4 carriers and a mothership in my fleet I'd able to regenarate really fast. However please note that sending home two carriers and the mothership would leave me naked if anyone pressed me really hard. No point in having all your ships back if your opponents kicked you out of the system in the time.

For the campaign we rolled for QC of every ship carried and I am going to keep the experience and QC for every ship. They are all ships - they gain experience on their own and there is experience for killing them too. A lot of experience and a lot of VPs for quite weak ships. Plaese note that fighting a 4-point raid Call to Arms scenario you can gain 80VPs for 2-carrier 8-rider drakh fleet.

I am quite sure that drakh fleet has been designed to field riders in carriers only. The skirmish cost has been gives just for purpose of victory points and experience. Oponents VPs and EXP.

 

[katadder]

raiders are far better than sunhawks. more damage, forward arc not boresight, precise weapons and a GEG.

 

[Sulfurdown]

Versus Light Raiders - on a 1-1 - yes. Versus Heavies... The Raider is slower and shorter ranged, on a standard skirmish level hull.

 

[jimmor]

GEG is just a compansation for lack of fighters, antifighters and interceptors.
It does not fully compansate the fact that rider has a single weapon and is not able to use CBD - it means that riders have to strike and kill or will die.

Forming choices from ships carried in huge hangars is similar to question - can you form a wing of breaching pods? And on what rules (ships carrying orginally the breaching pods should loose troops)?

 

[DrSeltsam]

GEG is just a compansation for lack of fighters, antifighters and interceptors.
It does not fully compansate the fact that rider has a single weapon and is not able to use CBD - it means that riders have to strike and kill or will die.

Forming choices from ships carried in huge hangars is similar to question - can you form a wing of breaching pods? And on what rules (ships carrying orginally the breaching pods should loose troops)?

Yes , GEG is a compensation for lack of fighter, antifighter and interceptors ... many fleets would be happy to have something like this :roll:
In several situations it will give you a total damage immunity execept criticals from small AD sources.

You can still use CBD. You just can't use the special actions and your weapon ... which will be no problem as long as you are out of weapon range yourself.

Sorry but Dodge, GEG and CBD & shooting would be a little bit hard if used every time - don't you think :roll:

 

[jimmor]

Well it wouldn't be much harder then Dodge, fighters acting as interceptors, CBD and shooting...

 

[DrSeltsam]

Well it wouldn't be much harder then Dodge, fighters acting as interceptors, CBD and shooting...

Sorry but tell me other ships that get a front arc beam (with precise and DD) with 2xturns and agile that get that kind of defence mechanism - at PL Skirmish :roll:
In our last campaing games with Drakh we have seen Raiders ignore the complete damage output of Battle ships !
Sorry but IMHO this is just ridiculously oversized for a free ship something that should be comparable with fighters.

GEG will be active as long as the trait is alive.
Interceptors can run out of dice / fighters can be shoot down and not all ship have a Dodge trait.

 

[jimmor]

Sorry but IMHO this is just ridiculously oversized for a free ship something that should be comparable with fighters.

Have you tried fighting with a rider agains a patrol choice of fighters? Do you have any idea what 4 bases of fighters do with a rider? Unless they have weak weapons in 3-4 turns there is no rider because of some crit. Most critics are lethal or make rider useless (-1 AD? Loose random weapon? Loose random arc?)

The rider would be an overpowered ship in any other fleet. But not in Drakh which has nothing to cancell it's weaknesses. It's not a weak ship but it's perfectly balanced as it is.