E-Mines

What do you think!

  • Good Idea

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Idea Has Potential - Modify

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It's a fair idea

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It's a Bad Idea - But there is room for change.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No Way - They are better as is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Morpheus1975

Mongoose
Since so many here were against changing Anti-Fighter we also talked about E-mines.

This is what two guys want to do.

If the flight is within 1 inch of ground zero. No save/dodge.

If flight is 1-2 inches from ground zero make a dodge save +3

If flight is 2-3 inches from ground zero make a dodge save +2

If flight is 3-4 inches away from center make a dodge save.

This means that vs fighters that have lighter armor e-mines have a greater area of effect BUT fighters also have a chance of avoiding instant death if they are not at ground zero.
 

philogara

Mongoose
Morpheus1975 said:
Since so many here were against changing Anti-Fighter we also talked about E-mines.

This is what two guys want to do.

If the flight is within 1 inch of ground zero. No save/dodge.

If flight is 1-2 inches from ground zero make a dodge save +3

If flight is 2-3 inches from ground zero make a dodge save +2

If flight is 3-4 inches away from center make a dodge save.

This means that vs fighters that have lighter armor e-mines have a greater area of effect BUT fighters also have a chance of avoiding instant death if they are not at ground zero.

Problem is, your introducing extra measurement and calculations ("where can I put that blast marker?") to the game, the beauty of which is that it is fairly straight forward at present.

I've only played one game involving Narn so I'm no expert on e-mines they did seem a bit OTT, but surely it is better to experiment with the radiu or number of dice keep things simlpe.
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
i voted NO mainly because Narns are one of the weaker races anyway and EMines are one of the few advantages they have
At the rate some of you people are going 3 flights of fighters will be able to take down a Warlock
They should not be too powerful but they should be a nuisance and so your opponent will have to keep an eye on them but they should not rule your fleet
 

Celisasu

Mongoose
Agreed, Call to Arms needs to be kept simple. That's the beauty of the game. If E-Mines get changed at all I'd do it in a way that keeps things simple such as reducing their radius slightly or the like. Of course before someone does that we need to get the Narn fleet in order so that it can actually pose a threat to someone other than the Minbari or a fleet that depends almost soley on fighters. :)


Like Pauly I believe fighters should be a supporting element to the capital ships, not the main thrust of the strike all on their own. The E-Mines are a strong deterant from fleets that are all or mostly fighters.
 

Scimitar

Mongoose
I'd like to see something graduated:
Target itself = 5 AD
1" (adjacent) = 4AD
1-2" = 2 AD
2-4" = 1 AD

This would reflect the decrease in power as one gets further from the epicenter. i.e. as it is now, you have no incentive to actually target any one ship, this would provide that. I'd also allow CAF with re-rolls against the target ship only.

But alternatively, lets keep as is. Somebody's got to cheese off the Minbari :)
 

Rigeld

Mongoose
So all E-Mine would have 6AD? Thatd rock for the Dag'Kar.. but suck for the Bin'Tak, and others with more AD, but fewer launchers...

Look, E-Mines are fine.. people (in general) get destroyed once or twice using tactics that work on other fleets, and cannot wrap thier heads around another set of tactics that are required against the Narn. I have not ever seen an argument that shows me that E-Mines are overpowered. Not one. Not even close. Any attempt to change them means that you think they are.
 

anton970

Mongoose
personally looking at you "suggestions" I couldn't be arsed to work that all out!! The reason why I like ACTA its a peice of piss rules wise, if I wanted to chugg through tables and the like I'll get BGF out!
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
anton970 said:
personally looking at you "suggestions" I couldn't be arsed to work that all out!! The reason why I like ACTA its a peice of piss rules wise, if I wanted to chugg through tables and the like I'll get BGF out!

well said
just keep it simple, if it works dont change it because it will only mess it up
and anyway EMines are fine the way they are
 

Nomad

Mongoose
Measuring from the centre of the burst zone...? Nah, way too complicated.

However, I do think E-mines need reining in a bit. In one game a while back, my Minbari opponent conceded on the *first turn* when he realised how many AD my ISA Dag'Kar was about to roll.

What I don't like is the 'Bang you're dead!' aspect of E-mines, especially against thinly armored targets. Every other weapon in the game has a chance of missing.

How about each E-mine detonates at a point chosen by the firer (as at present) on a roll of 3 or greater, and on a 1 or 2 the round 'fizzles' and fails to go off, causing no damage? At least it gives the other side a hope.
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
Nomad said:
However, I do think E-mines need reining in a bit. In one game a while back, my Minbari opponent conceded on the *first turn* when he realised how many AD my ISA Dag'Kar was about to roll.

dont forget though that in SFOS the Dag'Kar gets seriously downgraded
so tell your Minbari opponent that he doesnt need to worry much longer (pity really-i liked the old Dag'Kar it was the best thing the Narns had)
 

lastbesthope

Mongoose
Nomad said:
What I don't like is the 'Bang you're dead!' aspect of E-mines, especially against thinly armored targets. Every other weapon in the game has a chance of missing.

All weapons have a chance of missing, that's why you roll the AD against the target hull score!

LBH
 

Nomad

Mongoose
LBH Wrote...

All weapons have a chance of missing, that's why you roll the AD against the target hull score!

But the odds of not getting, say, a 4 or better on six or eight dice are vanishingly small. While there will be the very occaisional survivor, it's as near autokill as makes no difference.
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
tamcoan said:
I'd rather just see a reduction in AD or range myself.

leave the range alone, thats what makes them fun to play against
and anyway the AD will get reduced in SFoS
 

Wulf Corbett

Mongoose
Pauly_D said:
leave the range alone, thats what makes them fun to play against
and anyway the AD will get reduced in SFoS
Rather than range or AD, I'd like the radius of effect reduced by 1 inch. That would stop them dominating the entire battlefield but still allow them to force the opposition to break up his formation to avoid multiple hits.

Wulf
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
Wulf Corbett said:
Pauly_D said:
leave the range alone, thats what makes them fun to play against
and anyway the AD will get reduced in SFoS
Rather than range or AD, I'd like the radius of effect reduced by 1 inch. That would stop them dominating the entire battlefield but still allow them to force the opposition to break up his formation to avoid multiple hits.

That actually isnt a bad idea
it doesnt reduce AD or damage but reduces the effectiveness slightly but not reducing it too much
 

lastbesthope

Mongoose
@Nomad

But in that respect E-mines are not different from any weapon of equivalent numbers of AD.

@Wulf

If you reduce E-mine radius, unless you alter the Squadron separation distance, it'll make the E-mines less effective against squadrons. I think those 2 distances are linked, unofficially at least.

LBH
 
Top