Fighter Break-Off move

[Nomad]

I do see AF missles being a point to consider though. Does anyone actually use the things?

Against the ISA with 57 flavours of dancing White Stars? Yes, all the time!
They'll also come in handy against Drakh raiders.

The main point to consider is *please keep it simple*; firing weapons out of sequence, giving fighters this - or - that bonus, making special exceptions for AF or non AF or emines...not really practical or desireable.

What I'm trying to get to is just one dice roll per flight, on a fixed score of 3+, then measuring their normal move distance if they make the save.

 

[lastbesthope]

Well I'm going to make the same point I made last time the whole, fighters can fire before ships get a chance to shoot at them discussion came up.

Everyone seems to be focusing on the fact that fighters can pass straight through fire arcs without being touched by the fire of the weapons, or gets to fire first. but the same thing happens to ships as well, yet noone seems to pick up on it.

Unless we start playing ACTA in real time we're always going to have problems like this.

LBH

 

[Nomad]

Problem I have with this idea is that it sounds like fighters are still going to be ineffectual as chances are still high that they will not get to press home their attack.

A fair point. But the 'fighters fire first' rule is often justified by 'you can't defend against them, but they don't do much harm anyway'. And against a hull-6 ship, they won't...but against a hull-4 ship, that argument just is not true.

Tactics apply. Attacking that hull-6 battleship with lots of turret-mounted AF guns is a really bad idea and should be punished as such. Going for a hull-4 corvette in an arc with no AF defences of her own, and not being covered by a squadron mate, is smart, and should be rewarded. That's what I'm trying to acheive.

 

[Right Hand of God]

LBH, the difference with fighters doing it as opposed to ships is the sheer amount of them that can be fielded and therefore the fire power they put out in one turn completely unopposed by any ship in the fleet, let alone by weapons specifically designed to limit their threat. In big games this isn't just half a dozen stands, it can be as many as 40 fighters ranged accross the entire board.

Furthermore, while ships have a similar problem unless you adopt a similtaneous system as you mntion, it is no where near the same as each player gets to move and fire with a ship in turn. Although squadrons of 6 ships may provide sufficient firepower at once to make the whole system a simple matter of who wins the initiative first

 

[Nomad]

Everyone seems to be focusing on the fact that fighters can pass straight through fire arcs without being touched by the fire of the weapons, or gets to fire first. but the same thing happens to ships as well, yet noone seems to pick up on it.

i) The game is principally about Ships, not Auxilliary Craft
ii) Ships' maneuvers are (apart from a few SM vessels) limited by their inertia and turn capabilty, and their weapons by their fire arcs. Neither of these limitations apply to fighters. And fighters (quite properly) move after ships do.
iii) *One* ship may fire without attack in a turn - the first one to shoot. Not the entire fleet. Squadrons and pentacans may modify this, but they are penalised in other ways (loss of initiative).

 

[lastbesthope]

True RHOG, the fighters do throw the problem into sharper relief, but it's just inherent in the way the game is played.

My arguement was more suited when the point under discussion many m onths back was about fighters passing through AF arcs and out agsin during the movement phase so they were never fired upon, but I thought it was relevant enough to throw into this discussion too.

LBH

 

[Right Hand of God]

ah I see what you mean LBH, I had never really considered that before, theoretically it is a 3d game with some 3d rules played in 2d. I am sure some fluff monsters would tell you chapter and verse about how their fightermanges to appear to pass through a weapons arc and be uneffected by it. Perhaps then you could have AF weapons activate if fighers enter the weapon arc, makes T fairly powerful, but then T weapons generally have less AD

 

[Voronesh]

Ok Wulf might be a difference in gaiming style.

But under SFOS i only fired on fighters with weaponry i couldnt have used in an antiship role anyway.

So for me its back to SFOS.

And yes making the movement towards the owning players tableside is simpler, because there is a defined direction.

And giving them a full move. That means Nials going an extra 15"? How is that better than moving it 5" flat. Sure there are some different problems, but i already mentiond those as part of the emine problem.

Yes in different games it might be easy for extra moves. But slingshooting T-bolts even further into my own lines isnt the way to go.

YOur rule would make them go an extra move when i shoot them with my E-mines. How that is better i dunno.

 

[Nomad]

Voronesh - the only point I did not previously address was Emines.

I do not want to start putting in exemptions and special cases - Keep It Simple.

If the fighters are on their attack run - ie within 4" of a Narn ship - even the Narns are going to be cautious about setting off Emines so close to their friends. That caution and delay are what give the fighter pilots a chance to evade.

No, it may not be utterly logical, but it's one less thing to remember in the middle of a game.

As for your other issues, that's your opinion against mine. May I ask you to playtest the rule (I certainly intend to) and then give some feedback?

 

[Voronesh]

Well yes i can playtest it.

And sending T-Bolts hurtling another 10" against my fleet? Or an EA sag doing the same with its AF missles? Makes the test pointless for me.

And my Narn never ever have any problems with firing emines into close quarters (unless there is some ally) but a few offchance hits that cannot crit? During WW2 tanks did the same to infantry. The chance of actually hurting yourself were close to nil, with emines they ARE nil. Why should i send stuff towards myself.

But give it a specialrule that breakoff only works within 3" of an enemy ship. And then were back to taste. Full move or only a little. Well you do call it break off, not charge further down the enemy lines into the back of their fleet.

Yes i know i sound grumpy. But you did rebuke me very quickly, while i was shooting off some ideas. (Oh yeah i mostly playtest against myself...skewed results.)

 

[Balance]

But they are afterwards? One of my issues with the 'fighters fire first' mechanic is the concept that manned fighters are just expendible rubbish that exist to do a little bit of damage then die unmourned.

In that case, I'd rather fit mine with remote controls, pack their cockpits with explosive and use them as Very Big Missiles.

I want fighters to have a life expectancy greater than that of a gnat in a blastfurnace. EarthForce's hangars are not full of Kamikazes, and I don't think any other races are (well, apart from the Dilgar, maybe).

I was thinking about this, and I don't know if this is really possible without slowing down the system too much (Such as tracking individual fighters) or making them entirely too powerful.

However, consider that 'destroying' a fighter flight certainly doesn't mean that every fighter in the squad is toast... it just means that they're ineffective to the battle at large and are returning to their ship or exiting the conflict.

Perhaps (this would likely be an ACTA 2nd Edition thing at earliest) Fighters should get a roll post-game to see if they survive, similar to Fleet Carrier, but more widely available?

I'm thinking a 5+ roll, at best, more likely a 6+, although this could be a trait with variable rolls to use as a balancing factor (EG Nials may be expensive to replace once damaged, so are only recovered on a 6+, while the Narn and EA fighters are hardier and are on a 5+)... Shadows and Vorlons may not benefit from this at all, although I don't believe that they really need more expensive fighter craft.

It could also result in situations (like occurs in the show) where a fleet ends up with surplus fighters.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

However, consider that 'destroying' a fighter flight certainly doesn't mean that every fighter in the squad is toast... it just means that they're ineffective to the battle at large and are returning to their ship or exiting the conflict.

Perhaps (this would likely be an ACTA 2nd Edition thing at earliest) Fighters should get a roll post-game to see if they survive, similar to Fleet Carrier, but more widely available?

During playtest, there was an idea of this sort for Campaigns, added to the Fleet Carrier Trait - as I don't have my final book yet, can someone check on whether this made the final edit?

Wulf

 

[Nomad]

However, consider that 'destroying' a fighter flight certainly doesn't mean that every fighter in the squad is toast... it just means that they're ineffective to the battle at large and are returning to their ship or exiting the conflict.

Perhaps (this would likely be an ACTA 2nd Edition thing at earliest) Fighters should get a roll post-game to see if they survive, similar to Fleet Carrier, but more widely available?

During playtest, there was an idea of this sort for Campaigns, added to the Fleet Carrier Trait - as I don't have my final book yet, can someone check on whether this made the final edit?

Wulf

No, it does not appear to have.

It's not a bad idea in itself, but it does not address the Vree issue, or encourage a more tactical style of play with fighters.

 

[Target]

In our fighter house rules, they don't die at all, come back on 4+ if ships have room for them. Keep on rolling every turn. So if you had 1 omega (4)and 2 Hyperions (1) and 2 Wings of fighters, you wouldn't start rolling till you got down to 6 fighters left. If you lost the Omega you could only have have 2 regenerating fighters. Gives the poisedon real teeth and other carriers since the others can't SA if they want to release fighter. When found this quite entertaining and didn't skew the game. We don't have fighters firing first, we fire them in groups eg groups of 3 for Starfuries, Groups of 4 for Sentri's in the same phase as ships.

 

[Silvereye]

There was a tweak to ships with the Carrier trait in Armageddon for use with campaigns. In a nutshell, they can replenish 2 lost flights of auxillary craft for free. (Amageddon, Pg 6.)

 

[Wulf Corbett]

There was a tweak to ships with the Carrier trait in Armageddon for use with campaigns. In a nutshell, they can replenish 2 lost flights of auxillary craft for free. (Amageddon, Pg 6.)

Per Battle they take part in, or every Turn they are short of their total load?

Last time I saw this rule, it was free unlimited fighters so long as you could keep transferring them out of the Fleet Carrier... :roll:

Wulf

 

[lastbesthope]

There was a tweak to ships with the Carrier trait in Armageddon for use with campaigns. In a nutshell, they can replenish 2 lost flights of auxillary craft for free. (Amageddon, Pg 6.)

Per Battle they take part in, or every Turn they are short of their total load?

Last time I saw this rule, it was free unlimited fighters so long as you could keep transferring them out of the Fleet Carrier... :roll:

Wulf

I think Silvereye is talking about a Rules update in Armageddon allowing any ship with the Carrier trait to replenish fighters between campaign turns.

I think Wulf is talking about the in game benefits of the Fleet Carrier trait.

This may be where the confusion is arising.

LBH

 

[katadder]

its per campaign turn a ship with the carrier trait gets 2 free replacements in the RR phase which may be moved around afterwards but isnt unlimited amounts, its 2 per RR phase per ship with carrier trait.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I think Silvereye is talking about a Rules update in Armageddon allowing any ship with the Carrier trait to replenish fighters between campaign turns.

Yup

I think Wulf is talking about the in game benefits of the Fleet Carrier trait.

Nope.

The rule I saw read:
"Ships with the Carrier trait may automatically replenish two lost flights
of Auxiliary Craft in the Repairs and Reinforcements phase each turn. This
is done freely and does not cost RR points. A ship may never have more
flights than it started with, nor may it pass ‘spare’ flights onto another ship.
You are still permitted to move flights between ships after each has received
these free flights."

So, between every Campaign Turn, you regain two flights to your Fleet Carrier, and transfer two flights out of your Fleet carrier to any ship that can carry them. After the next Turn, you regain two flights, then transfer two again.

And so on, ad infinitum. Two free flights every Turn, whether the Fleet Carrier was anywhere near the action or not. OK, you can't have a net increase in Flights (there has to be somewhere to hangar them, thanks to the rule that ship flights can't be transferred out to Wings), but suddenly the Fleet Carrier becomes a free supply of replacements...

I can't say if the rule was reworded after I last saw it. I hope so...

Wulf

 

[lastbesthope]

Nope, that's the rule I just read.

But oee point Wulf, the rule states "Carrier" yet you go on to talk about "Fleet Carrier"

Sorry to nitpick or if I'm just being dense and missing something.

LBH