House Rules compilation

[Da Boss]

to be fair not taking hull into account with beams is the intention I believe and even your suggestion does not do so.......... :wink:

 

[SylvrDragon]

to be fair not taking hull into account with beams is the intention I believe and even your suggestion does not do so.......... :wink:

Actually my suggestion was more of an addition to my prior post, which does take hulls into account. And I realize that was their intention, but that doesn't make it a good idea. It still punishes fleets that sacrifice hit points for high hull. Why should a beam do the same amount of damage to a small patrol vessel as a well armored Armageddon vessel? That just doesn't make sense and it's unbalanced to boot!

 

[SylvrDragon]

Oh, and I just finished reading this thread and I've seen nothing on beam changes. What are some of the ideas in that area? I'm not fond of the always hitting on a 4+ as it really trashes hull 6 ships.

What, maybe just go back to the old rules and give Skirmish and under AP beams and Raid and up SAP beams?

Plus....

I know the old beam rules were real harsh on low hull ships, but the new ones punish high hull ships. What if you limited it to a max of 3 rolls, or what if all secondary rolls were made on a 5+ instead of just increasing the roll by +1 each time? Or maybe both.

Sorry if I didn't say they were linked. I just figured it was obvious. In my defense I am quite sick right now, so my brain isn't working in full gear. My bronchitis always acts up this time of year, and this year is no different. Last 2 years it turned into walking pneumonia. >.<

 

[katadder]

the current beam rules may ignore armour but they on average do the same amount of hits to a hull 5 ship as SAP beams did before but only a hit or 2 more on hull 6 ships.
what this change did was level the playing field and allow more hull 4 ships that were not being used because beams were to powerful back into the game which is only a good thing.

 

[Ike]

I think Daves Damage Control Parties has great potential

although I would make a few changes

Add DCP to ship stats instead of basing it off PL, I know, its more work and alot of arguing over what ship gets what, but I can see a VarNic having more DCP then a WS, stick with the PL assignment to get people to play it but eventually get a ship based DCP value

Losing DCP, like all things in ACTA things get broken

Preposed Crit table changes
5.6 Hull Breach-Effect: -2 troops, -1 DCP
6.3 Engineering-Effect: Roll D6 for Each DCP, 4 up lose that DCP

Skeleton Crew: Instead oF -2 DC, Lose 2 DCP

Damage Control: If no DCP are availble, Regular Crew may attempt to repair one Crit on a DC check of 10 or more
(slightly harder then normal DCP checks but not to hard that a regular military crew doesnt have a chance of fixing something to get the hell out of there, I appologize to the Pak but they get screwed for DC anyways)

SA:All Hands
I like the +1 DCP but was thinking instead of doubling the number of DCP, minumum 1, this would make the larger ships more robust

Finally, originally there was ever only allowed 1 DC check per crit per turn, now you have a set number of DCP to work on your crits, possibly more then the actual number of crits, so do we allow multiple DCPs to work on the same crit, possibly even focusing on one Crit to the exclusion of others, if so then we would have to designate DCP to crits before dice are rolled, which seems appropriate from a game stand point

and if we do that then it also gives us a possibility for same turn crit repair, Repairs attempted on crits taken in the same turn require 2 successful DC checks

as for Vorlons/Shadows you could go off there self repairing trait, for every D6 they give up they may attempt a special DC check versus crits taken this turn, on a 10 or higher it is repaired. this would mean they would still have to have the self repair trait, only the large ships are capable of it as self repair 1 isnt enough to do it, they would be giving up damage repaired that turn and a military grade crew would still need a 5 rolled to do it, as opposed to other fleets which need 2 rolls of 5 on their military grade crewed ships

 

[SylvrDragon]

the current beam rules may ignore armour but they on average do the same amount of hits to a hull 5 ship as SAP beams did before but only a hit or 2 more on hull 6 ships.
what this change did was level the playing field and allow more hull 4 ships that were not being used because beams were to powerful back into the game which is only a good thing.

Let me tell you how level the field feels when you have a Marathon squaring off against a group of Drakh raiders. Feels real level when all of them are dealing more damage to you than before, especially when you're dealing less. There are MUCH better ways of leveling the playing field that causing armor to have no effect. Like making all secondary hits only succeed on a 5+. That would make armor have a big role in the initial roll, but it wouldn't mean anything in secondary hits. Kind of a compromise.

 

[katadder]

drakh raiders have an 8" range, your marathan outranges them even with its secondaries and you have fighters. it also helps your marathan when facing the big ships with its TD beam.
TBH the only problem 99% of the people have is the rolling up to rediculous numbers, one or 2 extra hits (and thats with a 6AD beam, less dice = less extra hits) on a hull 6 ship is not a huge deal when it brings more balance to the smaller ships of the game and actually allows them to be used.

 

[SylvrDragon]

drakh raiders have an 8" range, your marathan outranges them even with its secondaries and you have fighters. it also helps your marathan when facing the big ships with its TD beam.
TBH the only problem 99% of the people have is the rolling up to rediculous numbers, one or 2 extra hits (and thats with a 6AD beam, less dice = less extra hits) on a hull 6 ship is not a huge deal when it brings more balance to the smaller ships of the game and actually allows them to be used.

Biggest whole in that theory is that it's not the smaller ships that are being used less, it's the bigger ones. The big ones are hardly worth using most of the time and the new beam mechanics reinforces that.

 

[Ripple]

Track discussion -

DaBosses suggestion isn't bad. Track's name could just as easily be changed to something else... but I found that the biggest issue outside of initiative interactions with bore sight was that you had to over kill everything.

When we tested the version that gave flexibility we all enjoyed it a lot. When we tried the newer version that allowed full power at a chosen target we found it a bit powerful when it came off, but that was too rare.

Biggest thing for me is I don't want to see something where your better off using come about unless the target hasn't moved yet. I hate low percentage, super situational SAs.

Ripple

 

[SylvrDragon]

Track discussion -

DaBosses suggestion isn't bad. Track's name could just as easily be changed to something else... but I found that the biggest issue outside of initiative interactions with bore sight was that you had to over kill everything.

When we tested the version that gave flexibility we all enjoyed it a lot. When we tried the newer version that allowed full power at a chosen target we found it a bit powerful when it came off, but that was too rare.

Biggest thing for me is I don't want to see something where your better off using come about unless the target hasn't moved yet. I hate low percentage, super situational SAs.

Ripple

When you say the flexible one, I assume you mean the one that gave you half power if the target was no longer boresighted? Or the one that allowed you to fire at a separate target all together?

 

[l33tpenguin]

Here is the home brewed SA I created that does a better job of fixing the problem than TTT (and helps with a lot of the init sinking issues). I've posted it before and figured I'd do it again here. It makes more sense than TTT, has greater flexability, IMO, and feels more realistic and faithful to the spirit of the game, as well as the spirit of Babylon 5

Bring Weapons to Bear
CQ: Opposed
Requirements: Ship capable of making at least 1 turn.

This special action declares that the crew of one ship is following the course of a specific ship in order to bring their weapons to bear on their target. When this special action is declared, the attacker designates the target ship and an opposed check is rolled. If the attacking ship wins, the player declares the firing arc and the ship performing the special action is moved, using all but 1 if its turn. The firing arc is which ever weapon arc the player wishes to bring to bear on the target ship and the target ship is any opposing ship that has not yet been moved. The movement phase proceeds as normal until the target ship is moved. At the end of the target ship’s movement, the ship that declared the Bring to Bear special action uses its last turn to attempt to bring the target ship into the designated fire arc. The player must commit to the turn whether or not it is possible to bring the target ship into the designated arc. If unable to bring the target into the designated arc, the ship must be turned its full turn in the direction of the target ship.

 

[Triggy]

the current beam rules may ignore armour but they on average do the same amount of hits to a hull 5 ship as SAP beams did before but only a hit or 2 more on hull 6 ships.
what this change did was level the playing field and allow more hull 4 ships that were not being used because beams were to powerful back into the game which is only a good thing.

Let me tell you how level the field feels when you have a Marathon squaring off against a group of Drakh raiders. Feels real level when all of them are dealing more damage to you than before, especially when you're dealing less. There are MUCH better ways of leveling the playing field that causing armor to have no effect. Like making all secondary hits only succeed on a 5+. That would make armor have a big role in the initial roll, but it wouldn't mean anything in secondary hits. Kind of a compromise.

You do know that almost every hull 6 ship got a boost in damage/crew to compensate for this, don't you? The fact hull 6 doesn't make any difference vs beams is taken into account in the ship balance. Sure, you may not like the principle but they are pretty well balanced (in general).

 

[SylvrDragon]

You do know that almost every hull 6 ship got a boost in damage/crew to compensate for this, don't you? The fact hull 6 doesn't make any difference vs beams is taken into account in the ship balance. Sure, you may not like the principle but they are pretty well balanced (in general).

Meh, I guess. But I still don't like it. And the current beam system is still BROKEN and I know most of you guys agree with that. It needs a fix. I've got a friend that plays Shadows and almost every game he gets at least one of those absurd rolls that winds up with 15-17 hits! And I said hits, not damage, that's before his triple damage is taken into account! >.<

 

[SylvrDragon]

Here is the home brewed SA I created that does a better job of fixing the problem than TTT (and helps with a lot of the init sinking issues). I've posted it before and figured I'd do it again here. It makes more sense than TTT, has greater flexability, IMO, and feels more realistic and faithful to the spirit of the game, as well as the spirit of Babylon 5

Bring Weapons to Bear
CQ: Opposed
Requirements: Ship capable of making at least 1 turn.

This special action declares that the crew of one ship is following the course of a specific ship in order to bring their weapons to bear on their target. When this special action is declared, the attacker designates the target ship and an opposed check is rolled. If the attacking ship wins, the player declares the firing arc and the ship performing the special action is moved, using all but 1 if its turn. The firing arc is which ever weapon arc the player wishes to bring to bear on the target ship and the target ship is any opposing ship that has not yet been moved. The movement phase proceeds as normal until the target ship is moved. At the end of the target ship’s movement, the ship that declared the Bring to Bear special action uses its last turn to attempt to bring the target ship into the designated fire arc. The player must commit to the turn whether or not it is possible to bring the target ship into the designated arc. If unable to bring the target into the designated arc, the ship must be turned its full turn in the direction of the target ship.

Not too bad. I have to disagree on it offering more flexibility. It offers considerably less, in that your effective firing arc is reduced and in that your maneuverability is reduced. Mind you it's still better than the book's rules, but it's much less flexible than the P&P. I do like that it doesn't reduce beam effectiveness to increase arc, unlike many others. I don't think the beam's AD should be reduced by a special order that's supposed to be helping you.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

The key points I would have for a TTT style SA would be:
- You pick a target and have to pass a CQ check.
- If you succeed, you may fire on that target with the appropriate weapons even though though they are not in arc.
- If you fail, you may not fire your B/Ba weapons at all.

The last point is because with the current SA I find that it's all too easy to boresight a secondary target, and fire upon that target if my CQ check fails. This strikes me as wrong seeing as your ship is meant to be busy trying to track your primary target (even if it fails).


Here's a version I'd be interested in trying:
Snap Shot - Opposed CQ
At any point during your movement, you can declare a snapshot on an enemy ship, with weapons that are within arc and range at that time. Roll an opposed CQ check with the target ship. If you succeed, the chosen weapons may fire on the target ship even if it is no longer in arc or range for those weapons. If you fail, those weapons may not be used at all this turn.

 

[SylvrDragon]

I like Snap Shot, but it shares something that I didn't like in some of the others either. Opposed CQ. I think it should be a fixed number. Just one more advantage given to the ISA and another kick in the balls for the Pak'ma'ra.

 

[Da Boss]

First DRAFT of this ready for comments and suggestions - please see

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gregsmith/House%20Rules.pdf

more to come.............

 

[SylvrDragon]

Excellent! Though I'd make a few suggestions...

The page tops seems to be cut off. I noticed on of the worst ones is page 6. There seems to be a Dilgar ship, I only know it's Dilgar from the description under the name, that's name is unreadable.

When calculating Redundancy, at the bottom of page 4, you said to round down the numbers if a ship has better than Stealth 3+ or Dodge 5+. What about Interceptors? This is another trait that reduces crits received. Maybe round down for ships with 2 or more interceptors?

The GEG Pulse seems a little overpowering in my opinion. I think it should either only ever inflict 1 AD attacks, or it should not have the E-Mine trait. Granting a ship 2 or 3 AD that ignore dodge against every fighter in range a bit....well, overpowering.

These aside, it's a great compilation. ^^

 

[Dr Stubbsberg]

ah, but remember that in order to do that it gives up it's strongest defence (one of the best defenceive traits in the game at some PLs IMHO)

 

[SylvrDragon]

ah, but remember that in order to do that it gives up it's strongest defence (one of the best defenceive traits in the game at some PLs IMHO)

Tell that to every EA player that encounters this only to have all of his fighters destroyed at a whim. The Fast Destroyer, a Raid choice mind you, with this ruling would be able to roll 3 AD with AP and E-Mine against every fighter inside 4"! That means, since most fighters have hull 4 or 5, you'll get 3 undodgable AD hitting on a 3 or 4. Just 1 of these guys could nearly eliminate an entire raid points worth of fighters in a single turn! And that's just the raid level Fast Destroyer!
And I disagree. It's not that great of a defense. One of my buddies plays Drakh and GEG has never impressed me. I'd take Interceptors any day of the weak.
You give up a second rate defense to get the nuclear bomb of anti-fighter weaponry. I'd never play against a Drakh using this rule.

I'd say giving 1 AD with the weak and e-mine trait out to 1+GEG rating inches would be more than fair. That alone would turn the patrol choices into floating anti-figher bombs. >.<