House Rules compilation

[SylvrDragon]

You can just as easily say that the game intends for you to be able to boresight ships that move before you. That doesn't stop us from changing that though does it?
Whilst it's easy to say that fleets like EA are getting to fire twice as many weapons at the enemy, most of the time I see multi-arc fleets used they manouver in such a way that they can fire both arcs anyway. The only difference is that such fleets could fire both sets of weapons at a single target instead of at 2 targets right next to each other, and even then only if they're willing to lose the chance to fire one of those sets of weapons at all.

I would also disagree that the idea is to enhance fleets with limiting arcs - the idea isn't to enhance any given fleets at all. The idea is to overcome some of the silliness that is generated by the initiative system.

As to the first part, I've said the same thing about boresights, but have been overruled every time. And I still don't think you should be able to nail a target with two completely separate arcs. Just opens up too many things that shouldn't be messed with in the balance department.

As to the second part....well, that's just pure semantics right there.

Oh, and to Katadder. Classic example of brain fart on my behalf right there. Not a morning person. lol

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Ultimately you mean then that nothing in the game should be fixed, as doing so could potentially affect balance.
As for semantics, is it really such a bad thing to keep in mind and not mix up what are basically too completely different issues?

 

[SylvrDragon]

Ultimately you mean then that nothing in the game should be fixed, as doing so could potentially affect balance.
As for semantics, is it really such a bad thing to keep in mind and not mix up what are basically too completely different issues?

Dude, if I thought nothing should be fixed, then why would I be in this thread suggesting that certain rules be implemented? There are several things wrong with this game, and there are several excellent ideas that can improve this game. I really don't see any grounds for you comment or your apparent attitude in this post. And balance is the first and foremost issue here, so of course everything I say is influenced by what I think may or may not effect the balance. And if I think something may negatively effect balance, then I'm going to oppose it. This game suffers enough balance issues, which is why I had thought we were here trying to fix said issues, not cause more of them.

And as to there being two separate issues towards "over coming silliness" and "enhancing fleets with arc issues"...well, I don't see it as two issues. The silliness you suggest is what causes fleets to have arc issues, so we change the rules to enhance the performance of said fleets to balance things out and "overcome the silliness". Isn't an SA that improves the use of boresighted weapons enhancing fleets with such weapons after all?

Now, I still stand by my statement that an SA should not allow a ship to fire two separate arcs at a single target. This is what could be a potentially game breaking SA. A good comparison is EA and Dilgar. EA has less firepower in a single arc than the Dilgar, but much better arc coverage, which offers a different play style. If you were to implement such an SA then you would grant the EA both wide coverage and highly focused firepower. Not only does this grant the EA an extreme advantage over Dilga, since they retain their own strength and gain the ability to mimic what makes the Dilgar great, but it also takes away much of the purpose of playing Dilgar. Why play a race that focuses it's firepower into a single arc when you can play a fleet that can focus firepower into a single arc, with out making the sacrifice that the Dilgar do. This really comes down to a choice. When I chose to give up EA to start playing Dilgar I gave up the wide coverage that EA has to gain the focused power of the Dilgar. The reverse goes to EA players that play EA over Dilgar. You should learn to use the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of your fleet, instead of spending time trying to implement rules to overcome them instead. And I'm not accusing you of doing such, I'm just saying that this is how it should be.

 

[SylvrDragon]

Oh, here's something in the Compilation that I just noticed. In the redundancy it states that critical hits are entirely ignored. I had thought that redundancies, since the very meaning in this case is back-up systems, would allow you to ignore the effects of the criticals but not the extra damage dealt by them. Is this how it was intended for it to be? In my own opinion, I think redundancies should ignore critical effects, but not the extra damage. Not only is it simply logical, since redundancies offer back-up systems but do not stop the damage that had already been dealt, and it also disrupts balance less since some fleets use the damage done by criticals as a major source of damage dealing.

 

[Ripple]

I have to concur with Sylvrdragon on at least the issue of using two arc's to fire at one target. (Exception being boresight arcs with their respective arc and turret of course.) It's just too strong, and not a 'fix' for anything.

The crit effects vs the crit damage/crew - I like dodging the effect for redundancy logically, but that would still mean that a lot of ships will simply blow up whenever a triple damage weapon gets a crit. The ship blows up crit was dropped from the game in part because sudden death to a single AD really gets old fast, but we've essentially still got it for small ships.

I admit freely this is a small ship issue most of the time, and thus not politically correct right now, but I'd much rather see the damage multiplier dropped from crits generally (let the Dilgar do x2, as that is their special thing).

Logic behind it that is not game mechanic related. Why does my ammo explode more fiercely when shot by a whitestar vs an Abbai? Same for fuel, or engine rooms. It just seems the variable damage on the crit table is based one what is being hit, and should not be based on what is doing the hitting.

Ripple

 

[Target]

The house rule's i like.
1)The CBD, making bulkhead hit's increase & making crit's harder to get. Normal weapon's needing to confirm crits, CQ 8 but i would give it no dc that turn as well, DC crew's can't roam the ship to fix things.
2) DD & etc weapons don't double the crit damage
3) The crit chart loses the No DC for lose 1 DC team, Vital crit's are repairable either at the same level or slightly harder.
4) The number DC crew's depend on the size of the ship
5) Weak weapons can intercept
6) Double the fighters speed
7) Fighters can leave dogfight's at the start of the turn unless re engaged.
eg if you win int, your fighters can leave the dogfight to go somewhere else or re engage if they so choose.
8) You can turn at the end of Run Silent SA (using manuvering thrusters)

 

[SylvrDragon]

I have to concur with Sylvrdragon on at least the issue of using two arc's to fire at one target. (Exception being boresight arcs with their respective arc and turret of course.) It's just too strong, and not a 'fix' for anything.

The crit effects vs the crit damage/crew - I like dodging the effect for redundancy logically, but that would still mean that a lot of ships will simply blow up whenever a triple damage weapon gets a crit. The ship blows up crit was dropped from the game in part because sudden death to a single AD really gets old fast, but we've essentially still got it for small ships.

I admit freely this is a small ship issue most of the time, and thus not politically correct right now, but I'd much rather see the damage multiplier dropped from crits generally (let the Dilgar do x2, as that is their special thing).

Logic behind it that is not game mechanic related. Why does my ammo explode more fiercely when shot by a whitestar vs an Abbai? Same for fuel, or engine rooms. It just seems the variable damage on the crit table is based one what is being hit, and should not be based on what is doing the hitting.

Ripple

I agree. Crits, even crit damage can get out of control. The only real reason I brought it up is because of Master of Destruction. That extra damage is taken into consideration in the balance of my ships, so you take that away and you reduce the effectiveness of my fleet. Not cool.
I do like the idea of dropping damage bonuses, except for the bonus from Masters of Destruction of course, as it would mean fewer one shot kills. I have honestly witnessed a Nova be killed in a single shot from a 1 AD beam of a White Star. He got a crit, rolled table 6, then a 5. I don't remember the exact damage that followed, but I do very clearly remember him ghosting my Nova in one shot. That pissed me off to say the least, as it was MY Nova that got fragged. Funny thing is, I was winning that game up to that point. lol

 

[SylvrDragon]

The house rule's i like.
1)The CBD, making bulkhead hit's increase & making crit's harder to get. Normal weapon's needing to confirm crits, CQ 8 but i would give it no dc that turn as well, DC crew's can't roam the ship to fix things.
2) DD & etc weapons don't double the crit damage
3) The crit chart loses the No DC for lose 1 DC team, Vital crit's are repairable either at the same level or slightly harder.
4) The number DC crew's depend on the size of the ship
5) Weak weapons can intercept
6) Double the fighters speed
7) Fighters can leave dogfight's at the start of the turn unless re engaged.
eg if you win int, your fighters can leave the dogfight to go somewhere else or re engage if they so choose.
8) You can turn at the end of Run Silent SA (using manuvering thrusters)

There are some very interesting house rules listed here. To be honest, I like the way they look. Not sure about the weak weapons acting as interceptors, don't really see a weak weapon as being able to counter a double damage bolter. I really like the double fighter speed though! X3 And the ability to disengage from a dogfight is also very interesting. As a major fan of fighters, I do like the changes these could bring.

 

[Foxmeister]

Sorry, but you can't just drop the damage modifiers for crits but then leave them in for Masters Of Destruction - that is just broken!

You can argue that the Dilgar fleet is "balanced" by having these damage modifiers for MOD, but precisely the same argument applies to regular DD/TD/QD weapons.

The issue, IMHO, is that crits are too frequent and you are just as likely to get a small, inconvenient, crit (e.g. a -1 speed) than you are a big, very destructive one (e.g. a 6/6 crit).

Regards,

Dave

 

[Target]

MoD could just mean the goes 1 pt to 2 pt's for pulsar , 2 -3 for DD when a crit is done & crit's suffered by MoD means the are -1 to repair from the extensive damage done or Dilgar never hit a bulkhead.
Dilgar getting x2 would be really wrong
The whole crit damage getting multiplied is one of reasons the beam runaway rolls are a problem. The effect's are enough.

 

[Da Boss]

The house rule's i like.
1)The CBD, making bulkhead hit's increase & making crit's harder to get. Normal weapon's needing to confirm crits, CQ 8 but i would give it no dc that turn as well, DC crew's can't roam the ship to fix things.
2) DD & etc weapons don't double the crit damage
3) The crit chart loses the No DC for lose 1 DC team, Vital crit's are repairable either at the same level or slightly harder.
4) The number DC crew's depend on the size of the ship
5) Weak weapons can intercept
6) Double the fighters speed
7) Fighters can leave dogfight's at the start of the turn unless re engaged.
eg if you win int, your fighters can leave the dogfight to go somewhere else or re engage if they so choose.
8) You can turn at the end of Run Silent SA (using manuvering thrusters)

Like some of them (and some are already in the compliation)

however
I don't like the weak weapons can intercept that should stay as is - for example - I can't use Raziks to intercept - which is fine by me - it s a weakness of that class of fight. Now discussing if a particular class of fighter should have weak weapons or not (Kotha?) is better.

Not sure about doubling fighter speed - isn't the white Star the fastest thing out there - max speed is 21" ? So should fighter go faster than that?

You could have a "afterburners" stlye rule that a fighter can double movement if they go in a straight line and then they go back to normal speed if they are maneuvering?

Fighters leaving dogfights - hmm - maybe only if they have superior dogfight score to represent more skilled pilots /better machines being able to disengage from a less skilled less agile etc fighter more easily - but then that increases their power.
I don't really like as it reduces the effect of a CAP style defense.

 

[Target]

Oh yes, Star furies are always passing whitestars. The whitestar is the fastest ship. Not all fighters are faster anyway. the point of a fighter are that they are way quicker than a ship.
The Kotha & Star snake should be able to intercept so it would be unfair not to include the Razik.

 

[katadder]

exactly - weak weapons can damage ships, interceptors cant so weak weapons have to be better than interceptors

 

[Foxmeister]

The Kotha & Star snake should be able to intercept so it would be unfair not to include the Razik.

The Kotha should be able to intercept because it is crap anyway, and little use for anything else and so could do with a boost.

As to the Razik and Star Snake, I don't see any particular justification for removing Weak from their weapons, since both the Centauri and the Drazi have access to fighters that can intercept already, whereas the Abbai do not. Fairness does not come into it.



Regards,

Dave

 

[Da Boss]

Taking weak off the Razik is too much - its good enough as is and it devalues the Sentri if you do - we Centauri don't need the boost 8)

Kotha - yeah loose the weak trait from its guns

 

[Target]

Taking weak off the Razik is too much - its good enough as is and it devalues the Sentri if you do - we Centauri don't need the boost 8)

Kotha - yeah loose the weak trait from its guns

Makin weak weapon's intercept don't really make the Razik stronger. It's probably easier to destroy by having them intercept especially since bomber types are so slow that you could wipe the raziks out before they even get within range.

 

[Ripple]

um... having the Drazi intercept fighter be their expensive and hard to field bomber is a joke... the Star Snake should be able to intercept, or give them another fighter who can, and can be swapped with the Star Snake. Say a fighter that can intercept and has a chance to keep up with the main body of the race rather than just the carrier.

Fairness most certainly does factor into it.

 

[Foxmeister]

um... having the Drazi intercept fighter be their expensive and hard to field bomber is a joke... the Star Snake should be able to intercept, or give them another fighter who can, and can be swapped with the Star Snake. Say a fighter that can intercept and has a chance to keep up with the main body of the race rather than just the carrier.

Fairness most certainly does factor into it.

Let's be fair then.

Let's give everyone a fighter with at least Dogfight +2 and Dodge 2+.

Let's just make all fighters exactly the same!

Let's give everyone a fleet carrier.

Let's give everyone a ship that has the capabilities as a WS....

Sorry, I don't see it that way.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Let's give everyone a fleet carrier.

Regards,

Dave

Yes, let's do that. Let's not be sarcastic and tedious, though.

 

[Foxmeister]

Yes, let's do that. Let's not be sarcastic and tedious, though.

Spoilsport!

Regard,

Dave