Idea for the Drakh

[silashand]

Just pulling this out of the Vorlon thread into a new one so as not to keep the other OT. Just my idea for something for the Drakh:

GEG Pulse

Though the normal application of the Gravitic Energy Grid defense systems employed by the Drakh is as a wide-field energy dampener, they have experimented with other ways this electromagnetic field can be used, some of which show promise. One such application is what has been termed a "GEG Pulse." By constricting the dampening field around the ship to only a few centimeters from the hull, the Drakh can cause large amounts of energy to build up in the bio-capacitors which upon release, causes a massive shockwave of bioelectric energy to surge forth in all directions for a brief moment. Though usually ineffective against the larger hulls of spacefaring vessels, against small craft such as fighters the overload can be catastrophic, often destroying the vessel. The unfortunate side effect of this is that the GEG takes a short while to recover, leaving the ship defenseless until the energy stores build up again.

Any Drakh vessel with an active Gravitic Energy Grid may unleash a GEG pulse during the Antifighter phase. Only those craft with the fighter and/or breaching pod traits can be harmed by the GEG pulse. Every eligible craft within 1" + the GEG rating of the Drakh vessel at the time of activation will suffer an attack with the AP and emine traits and with a number of attack dice equal to the generating ship's GEG rating. Once this has been accomplished, the activating ship will count as having lost the GEG trait until the end of the following turn, at which time enough energy will have been built up to restore the energy grid. A ship may not use any Special Actions during the same turn it activates the GEG pulse, otherwise it may act normally, i.e. move/shoot/etc.

Edited as per suggestions.

Comments welcome.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Da Boss]

I quite like it - I mentiond something similar as well and like your idea

rather than Emine I would just go with Accurate to avoid dodge. Also re range how about 1" + GEG rating

so

GEG 1 = 1 AD, Accurate, AP, Range 2"
GEG 2 = 2 AD, Accurate, AP, Range 3"
GEG 3 = 3 AD, Accurate, AP, Range 4"
GEG 4 = 4 AD, Accurate, AP, Range 5"

 

[Hindsight]

rather than Emine I would just go with Accurate to avoid dodge.

As a dodge monkey, I have to agree. The Drakh should be the bane of the ISA, built to fight alongside, or against first ones.[/quote]

 

[silashand]

I don't mind accurate, but I thought the ability sounded more like an emine-type effect. Plus, I didn't envision it affecting anything more than fighters, thus emines. If y'all think it should affect anything in range, that's cool too. It is kind of a serious trade-off. Kill the swarms near you and be vulnerable for a full turn+ or keep the GEG. That's why I like it, it's not a no-brainer choice and any fighters would get to attack first anyway as the Drakh powered up the ability.

I like linking the range to the strength of the GEG though. Very cool.

The Drakh should be the bane of the ISA, built to fight alongside, or against first ones.

I would agree, though as it stands the ISA is generally much better than the Drakh fleet unless you try and swarm them with raiders. I'd just prefer some of the other ships were more worth taking really. Not sure how to make them worth it though.

JMO...

Cheers, Gary

 

[Clanger]

I like this GEGage use. It is better than the Crit protection in my veiw.

Or how about.

On the Patrol Cruiser (that under used ship). By using its defenCE GEG and projecting that energy to another ship. Loosing its GEG to strengthen another ship.

Make it a a CQ check of 8 to do.


or

Instead of firing weapons they can divert this weapons power to extra GEG. Like the Abbai shield special action.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I like the idea of a GEG pulse, but it looks way too powerful at the moment.
With the stats being AP and emine, you're effectively making it range 3 advanced antifighter, with a rating equal to the GEG rating times the number of fighters in range. This has the potential to take the Drakh from weak against fighters to having the scariest antifighter in the game.
Instead, I would look at making it Weak instead of AP. It won't be quite so scary against fighters, but will still leave it as a very worthwhile option under certain circumstances. I would also consider dropping the restriction that it can only affect fighters - for a couple of AD of weak emine, it's near another to being a worthless special rule anyway, as if a ship which has for whatever reason come within 3" of you, you're only really going to scratch it.

 

[silashand]

I like the idea of a GEG pulse, but it looks way too powerful at the moment.

How so? You sacrifice *all* shooting for a turn as well as *all* defenses for 1+ turns and as well it's centered on your own ship so you can't finagle it to hit as many potential targets as you like as with normal emines. Also, fighters who attack still get to do so before the pulse can be activated. None of the Drakh ships are that fast that they can get out of range of even the slowest enemy's weapons if they choose to use it. Not sure how I see this as being overpowered at all really. Only once every two turns can you use it and it's still only AP so all those hull 4 and 5 fighters/pods will probably survive longer than vs AAF anyway. As I said, I don't see it as being all that great, just adds a capability for some form of AF, but with a severe penalty.

Cheers, Gary

 

[CZuschlag]

Silashand is right, it's a really big give. I only have two problems with it as it stands.

1). It's reactive. The Drakh fleet issue as I see it is the Breaching Pod bunker and horde. Fighters, while bad, you can usually survive/endure with the GEG. Pod attachement, however, comes before all fire, so you still don't have an answer to that one. It would be more tempting to force the Drakh player to use this power during Antifighter resolution, so you get a shot at all those Pods.

2). It's sinkable. One turn of vulnerability can be hidden by resolving the GEG pulse as late as possible, thereby using the GEG against fire defensively early in the Firing stage, and only exposing yourself at the very end of Firing and for 1 more turn.

3). Without TTT being available, boresight fleets can't make you pay. This is probably more of an issue with boresight, and access to TTT might increase your flexibility enough to make it tempting.

Suggestions:

1). Change activation to Antifighter resolution phase.
2). Interaction with CBD, Run Silent, or All Hands on Deck might be intense. You may want to require any ship that uses the Pulse to not be using a Special Action.
3). Are Breaching Pods considered to have the Fighter trait? If not, you want to include these in the pulse's effect, as well.

 

[silashand]

1). Change activation to Antifighter resolution phase.

I thought about that, but I wanted fighters to be able to attack first. If everyone thinks it should go then and provide effectively 2 full turns of vulnerability then I'm fine with that too. Also, I was under the impression that emines could actually destroy pods that had attached already since they didn't target the pod itself? The rule says the pod can't be targeted, not that it can't be destroyed by something like an emine which is an area effect. If that interpretation is incorrect, the I've been playing it wrong.

2). Interaction with CBD, Run Silent, or All Hands on Deck might be intense. You may want to require any ship that uses the Pulse to not be using a Special Action.

I thought about that, but forgot to add that restriction in. It was originally slated to be a SA with CQ Automatic. This would prevent its combination with other SAs which is what I wanted to avoid.

3). Are Breaching Pods considered to have the Fighter trait? If not, you want to include these in the pulse's effect, as well.

I thought they did have the fighter trait, but I could be wrong. Ah, I see it now. It needs to change to affect craft with the Fighter and/or Breaching Pod traits (didn't realize the two were actually separate).

Cheers, Gary

 

[CZuschlag]

Also, I was under the impression that emines could actually destroy pods that had attached already since they didn't target the pod itself? The rule says the pod can't be targeted, not that it can't be destroyed by something like an emine. If that interpretation is incorrect, the I've been playing it wrong.

Interesting! I smell a Rulemasters! You may be right. Anyone else have a confirmation on this interpretation?

----------

Edit" I also notice now that I have a statement above of "I have two problems", and then proceed to list 3 items. Such fantastic counting! Go me!

I even have my degree in Pure Mathematics - Honors.

Pathetic.

 

[silashand]

Edit" I also notice now that I have a statement above of "I have two problems", and then proceed to list 3 items. Such fantastic counting! Go me!

I even have my degree in Pure Mathematics - Honors.

Pathetic.

I noticed that, but I chose not to say anything ;-)...

Cheers, Gary

 

[Tzarevitch]

That is probably one of the better ideas I have seen in a while. I am not sure any large Drakh ship would ever use it, but having a raider do it now and then would be useful.

I also agree that as described, the "e-mine" trait makes more sense than "accurate".

Tzarevitch

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I missed the bit about having to skip firing. Personally I would consider dropping that restriction - it makes the ability a bit too all or nothing.

 

[CZuschlag]

Drakh don't need much of a boost, and this would certainly be one. It gives you options, if nothing else. So, the penalty needs to be suitably extreme.

I'm good with that.

If anything, they need to be toned down, as, with the breakdown change, the number of ships in Huge Hangars is too large. We still haven't fixed the Amu with respect to that. We may even have to take a hard look at the Ma'cu as too powerful.

 

[Triggy]

How about wording the huge hangars so the Ria'vash Strike Cruiser gets 1 FAP at Skirmish, Ma'cu Carrier gets 2 FAP at Raid, Amu Mothership gets 3 FAP at Battle?

(assuming each ship can only carry the ships it's currently allowed to carry)

 

[silashand]

Not sure that would work actually since only the Amu can carry anything other than skirmish/patrol. The Ma'cu is currently limited to raiders & scouts. If anything that would make it more powerful than it is now.

As to the Ma'cu, it was never overpowered anyway and having played the fleet for a while it is clear its cost is definitely figured into the fleet. The only place where the hangars are actually kinda broken is the Amu and then only if you take nothing but raiders. If you take a mix of bigger ships and small ones the rule works fine as is, even under the new FAP. Personally, the best fix I can think of is simply put a statement in the rule for the mothership's hangars to the effect of no more than 8 slots may be spent on skirmish-level ships. That would encourage/enforce it taking at least a couple of the larger vessels. JMO though.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Triggy]

I haven't toned the Ma'cu down though - it's exactly the same as before except if it takes Scouts it could take more.

Although a far simple way of doing it is to limit the number of ships (but not the huge hangars score) that the Amu can take.

 

[silashand]

I haven't toned the Ma'cu down though - it's exactly the same as before except if it takes Scouts it could take more.

I was really responding to CZuschlag's comment that the Ma'cu was broken ;-).

Although a far simple way of doing it is to limit the number of ships (but not the huge hangars score) that the Amu can take.

Sounds fine to me. Leave the hangars score the same and just say it can take a max of 8 ships. Problem fixed. Could do the same with the Ma'cu as well if necessary to prevent it getting a boost since it doesn't really need one.

Cheers, Gary

 

[silashand]

Drakh don't need much of a boost, and this would certainly be one. It gives you options, if nothing else. So, the penalty needs to be suitably extreme.

Agreed. The option's not meant to give them an advantage, but neither is it meant to nerf them either. Whichever version you use it should probably be about the same in usefulness. That is why I absolutely hate the Crit Protection playtest version - there are too many ways to negate it, not to mention it lasts the *entire* game which I think is *way* too inflexible. If it were on a turn-by-turn basis then I might think it was okay since the Drakh player could choose which way to modulate the GEG based on the situation at hand. IMO this makes much more sense from both a realism (assuming any sci-fi tech can be considered real in any context) and game standpoint.

For the GEG Pulse, in a way it's kinda like the Shadows' new AF rule, though I'm starting to think restricting firing isn't necessary since the ship will effectively be going through two entire turns with no defenses at all. My original version was for when the ability was triggered during the shooting phase and would still have the GEG for part of the current turn. Thus there was a penalty in both the current and following turn. Now that I've modded it to happen in the AF phase, I don't think the shooting restriction is all that appropriate. As long as there's a penalty of some kind over both turns I think it's sufficient.

Cheers, Gary

 

[CZuschlag]

Sounds fine to me. Leave the hangars score the same and just say it can take a max of 8 ships. Problem fixed. Could do the same with the Ma'cu as well if necessary to prevent it getting a boost since it doesn't really need one.

Cheers, Gary

Has promise. Let me ponder this idea some.