Idea for the Drakh

[Methos5000]

In response to the fighters and breaching pods issue. It doesn't need to be clarified.

Page 16 of the Rulebook:
Breaching Pod: These are small craft designed to carry troops to enemy ships and space stations and force an entry straight through the hull. The Breaching Pod counts as if it had the Fighter trait.

So breaching pods are fighters.....just slow bulky ones with a squad of marines for weapons.

 

[silashand]

In response to the fighters and breaching pods issue. It doesn't need to be clarified.

Thanks! I knew I had seen that somewhere .

Cheers, Gary

 

[Pawnographer]

One gripe I have - IMHO, the Light Raider is clearly superior to the Heavy Raider - it is faster, more maneuverable and with a Dodge of 4+ rather than 5+, MUCH more survivable. To make the Heavy Raider a reasonable alternative without too many changes, the Heavy Raider should be a Hull 5 rather than Hull 4 like the Light Raider.

 

[CZuschlag]

I have used the Heavy Raider to great effect on numerous occasions. It is a powerful contender that needs to have positional flaws in the opposing fleet created in order to do its best. You can create this situations the user of our superior nber of vessels. It's just fine. I wouldn't want it better!

 

[silashand]

I have used the Heavy Raider to great effect on numerous occasions. It is a powerful contender that needs to have positional flaws in the opposing fleet created in order to do its best. You can create this situations the user of our superior nber of vessels. It's just fine. I wouldn't want it better!

It is now. However, with the new FAP I wonder about our "superior numbers." Granted, I use HRs a lot myself, but I do have to agree with the previous poster that the LR is a superior choice in almost all instances. The DD beam of the HR just doesn't seem worth it most of the time when I can get Accurate instead and ignore that precious ISA dodge problem ;-).

Cheers, Gary

 

[Pawnographer]

Silashand wrote: "Granted, I use HRs a lot myself, but I do have to agree with the previous poster that the LR is a superior choice in almost all instances. The DD beam of the HR just doesn't seem worth it most of the time when I can get Accurate instead and ignore that precious ISA dodge problem."

My experience with the Drakh so far (I just playing earlier this year) is that the Raiders have been most useful in getting critical hits and crippling enemy ships that way than through sheer number of damage points. The Accurate Beams are also very useful against ships with Dodge & Fighters (especially those nasty Vree heavy fighters). What happens is that my opponents start targeting the Raiders as an easy to kill threat and LR's Dodge on 4+ rather than the HR's 5+ winds-up being very significant. The greater speed and 90 dgree turns also allow my LRs to position themselves much more effectively and avoid being shot at (Or at least shot at with fewer AD). So my current assesment is that in most situations, LR's are an easy choice over LR's. If LR's had a Hull 5, there would be more reasons to pick LR's and more interesting tatical considerations when composing my Drakh Fleet. Right now, with both LR & HR at Hull 4 and the LR has greater speed (14 versus 10), greater maneuverability (2/90 versus 2/45) and better dodge (4+ versus 5+), I am finding myself picking mostly LR's. I have found some opponents having an inordinate fear of HR's and I have used a few as a distraction while LRs did most of the real damge. The HR's really get targeted fast and usually die much sooner due to their slower speed and inferior dodge.

I appreciate the discussion and feedback from both points of view. If there is a building of consensus, lets push for Hull 5 for the HR. There are plenty of Heavy Fighters with Hull 5 out there!!

 

[stepan.razin]

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)

Same old gripe... At higher PL games, the FAP breakdown breaks down with the Drakh.

With the new FAP, the Maccu needs to carry 3 raiders (IMHO)

 

[stepan.razin]

The GEG Pulse sounds interesting, maybe keep it as just an E-mine effect done during the anti-fighter phase. Not sure about the range though.

 

[CZuschlag]

The range rule is interesting, as it gives it an outside shot at getting to Bombers. Most races (notably not the Abbai, with the woeful Kotha, and the pak'ma'ra with ... well, nothing) have a superiority fighter that can reliably take down low-end bombers. Drakh are unusual with zero craft at all. That may be fine, but the ability to affect bombers may be valuable.

Even with most powerful GEG systems, it still wouldn't stop the torpedo attacks from the best bombers, the Por'fa'tais, the Firebolt, and the Thorun Torpedobomber.

Ma'cu: Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, it should probably be 3 Huge Hangars. However, it should also get a little more to make up, too, because 3 isn't right, either; the new breakdown isn't 3 Skirmish, it's 1 Raid and 2 Skirmish, which isn't the same thing at all. A slight firepower improvement (a side Neutron Cannon die? Much heavier pulse?) is probably the way to go.

 

[stepan.razin]

The range rule is interesting, as it gives it an outside shot at getting to Bombers. Most races (notably not the Abbai, with the woeful Kotha, and the pak'ma'ra with ... well, nothing) have a superiority fighter that can reliably take down low-end bombers. Drakh are unusual with zero craft at all. That may be fine, but the ability to affect bombers may be valuable.

Even with most powerful GEG systems, it still wouldn't stop the torpedo attacks from the best bombers, the Por'fa'tais, the Firebolt, and the Thorun Torpedobomber.

Ma'cu: Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, it should probably be 3 Huge Hangars. However, it should also get a little more to make up, too, because 3 isn't right, either; the new breakdown isn't 3 Skirmish, it's 1 Raid and 2 Skirmish, which isn't the same thing at all. A slight firepower improvement (a side Neutron Cannon die? Much heavier pulse?) is probably the way to go.

Isn't it 1 Battle = 3 Skirmish, or I might have misread. But a Maccu with 3 Raiders is pretty much like a Raid and 3 Skirmish choices. Maccu itself has got to be close in capability to the sulust. So, they still have a free Skirmish choice.

But usually no one can deal with bomber easily (unless they have e-mines, which of course seems to be everybody at this time), in fact Drakh are better at it due to their accurate beams on the Raiders. Also, most bombers (with an exception of Firebolts) have 4+ dodge, perfect target for Drakh secondaries.

Out of curiosity, how do you play fighters attacking Drakh ships for the purposes of GEG?

 

[CZuschlag]

Each weapon system on each individual fighter is a separate gun and is independently reduced by GEG. Against fighters, it's strong. Against bombers, you really care about your dodge.

There is ZERO reason to take the horrid 1 Battle:3 Skirmish breakdown. In every case where you can do this, you can also break down 1 Battle to 2 Raid and 1 Raid to 2 Skirmish. Anyone who does buy down like this is, given the revised FAP breakdown, a total idiot or very very very generous to opponents.

So, 4 isn't right, but 3 isn't either. The Ma'cu used to carry 1 Battle FAP in its hangars. There's no reason to re-evaluate this that I can see (you don't see Drakh dominating tourneys like you'd expect; if it was bad, we'd have seen it at the Centauri-Army of Light event held at Mongoose; there were a LOT of Drakh there, and the Gaim still dominated with but 2 fleets.). The Amu is over, but I haven't heard much of a cry of horror about the Drakh offhand.

Sulust vs. Ma'cu on its own is intriguing, but I'll take the Sulust. More chances to crit, not Lumbering, and more chances for criticals with the 4 dice of precise. Longer range, too --- I think the Sulust is a high-end raid ship, of course (it was on my list of 20 to fix, towards the very bottom of the list).

Others can and do have the resources to destroy Bombers in quantity: pak'ma'ra (web), Narn (mines), 3rd and Crusade (Starfury dogfighters), Minbari (Tishats, although rare), Vree (Zorth), Centauri (Razik, Sentri), Gaim (mines, fighter hordes), Vorlons (fighter-portable antifighter weaponry+decent speed+good initiative), Brakiri (Takata mines, very rare), ISA (enhanced Nials, although rare), Psicorps (Black Omegas), Shadows (new Shadow Fighters are EXCELLENT against bombers, espeicially one-on-one.)

The Dilgar, mid-to-late EA, and the Brakiri have their own bombers to go bomber-for-bomber, as do the Vorlons.

Abbai have to lean on their Quad-arrays for the task (while well suited, it comes at the cost of main firepower). Drazi need help because their carrier stinks and you usually don't have enough Sky Serpents. And that leaves our last race with no long-term answer, the Drakh, who just end up hoping the GEG holds.

 

[silashand]

the Drakh, who just end up hoping the GEG holds.

Which realistically, it often doesn't given the number of crits that remove random traits. I find relying almost solely on the GEG is not all that great, which is what makes the light raider so useful. It at least has a decent dodge score, something the rest of the fleet cannot say.

As to the rest, you are correct that the Drakh hardly seem overpowering in any context.

Cheers, Gary

 

[silashand]

Ma'cu: Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, it should probably be 3 Huge Hangars. However, it should also get a little more to make up, too, because 3 isn't right, either; the new breakdown isn't 3 Skirmish, it's 1 Raid and 2 Skirmish, which isn't the same thing at all.

Ummm... the Huge Hangers rule currently is not affected at all by the new FAP since it doesn't reference it in its rule. Instead it specifically limits what ships can be carried inside as well as how many. The only way the new FAP would have any effect at all is by rewriting the Huge Hangers rule, something that so far has not been done. As long as the rule stays as is the Ma'cu is fine (and as it should be IMO since it's hardly a dominating ship). I certainly don't think it needs downgrading of the hangers since the Drakh rely on their Raiders to fulfill the role of strike warships, fighters, and most everything else that other races do with ship variants and auxiliary craft. The only thing that really needs changing is probably the Amu and that can be fixed by simply stating that it has Huge Hangers 12, but can carry a maximum total number of 8 ship inside (due to limited support systems, whatever justification you want to use for it).

Cheers, Gary

 

[stepan.razin]

The problem why myself and others in my game group have with the new FAP is it does not affect all fleets equally... Drazi get screwed, Drakh get a bonus... Overall, it seems like it would be good only if all relevant issues are addressed.

I also dont think that the Drakh should get a free pass on FAP just because they rely heavily on the Raiders... My Psi Corp fleet relies heavily on my Hunters to win, doesnt mean that I should get a free one if I buy a Nemesis.

 

[Ripple]

Exactly...

If the Drahk had been a weak race prior to the change I would understand just saying that the 'effective' buy down of Huge Hangers could stay the same, but they were fairly strong.

While the rule may not reference the FAP chart, the effective bonus Huge Hangers provides just got better. Buffs of any kind to a strong race need to be paid for somehow. Weak races can get a bit of a bonus as you covering the deficits they are already paying for.

Ripple

 

[silashand]

Weak races can get a bit of a bonus as you covering the deficits they are already paying for.

I might agree if I thought the Drakh were as strong as you claim, but in playing them I simply do not agree that they are as good as you say they are. In that regard I think the boost may actually be needed for them. I'm not saying certain ships aren't good, they are. And ones like the Amu probably need downgrading slightly. However, one thing the FAP does not do is mitigate fighters at all and sorry to say the Raiders are the Drakh equivalent.

Again, JMO based on my own experience with the Drakh. YMMV, though realistically I don't see them winning a large portion of tournaments so I'd be hard pressed to believe they are as bad as some would have folks believe.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Ripple]

While raiders are the Drahk equivalent, they are not the same. Fighters are not sinks, raiders are. Raiders are far more resilient than fighters, even if both tend to have similar damage output.

As to the Drahk being strong... they are, not uber, not top of their class, but in no way weak. You have to be WEAK to warrant a boost, not just average and certainly not strong.

I could see an argument that they might need help at certain low pl level fights... but that's it, and huge hangers would not be part of that discussion.

Ripple

 

[katadder]

to stop swarm fleets you could limit the Amu to a maximum of say 8 ships. I believe this was mentioned before by someone.

 

[CZuschlag]

Fair enough on the Amu.

Some loadouts that occur offhand:

4 LR, 4 DDF (about the only major build that hits both the 8-limit and the 12-Hangars)
4 HR, 4 CL (the other one)
1 Dra'Vash, 3 LR, 1 HR
6 CL
6 DDF


... it's really hard to get more than 4 Raiders and still be cost-effective with the 8-ship limit! I'm taking more other ships than raiders. Too bad the Ria'Vash still takes 8 slots, just like the Dra'Vash does; otherwise, you'd see more interesting builds. But, from a fluff standpoint, I can see why.

While that is proof of the reduction of swarming effect, is that the Drakh feel that we're looking for? Could be tha you just use the CV to get your Raiders, and the Mothership to get your beamteams...

 

[Clanger]

Always thought that the Huge Hangar trait was factored into the "cost" of the Drakh ship.

I would say as the Huge Hangars are not part of the FAP system and the main ships have already had them factored into the cost. So I do not see a problem with the Huge Hangar on the Ma'cu and Amu. And considering people want to lower the Amu's Hull.

Also considering the other "boosts" other races are getting, this does not seem over powered.