Interceptors: An idea
- Thread starter GhostRecon
- Start date
GhostRecon
Mongoose
Burger said:
How so? I changed the ruling, in the above post I made:
Basically, they still work exactly like Interceptors do now, except the Dice Pool is shared with AF, and you can "reserve" Interceptor dice (Just like stations) to use them against specific attacks.
I don't like that as you wouldn't know what was about to attack. so your interceptors intercept everything from the off, and eventually exhast. It's lke a football defender saying I won't make this tackle as I know they will miss anyway...
by football i mean soccer my stateside amigos
by football i mean soccer my stateside amigos
GhostRecon
Mongoose
hiffano said:
Well, in point defense, you would be able to decide what to intercept. The shots still take time to travel at you, and it makes sense you would have your Point Defense target the most dangerous threats to your vessel. CIWS or Missile Point Defense on US Warships, for example, can be targeted at specific incoming targets.
For example, we see Sheridan order his Interceptor grid to block, shouting "Interceptors!" when the Centauri ship opens fire on Babylon 5; obviously, he doesn't use some Trekkian long winded prose such as "Left-tenant, block those specific pulse blasts from the Centauri ship with our defensive interceptor grid!" You can gather the crew is smart enough to know what to block (Especially with only one enemy vessel firing) and that they both prefer to save the time just saying "Interceptors!" And in a larger battle, you would think and hope a Commander and his Crew would dedicate his point defense to deflect the most dangerous attacks: Do we waste our interceptor grid blocking those Pulse Shots from that piss-ant cutter that can't even scratch our paint? Or we do block those ship-sized torpedoes that can obliterate our ship in one hit? As interceptors currently work, you don't have a choice.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? 6 Interceptors provides near to no benefit over 2 or 3 interceptors, which doesn't make much sense. In the proposed, having 6 interceptors is useful. Even better, 6 AI is at once better, yet not, because 6 AI is both your interceptors and AF, so you gain a benefit, and lose something as well.
Further, once that ship is done shooting, you don't get that 1 dice at 6+ to assign to other ships; once that die is assigned, its gone when the assigned ship is done shooting at it. And normal Interceptors, even those given by Fighter support, don't benefit from the Advanced Interceptor rules at all.
And 3-5 hits is a bit of an exaggeration; by the time you reach 3 hits, you're rolling 4+; blocking more than 3 hits each against 6 ships with 1 die for each ship on average is optimistic and statistically incorrect. In theory, with luck, you could block more; but just as equally, you can block none of them just as easily. On average, you'd block around 12, with an average more like 1-3 hits blocked against each ship, for 1 dice per ship. So AI is 1-3 times more effective than the current system.
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
So just why do you think interceptors are broken?
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
I think the original poster wanted a greater effect from high-INT rated ships.darklord4 said:
To be sure. But I've seen nothing to indicate that they weren't what they should be. I agree with you though, that it could be simpler mechanically. Most likely, folks would be unhappy with the "all my interceptors blown on one die roll" mechanic.
I was thinking that you would just degrade the target number and just roll all the dice once always. Except for INT failing fighters, which are lost still.David said:
i.e. first attack you roll against 2s, next you roll against 3s etc. until you get stuck at 6s. This does have the effect of making interceptors more effective against later small-hit-count attacks, but really, those should have been used to reduce the interceptor effectiveness t the beginning. INT 1 ships actually don't change too much, but some INT 6 ships might need a reduction to 5 or 4. Interceptor simplification is a dream anyway as I don't see any rules changing in any kind of near future or alternate future.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
Regardless of what you do, changing Interceptors to make higher interceptor values more, or actually, useful such as Interceptor 6 on the Poseidon, or even Interceptor 4 on the Marathon and like balanced ships would require a rebalance because player perception creates the idea that those Interceptors are suddenly worthwhile.
As it stands, Interceptor 6 is a cruel joke. You roll 6 Interceptor die that will accomplish essentially exactly the same thing as Interceptor 2, except your interceptor 2 ship isn't losing as much in other categories, such as damage, speed, or firepower, to get 6 interceptor die.
My idea was simply to try and implement a system that was simple, and also addressed the issue that higher interceptors are really rather pointless, as it stands.
The AI, or Advanced Interceptor system, seems to address the problems pretty effectively, while introducing new balance systems to help redress those issues. AI was an attempt to balance and redress the current issue with high interceptor values, while add in some "canon" and "cool" by melding AF and INT, something the show depicts. By melding the two, not only do you depict the show more accurately, but you introduce a new balance mechanic: AI is one trait, compared to the two that AF and INT get, and with AI you have to chose how many die would be AF and how many would do Adv. Intercept.
Ultimately, the easiest solution may be to simply give Interceptors the same rules as Station Interceptors, where you get to chose what you block.
This means 1 Interceptor die is actually less useful, because you have to assign that die to a single ship and once that ship is done shooting, you don't get 1 die at 6+ against other ships.
It even makes 6 Interceptors useful, but balances it out because the 6 interceptor ship doesn't get 1 die at 6+ against all other attacks, like the current system works. 6 Interceptors could conceivably try and block the attacks of 6 ships (And, on average, block 1-3 of those attacks) but it could not use those dice against anything else for the remainder of the turn.
As it stands, Interceptor 6 is a cruel joke. You roll 6 Interceptor die that will accomplish essentially exactly the same thing as Interceptor 2, except your interceptor 2 ship isn't losing as much in other categories, such as damage, speed, or firepower, to get 6 interceptor die.
My idea was simply to try and implement a system that was simple, and also addressed the issue that higher interceptors are really rather pointless, as it stands.
The AI, or Advanced Interceptor system, seems to address the problems pretty effectively, while introducing new balance systems to help redress those issues. AI was an attempt to balance and redress the current issue with high interceptor values, while add in some "canon" and "cool" by melding AF and INT, something the show depicts. By melding the two, not only do you depict the show more accurately, but you introduce a new balance mechanic: AI is one trait, compared to the two that AF and INT get, and with AI you have to chose how many die would be AF and how many would do Adv. Intercept.
Ultimately, the easiest solution may be to simply give Interceptors the same rules as Station Interceptors, where you get to chose what you block.
This means 1 Interceptor die is actually less useful, because you have to assign that die to a single ship and once that ship is done shooting, you don't get 1 die at 6+ against other ships.
It even makes 6 Interceptors useful, but balances it out because the 6 interceptor ship doesn't get 1 die at 6+ against all other attacks, like the current system works. 6 Interceptors could conceivably try and block the attacks of 6 ships (And, on average, block 1-3 of those attacks) but it could not use those dice against anything else for the remainder of the turn.
