Harry Lonsdale
Mongoose
Any ship with 2 interceptors and 4 fighters (except for the few fighters with weak weapons).Joe_Dracos said:
Interceptors: An idea
- Thread starter GhostRecon
- Start date
GhostRecon
Mongoose
Harry Lonsdale said:
Except that, under either system, the one I proposed or the one we currently have, those fighters would disappear pretty rapidly. They'd be useful against the first few shots, or AD (Depending on system) then rapidly disappear.
I really don't like Interceptors as they are because having more Interceptor dice really doesn't make much of a difference, it makes little to no sense that my Marathon or Poseidon can block a few fighter, or one ship's worth of firing, just as well as my Chronos, yet those massive arrays of Interceptors studding either Marathon or Poseidon can't block a thing past that?
The Poseidon has 6 Interceptors; its clearly supposed to be a fortress, yet a single Thentus can strip the Poseidon of, essentially, all of its Interceptors in one salvo.
Six interceptors makes no difference whatsoever. The die scale up no matter how many dice you have, so by the third or fourth AD, when you're rolling 4+ and higher, that six dice disappear pretty rapidly: And worse, no matter what, you can only ever have 1 die rolling at 6+ after that.
So, essentially, a 6 interceptor ship gains virtually no benefit, while a 1 or 2 interceptor ship (2 being the apparent optimum) gains significantly more in terms of cost comparison. One can posit that a ship with 6 Interceptors, in theoretical and literal game balancing, was downgraded to "pay" for those increased interceptors with the expectation that they would perform 6 interceptors better than a ship with just 2 interceptors; yet this is far from the case.
I believe my rule fixes the problems by:
1) Making it possible to overwhelm Interceptors regardless of value
2) Keep the "degrading" effect of Interceptors, adding an additional con to balance out:
3) Increase the effectiveness of greater numbers of Interceptors, and against a broader scale
Yes, it does make higher numbers of Interceptors better. That's the point. But it also balances it out; you don't get 1 dice at 6+ once you're out. When you're out, that's it, you're out, and you can only ever block the number of hits that you have interceptors. Even if you have 6 Interceptors, if you get hit 10 times, that's 4 hits you can't even save against.
Will it require a rebalance? Probably, but even as the system currently works, ships with high value Interceptors need a rebalance or redress anyway, because the high number of Interceptors they paid for simply arn't performing as intended; 4 or 6 interceptors is worse than 2, when you consider that a ship's abilities, such as damage, crew, firepower, etc., is downgraded to justify those higher interceptor values... Interceptors they're not getting any use of! 2 interceptors or 6, no matter how many actual Interceptor dice you have, once you've blocked 6 hits, you'll almost certainly be rolling 1 die at 6+.
As an additional thought... In the series, you don't actually see a difference between Interceptors and Anti-Fighter weaponry; in fact, in cases like Babylon 5 (The station), Interceptors seem to BE the Anti-Fighter weapons (Like in Severed Dreams). Perhaps combining the two values, for ships that have them? This may serve as forcing players to chose; How much of those dice to I dedicate to Intercepting enemy fire? How much do I dedicate to defending against Fighters? A random thought, that may lead nowhere, but decided to share.
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
actually according to cannon, interceptors are supposed to opperate in 3 modes, defencive, anti-fighter, or offencive (where they attack the enemy ship).
CZuschlag
Mongoose
GhostRecon:
This has much more promise. If you could freely decide to drop x interceptors for x/2 nontransferable (no cheesy escort tricks!) antifighter dice, I'd have no problem with that to try to bring back Interceptors 5 as relevant. It's a small tune, but has some value. A 1-for-1 swap may be OK, too --- I'm just not certain of that, yet.
It would certainly hose the Gaim. I'm not sure I consider that a bad thing, at this point.
This has much more promise. If you could freely decide to drop x interceptors for x/2 nontransferable (no cheesy escort tricks!) antifighter dice, I'd have no problem with that to try to bring back Interceptors 5 as relevant. It's a small tune, but has some value. A 1-for-1 swap may be OK, too --- I'm just not certain of that, yet.
It would certainly hose the Gaim. I'm not sure I consider that a bad thing, at this point.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
CZuschlag said:
I think, abandoning my idea to pursue this one, you add AF and Interceptors together, and have to chose how much of each you designate to AF or Intercept; additionally, taking a page from the Station Interceptor rules, you can chose what, and how many dice you use against specific ships (or weapon systems).
This makes higher Interceptor Values valuable.
I like the idea - it fits nicely with fluff and various things I have been reading recently (LC's novel) - however...........
It does need to be looked at in the context of it increases the power / felxibility of some ships which either have AF or Interceptors but not both -now they do..........
For example my Demos ships can now both intercept fire and use AF - can't do both (unless a Maximus is nearby) but it can shoot fighters down -to which it was previously vulnerable.........
Makes the Maximus even more useful in a Centauri fleet...........perhaps too much so?
Of course - as usual - the Shadows miss out completley :evil:
Does it work the other way - ie AF dice becomes Interceptors - I hope not as that make Minbari waaaayyyy too hard IMHO.......
It does need to be looked at in the context of it increases the power / felxibility of some ships which either have AF or Interceptors but not both -now they do..........
For example my Demos ships can now both intercept fire and use AF - can't do both (unless a Maximus is nearby) but it can shoot fighters down -to which it was previously vulnerable.........
Makes the Maximus even more useful in a Centauri fleet...........perhaps too much so?
Of course - as usual - the Shadows miss out completley :evil:
Does it work the other way - ie AF dice becomes Interceptors - I hope not as that make Minbari waaaayyyy too hard IMHO.......
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
the AF from interceptor fire could be weak to balance out this issue.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
Burger said:
This could be resolved pretty easily:
You could have 3 "types" of Interceptor, like you have two types of Anti-Fighter:
Basic Interceptors can't exchange at all. Say a Demos has BINT 1, it only has 1 dice of interceptors for damage, and can't convert whatsoever.
Standard Interceptors could have a 1 for 2 (1:2) ratio either for Interceptors or AF (Balancing would decide which value was the base). Say you had 2 Interceptors, you could convert them to 1 AF, or vice versa if balancing determines it better (Your "interceptors" count as 2 AF, and you can convert it to 1 interceptor). Could even further penalize odd interceptor values further by rounding down, to a minimum of 1?
Advanced Interceptors could have a 1 for 1 ratio of exchange. You have 4 Interceptors, if you wanted you could convert them to 4 AF, but then you'd have no Interceptors.
So, like a Marathon would simply have, say, 4 Adv. Interceptors, a Demos would have 1 Basic Interceptor, a Sharlin keeps its AAF and can't convert that AAF into any form of Interceptor, etc. This could work for the Maximus too; it gets 2 Basic Interceptors, in addition to its AF.
The Marathon has the ability to kill alot of fighters, or block alot of damage, or a mix, but not both as well as it could at once, 4 dice of one or the other is better than a split (Giving versatility at a penalty); the Demos can block alittle damage, but remains vulnerable to fighters; the Sharlin slaughters fighters, but can't convert its AAF at all to block damage, etc.
Essentially changes vessels with higher interceptor values and/or AF, sharing the two pools of dice and making a player chose between better fighter killing abilities or better damage reduction abilities.
Methos5000
Mongoose
You could just say that ships can only use what system they have available on their ship.
A Demos has 1 Int that can't be converted to AF because it has no AF trait
A Shar'lin has 6 AAF but can't be converted to interceptors because it has no interceptors to begin with.
A Marathon with 4 Int and 4 AF can combine them for a total of 8 AF/Int and split it up as it sees fit.
Basically the same idea as the post above me but without adding in multiple types of interceptors.
This seems to benefit the EA and Gaim most as they are one of the few races that have AF and Int on almost all their ships. Though without knowing what changes are being made to the Gaim it may no longer benefit them.
I do like the idea of splitting up Interceptor fire like with Space stations since all the firing is suppose to be happening at the same time it seems to make sense. The problem though is with fighters firing first pretty much all ships won't have any interceptors to use against the big capital ships.
A Demos has 1 Int that can't be converted to AF because it has no AF trait
A Shar'lin has 6 AAF but can't be converted to interceptors because it has no interceptors to begin with.
A Marathon with 4 Int and 4 AF can combine them for a total of 8 AF/Int and split it up as it sees fit.
Basically the same idea as the post above me but without adding in multiple types of interceptors.
This seems to benefit the EA and Gaim most as they are one of the few races that have AF and Int on almost all their ships. Though without knowing what changes are being made to the Gaim it may no longer benefit them.
I do like the idea of splitting up Interceptor fire like with Space stations since all the firing is suppose to be happening at the same time it seems to make sense. The problem though is with fighters firing first pretty much all ships won't have any interceptors to use against the big capital ships.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
I do NOT like converting back from Anti-Fighter to Interceptors. This is a balance-wrecker. I do NOT want to see Vree, Dilgar, or Minbari with Interceptors. Ever.
If you have to give up 2 Interceptors for 1 die of AF, the Demos won't be able to do it; it never had 2 to begin with....
I have to get a list of ships with Interceptors 2 and no AF. That'll take a little bit; I'll get back with that tomorrow. I don't think that any such ship exists. Perhaps the Tiraca or Milani, I can't remember, but, God knows, the Abbai can use any boost you can give them.
If you have to give up 2 Interceptors for 1 die of AF, the Demos won't be able to do it; it never had 2 to begin with....
I have to get a list of ships with Interceptors 2 and no AF. That'll take a little bit; I'll get back with that tomorrow. I don't think that any such ship exists. Perhaps the Tiraca or Milani, I can't remember, but, God knows, the Abbai can use any boost you can give them.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
CZuschlag said:
Thus my suggestion for three types of Interceptors, or at least a delineation between interchangeable interceptors and those that are _solely_ interceptors.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
Da Boss said:the Maximus - advanced or non advanced and what happens when it lends dice ? upto 4 / 8 on Intensify.....
From what I said before:
I don't think a Maximus should have shared Interceptors, it would concievably make it far too good.
GhostRecon
Mongoose
To flesh out the idea in its entirety:
Anti-Fighter - Functions as is
"Basic" Interceptors - Functions as Interceptors do right now, no change whatsoever. Ships with just interceptors, for example, should (and in my intention of this proposal, would) just have "Basic" Interceptors.
"Advanced" Interceptors - Any ship with Adv. Interceptors will have no AF value. Instead, the Adv. Interceptors provides a pool wherein ships can chose to convert their interceptor dice into AF fire. Further, Adv. Interceptors use the Station's rule for Interceptors (Quoted the rule from the book here, modified to fit):
This provides several pros and cons:
Pros
- Flexibility. You can now, with Adv. Interceptors, chose which attacks you will block
- Effectiveness. Having more Adv. Interceptors finally means something.
Cons
- Degradation. Because the rules for Interceptors as they work in 2E are still in effect, you can still only block 6 or so attacks reliably before you're rolling 1 dice at 6+; this makes it so ships can still overwhelm Adv. Interceptors through sheer firepower. Further, once you've blocked a ship's attacks, you don't get to use those Interceptor dice against other ships.
- Choice. Because Adv. Interceptors replace both Basic Interceptors and the Anti-Fighter value, you have to chose how much of your Adv. Interceptors will be intercepting, and how much will be anti-fighter...ing.
- Reductions. Some ships have more AF dice than they do Interceptors, as of right now; in particular, come to mind, ships like the Apollo, Omega, Omega Command Destroyer, and Warlock Advanced Cruiser. I believe they should not receive higher Adv. Interceptor values to make up for lost AF, and as such, they suffer from reduced AF capabilities, but increased interceptor capabilities, a fair balance.
- Vulnerability. Because you go from having two Traits, AF and Interceptors, to one, Adv. Interceptors, ships with Adv. Interceptors are no far more vulnerable to criticals and crippling wherein they lose traits: They only have one trait to lose, and if they do, they lose both their anti-fighter and intercepting capabilities, instead of having the opportunity to lose just one, or the other.
These changes really only benefit EA, and in part Gaim (Though how much this potentially could benefit the Gaim is up for debate, seeing as their list is apparently being reworked). Brakiri could benefit from Adv. Interceptors, but based on the balance of AF to INT in Brakiri ships, I find it more appropriate that they keep their Basic Interceptors. The Takata and Tashkat, for example, have 2 AF and 5 INT; giving them a value like 3 or 4 Adv. Interceptors gives them too much AF dice, which seems to mitigate the apparent designed weakness to fighters. Ships like the Maximus, as well, likely should not benefit from this: Giving a Maximum 4 Adv. Interceptors would make its damage mitigation capabilities far out of proportion. I think the Maximus is balanced as is.
Anti-Fighter - Functions as is
"Basic" Interceptors - Functions as Interceptors do right now, no change whatsoever. Ships with just interceptors, for example, should (and in my intention of this proposal, would) just have "Basic" Interceptors.
"Advanced" Interceptors - Any ship with Adv. Interceptors will have no AF value. Instead, the Adv. Interceptors provides a pool wherein ships can chose to convert their interceptor dice into AF fire. Further, Adv. Interceptors use the Station's rule for Interceptors (Quoted the rule from the book here, modified to fit):
This provides several pros and cons:
Pros
- Flexibility. You can now, with Adv. Interceptors, chose which attacks you will block
- Effectiveness. Having more Adv. Interceptors finally means something.
Cons
- Degradation. Because the rules for Interceptors as they work in 2E are still in effect, you can still only block 6 or so attacks reliably before you're rolling 1 dice at 6+; this makes it so ships can still overwhelm Adv. Interceptors through sheer firepower. Further, once you've blocked a ship's attacks, you don't get to use those Interceptor dice against other ships.
- Choice. Because Adv. Interceptors replace both Basic Interceptors and the Anti-Fighter value, you have to chose how much of your Adv. Interceptors will be intercepting, and how much will be anti-fighter...ing.
- Reductions. Some ships have more AF dice than they do Interceptors, as of right now; in particular, come to mind, ships like the Apollo, Omega, Omega Command Destroyer, and Warlock Advanced Cruiser. I believe they should not receive higher Adv. Interceptor values to make up for lost AF, and as such, they suffer from reduced AF capabilities, but increased interceptor capabilities, a fair balance.
- Vulnerability. Because you go from having two Traits, AF and Interceptors, to one, Adv. Interceptors, ships with Adv. Interceptors are no far more vulnerable to criticals and crippling wherein they lose traits: They only have one trait to lose, and if they do, they lose both their anti-fighter and intercepting capabilities, instead of having the opportunity to lose just one, or the other.
These changes really only benefit EA, and in part Gaim (Though how much this potentially could benefit the Gaim is up for debate, seeing as their list is apparently being reworked). Brakiri could benefit from Adv. Interceptors, but based on the balance of AF to INT in Brakiri ships, I find it more appropriate that they keep their Basic Interceptors. The Takata and Tashkat, for example, have 2 AF and 5 INT; giving them a value like 3 or 4 Adv. Interceptors gives them too much AF dice, which seems to mitigate the apparent designed weakness to fighters. Ships like the Maximus, as well, likely should not benefit from this: Giving a Maximum 4 Adv. Interceptors would make its damage mitigation capabilities far out of proportion. I think the Maximus is balanced as is.
Similar threads
