Interceptors (the dead horse topic)

[Joe_Dracos]

So, in another round of conversation of the B5 system we got to discussing what effect having multiple interceptors has and we pretty much decided that multiple interceptors are pointless. Especially since using fighters to burn them out makes them even more pointless.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Interceptors are far from pointless, even burned out dice stop 1/6 of hits. I'm sure some of the maths wizards here can talk about probabilities and diminishing returns but in my experience, multiple interceptor dice are well worth having.

 

[katadder]

you left out leave as are on your poll so cant vote. interceptors are fine and having a 6+ save against every hit is fine too. leave em be.

 

[Taran]

I really prefer the way they are used on Stations. Puts a little strategy into using them or trying to burn them up, depending on what side you're on.

 

[katadder]

wheres the strategy? lets see intercept the pulse lasers or the DD/TD missiles? pretty easy decisions for the interceptor player to make and would make this defence far too good.

 

[Ripple]

The first three dice of interceptors all add significantly to the effectiveness. After that the bonus is so small you don't see it. So you basic premise is partially right.

And katadder, you got to assign groups of interceptors rather than using the whole pot at once. It ment that you could have 8 interceptor dice and get the full benefit of all those dice by rolling them out in groups of three as fighters then two ships attacked you...

Ripple

 

[Omnipotent]

It sure would help EA and Abbai alot if they would get i.e. a army wide rule saying there interceptors would work as on stations.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

you left out leave as are on your poll so cant vote. interceptors are fine and having a 6+ save against every hit is fine too. leave em be.

That would be "other"

 

[Da Boss]

It soprt of depends if we see Interceptors as automatic systems that react to all fire the same or they are able to ignore some weapon systems in favour of others?

I can't recall how they worked in the show in this matter?

 

[Foxmeister]

you left out leave as are on your poll so cant vote. interceptors are fine and having a 6+ save against every hit is fine too. leave em be.

That would be "other"

I think the point is that lumping the status quo in with "Other" suggestions doesn't allow you to use the poll to gauge if people see this as a particular issue in the first place.

Personally, I would've voted "Leave them be, they are fine", but I won't vote "Other" because that could be misconstrued as a desire for change.

Regards,


Dave

 

[Lord David the Denied]

It sure would help EA and Abbai alot if they would get i.e. a army wide rule saying there interceptors would work as on stations.

I can't speak for the Abbai but I haven't seen any evidence that the EA need any help in this regard. Interceptors are a massive boost against most fleets, and worthless against only one I can think of - even in games with the Minbari or Drakh you get some use out of them.

 

[Everyman]

I voted other - leave them as they are. They work as intended.

 

[Omnipotent]

It sure would help EA and Abbai alot if they would get i.e. a army wide rule saying there interceptors would work as on stations.

I can't speak for the Abbai but I haven't seen any evidence that the EA need any help in this regard. Interceptors are a massive boost against most fleets, and worthless against only one I can think of - even in games with the Minbari or Drakh you get some use out of them.

Well I mainly play Dilgar, and find interceptors to be very easy to burn out...Even my Centauri got enough dices to burn them out.

It is just to easy to first use those pulsars to burn the interceptors out, then fire the missiles, finally u get to the good part, the boltars...A Omega drops fast, especially when u most likely get a critc or two through with every Targraths missiles+boltars u fire...It is just to easy to override the use of interceptors.

The captain of a ship that is being attacked should know that pulsars usually can´t do much harm so he should have the option to save em against i.e a missile that is coming your way...it is even logical.

This would even make ships with just one or two interceptors more useful as u would not want to fire pulsars i.e. against a Chronos with hull 6 as u know he would only save his interceptor against your missiles...I could very well see this as a very potential pump for EA...which I may point out I never even been close to loose against.

Just think how much more bounding the Omega could stand, it would fit it´s look and stats, that are more like a "space heavy tank" :roll:

 

[Foxmeister]

I could very well see this as a very potential pump for EA...which I may point out I never even been close to loose against.

As has been said before, the EA (in general) don't need a buff.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Well I mainly play Dilgar, and find interceptors to be very easy to burn out...Even my Centauri got enough dices to burn them out.

It is just to easy to first use those pulsars to burn the interceptors out, then fire the missiles, finally u get to the good part, the boltars...A Omega drops fast, especially when u most likely get a critc or two through with every Targraths missiles+boltars u fire...It is just to easy to override the use of interceptors.

The captain of a ship that is being attacked should know that pulsars usually can´t do much harm so he should have the option to save em against i.e a missile that is coming your way...it is even logical.

This would even make ships with just one or two interceptors more useful as u would not want to fire pulsars i.e. against a Chronos with hull 6 as u know he would only save his interceptor against your missiles...I could very well see this as a very potential pump for EA...which I may point out I never even been close to loose against.

Just think how much more bounding the Omega could stand, it would fit it´s look and stats, that are more like a "space heavy tank" :roll:

The problem you're talking about is a meta-game tactic; the turn sequence is the cause of it. Because you have to use weapon systems one at a time, you can use the light guns to use up the target's interceptors or shields before hitting them with your heavy guns, when the "fluff" is that everything happens simultaneously, that's why you have to declare all firing before rolling anything - if you kill a ship with half your guns, the other half are also considered to fire at it, just wasting themselves in the dying ship.

Allowing interceptors to be selectively used would counter the meta-game effect of the turn sequence, but I worry that it'd be too good. You could then reserve your interceptor dice completely and ignore small ships firing at you to intercept the fire from a war-level unit. Sadly I don't see any other way to solve this issue. I think we might just have to accept that interceptors work well enough and a canny player will burn them out with crappy little guns before using his ship-killers to minimise the defence they provide.

 

[Locutus9956]

Interceptors are fine the way they are. It's worth noting that you get reduced to a minimum of ONE dice on 6+ with interceptors no matter how many dice you have originally you dont just keep each dice at 6+ when it would fail (though that might not actually be a bad little improvement to kill the diminishing returns of higher numbers of interceptors a bit (though I suspect that would actually be a bit too good and make any ship with 6+ interceptors statistically invlunerable to non beam weapons!)

 

[CZuschlag]

That, and making the dice rolling for interceptors on 6's take forever. Please no.

 

[Omnipotent]

Allowing interceptors to be selectively used would counter the meta-game effect of the turn sequence, but I worry that it'd be too good. You could then reserve your interceptor dice completely and ignore small ships firing at you to intercept the fire from a war-level unit

Wow! U just might have slipped out a solution to swarm fleets :shock:

Interceptors might help to reduce the amount of "crappy" patrol lvl ships in the game since there use would diminish!

How u guys played a space superiority or ACTA or any other scenario in which let´s say Vree, Dilgar, Centauri and why not ISA would have lost against EA third age or Crusade?!? I´ve played all match ups except ISA (well once played against em with my Dilgar and won), and in every match both third age and crusade lost big time.

I could see this happen with extremly bad dice rolls, but otherwise every person understands that a fleet with less mobility and firepower+range looses against a fleet with more of em.

My opponents and I usually don´t play games with 20 hermes or jashakars, four is closer to the truth. The crusade player play a swarm of myrmidons( 8 ) and chronos(4), but still loose to a more mobile and powerful+range Dilgar/Centauri/Vree.

I´ve played a few games with third age myself against dilgar and I recognice the same flaws in the fleet as my opponents usually find.

Now EA interceptors might not help any more on turn one against Dilgar since there are (usually) only missiles heading your way, but the turns after that when most EA ships might get a weapon or two in range while the mobile Dilgar has all there weapons in range (ignoring those laughable 8' weapons), the improved interceptors just might provide enough protection to risk it a bit and "leave" your ship in a position that usually would mean destruction, but now u just might get a shot back at the Dilgars (which don´t like getting hit :evil: )

I just might play a game or two this weekend letting my EA opponents test the new interceptor against either Centauri or Dilgar, I´ll let u know what changes.

Any thoughts :roll:

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I've been badly whooped as the Centauri by EA 3rd age and early years; they don't automatically lose because you're more mobile, they have to use tactics to negate that advantage. EA have plenty of long range weapons, heavy lasers at 25"-30", heavy particle beams and missile racks at 30" or above, and their heavy pulse cannons match the Centauri's main weapons. Ok, we have matter cannons at 15" and the Dilgar heavy bolters are at 15" as well, but then the EA have railguns at between 12" and 20" depending on launch platform.

If the EA manouevre effectively and postion their units well they can win against any opponent. Remember, even the agile fleets can't get out of arc when the EA can generally fire in all arcs and the smaller ships are agile enough to screen their lumbering assets quite nicely. Plenty of fighters, too, especially useful against Centauri, ISA and Dilgar.

They really don't need an interceptors buff to make them competitive, they are competitive. It's easy to say you've played against crap players, but I regularly play against one of the top players in the country - and get whooped by him. It's readily understood that until I pick up my game, Triggy is going to beat me whatever fleet he uses. If he does it with Raiders I think I'm going to commit seppuku in shame...

 

[katadder]

as has been stated by others - interceptors give you a 6+ save against all incoming attacks apart from beams/minibeams even if reduced to their lowest level. this is in some ways better than the paks defense as the interceptors completely stop a DD/TD weapon.