Is Fighters firing first so bad?

[Kizar]

I remember one rule set in which fighters fired first with one exception - if they were attacking a ship then that ship (and that ship only) was allowed to fire at them with anti-fighter weapons before they made their attack run.

 

[Target]

I remember one rule set in which fighters fired first with one exception - if they were attacking a ship then that ship (and that ship only) was allowed to fire at them with anti-fighter weapons before they made their attack run.

Presuming this is a house rule, i don't ever recall seeing this in any rules MGP has put out.

 

[Ripple]

True, but I'd expect 1 patrol of most Auxillary to be able to stand a good chance of ganking 1 patrol of Ships

I would as well, from what I have seen though if they are capable of doing it once they are capable of doing it repeatedly until there are no patrol ships left.

Its the guaranteed initiative vs ships which means if they are capable of destroying you in a shot they will, always.

Its the moving last that means if you have a weak arc they will be in it, always.

Its just the problem with an all or nothing system, some folks don't care, some do.

Ripple

 

[Silvereye]

Its the guaranteed initiative vs ships which means if they are capable of destroying you in a shot they will, always.

But 1 wing of fighters are not guaranteed to destroy a patrol level Ship in 1 turn of shooting. They stand a good chance of crippling or skeletoning it, but really need a good critical to destroy it. When they fail to kill it they either have to loiter for a second turn, or head off to another target.

e.g. 3 Frazi Vs Tethys
Frazi fire 12 AD, on average 6 AD will hit the Hull 4 Tethys, perhaps 2 hits will be intercepted, meaning 4 damage dice get rolled. Needing 8 damage to destroy it. 6 Frazi's could probably do the job in 1 turn, but that is 2 Patrol points of Frazis. I'm sure 2 Haven would make just as short work of the Tethys. And a squadron of 2 Haven could fire first if the Centauri don't loose the initiative.

 

[Reaverman]

Its the guaranteed initiative vs ships which means if they are capable of destroying you in a shot they will, always.

But 1 wing of fighters are not guaranteed to destroy a patrol level Ship in 1 turn of shooting. They stand a good chance of crippling or skeletoning it, but really need a good critical to destroy it. When they fail to kill it they either have to loiter for a second turn, or head off to another target.

e.g. 3 Frazi Vs Tethys
Frazi fire 12 AD, on average 6 AD will hit the Hull 4 Tethys, perhaps 2 hits will be intercepted, meaning 4 damage dice get rolled. Needing 8 damage to destroy it. 6 Frazi's could probably do the job in 1 turn, but that is 2 Patrol points of Frazis. I'm sure 2 Haven would make just as short work of the Tethys. And a squadron of 2 Haven could fire first if the Centauri don't loose the initiative.

Fighters are'nt meant to. They are there just to nibble, and chaffe your caps. Lucky shots will be nasty, but the only ships I tend to Vape with Frazi are Varrls!

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Fighters are'nt meant to. They are there just to nibble, and chaffe your caps.

except that's not what they do in B5 - they're a credible threat to capital ships in the show.

 

[Reaverman]

Fighters are'nt meant to. They are there just to nibble, and chaffe your caps.

except that's not what they do in B5 - they're a credible threat to capital ships in the show.

But thats B5 Wars, and not ACTA.

 

[Iain McGhee]

They're a threat in ACTA too. They just need to score criticals. My poor Brakiri got a hammering from Thunderbolts last night since they could stay out of AF range (G-bolts only have range 3) and the EA Starfuries had pulped my Falkosi wings by then. One of my Kalivas got both an Engines Disabled and Ammo Explosion in the same turn !

 

[Kizar]

I remember one rule set in which fighters fired first with one exception - if they were attacking a ship then that ship (and that ship only) was allowed to fire at them with anti-fighter weapons before they made their attack run.

Presuming this is a house rule, i don't ever recall seeing this in any rules MGP has put out.

Not from any MGP set of rules - this was in a set of space rules from a LONG time ago (couple of decades I think). It just meant that fighters had some chance of hitting but that ships that were attacked were not helpless.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Fighters are'nt meant to. They are there just to nibble, and chaffe your caps.

except that's not what they do in B5 - they're a credible threat to capital ships in the show.

But thats B5 Wars, and not ACTA.

No, I meant the TV show. JMS has even stated repeatedly that fighters are a credible threat to capital ships in the B5 universe.

 

[locarno24]

I find the new fighter rules do make them a nice threat - the biggest edge to fighters firing first is that I can now use them to deplete interceptors...

5 hits is not beyond the means of two-to-three fighter flights, and whilst that's little more than an annoyance normally, it pretty much garuantees all interceptors on the target will be overloaded before the shooting phase. This is a serious edge if you use a fleet carrying a lot of heavy guns*.

Normally you'd fire your guns, watch half or more get deflected by interceptors, and then get to spit at them with the fighters and maybe do a half-dozen points of damage.

Now, unless you're looking at a station (incidentally this makes a stations more sophisticated interceptors better), a fighter wing will supress your interceptor capacity and then you'll be required to take a railgun spread to the face with naff all protection.....


* By which I mean non-beam weapons with double or triple damage and/or precise. Railguns, Matter Cannons and Bolters are good examples.

 

[Nomad]

Yes, well spotted, Locarno.

Not everyone, however, regards this as A Good Thing.

Interceptors were part of the justification of EA ships having lower damage and crew scores than their opponents.

Now that (as you,ve noticed) interceptors can be so easily bypassed...?

 

[Triggy]

Yes, well spotted, Locarno.

Not everyone, however, regards this as A Good Thing.

Interceptors were part of the justification of EA ships having lower damage and crew scores than their opponents.

Now that (as you,ve noticed) interceptors can be so easily bypassed...?

Well, not bypassed, they've still taken the same number of hits, it just happens before they shoot.

Everybody's in the same boat though as whether it's depleted interceptors or actual damage, the net result is the same (i.e. they've taken a number of hits and the fighters have taken a number of hits in return).

 

[animus]

I think what we'll eventuall see is anti-fighter capability working along the lines of the Vorlons - whenever a fighter moves within a certain range of ship with AF, the fighters suffer an effect, then the shooting begins after that.

This wouldn't necessarily take away the "ignores dodge" characteristic of AF weapons - it would just be another specifically anti-fighter capability. The Anti-Dodge Capability might just be renamed - "Flak" or something. It's only an issue of semantics to introduce a new trait.

2nd Ed would be the place to introduce this.

 

[Nomad]

they've still taken the same number of hits

From single-damage fighter weapons, opening the ship upto multiple hits from double damage or precise weapons fired from enemy vessels. Particularly damaging when facing, say, the Dilgar.

I beleive this was Locarno's point.

Besides, races other than the EA, Centauri or Abbai are hardly 'in the same boat', having no interceptors to be delpleted.

From a previous post from Greg Smith, this appears to have been an unrealised consequence of the change.

 

[Triggy]

they've still taken the same number of hits

From single-damage fighter weapons, opening the ship upto multiple hits from double damage or precise weapons fired from enemy vessels. Particularly damaging when facing, say, the Dilgar.

I beleive this was Locarno's point.

Besides, races other than the EA, Centauri or Abbai are hardly 'in the same boat', having no interceptors to be delpleted.

From a previous post from Greg Smith, this appears to have been an unrealised consequence of the change.

Well personally in the games I've played it's worse to be taking actual damage and criticals than simply having Interceptors being depleted! This makes EA, Abbai, etc. better off than other races. As for having double damage weapons, etc. being able to fire straight off - yes they can and I've rarely seen a situation where that doesn't happen in any case, whether it be from secondary weapons or a single ship softening up the target first. I've seen very little change in gameplay other than fighters becoming useful again (although still not quite good enough to take individual wings of them yet).

 

[Nomad]

Triggy, I do not find your answers relevant, as as I'm going out, I can and will not exchange endless posts with you. Please feel free to have the last word.

In any event, for me, it's moot; our FLGS campaign has just collapsed, having dwindled from sixteen active players to three, with several fleets being sold. Interest has moved on.

 

[Triggy]

Triggy, I do not find your answers relevant, as as I'm going out, I can and will not exchange endless posts with you. Please feel free to have the last word.

In any event, for me, it's moot; our FLGS campaign has just collapsed, having dwindled from sixteen active players to three, with several fleets being sold. Interest has moved on.

Sorry you don't find my answers relevant, I was only making the counter arguament that noone else was making...my point still stands for anyone else though, fighters firing first does little to affect ships with Interceptors compared to normal other than allowing fighters to have an effect at all.

Even sorrier on your store running out of players. It's a shame when that happens as ACtA is not a large enough game (yet) to keep large numbers of players going in general, it's individuals who keep a system going in an area and they tend to follow the trends of others. The game is slowly growing in general but definitely in scattered groups