Is stealth too powerful?

[Locutus9956]

thing is smoetimes stealth goes for you sometimes against. take the tourney i took minbari, over 4 games my opponents only failed 4 stealth rolls all day so I fired the techs for forgetting to turn it on .

And that is really the crux of it that we keep coming back to over and over again, no one who knows the game will, in their right mind, claim stealth is unfair or unbalanced, it fails as often as it works generally these days if both players know what theyre doing.

If the Minbari player is better stealth rolls will generally be harder as he will hold range, destroy scouts and so on, whereas if his opponent is cunning and closes range, uses scouts and now, takes pot shots with weaker ships and fighters to lower stealth for the big guns then he will have an easier time of things so, yes, player tactics DO have a fair impact on stealth.

BUT

If your having a good dice day then against a stealth based fleet 9/10 times your going to win as you pass the stealth rolls and blow the fragile ships to bits, and if your having a bad dice day then 9/10 times your going to lose as you fail to scratch the elusive blue bonheaded gits

You can shift the threshold for HOW bad or good a dice day you need to be having to win or lose but it still feels a bit too much like the entire game hinges on whether your lucky or not with your stealth rolls, no amount of modifiers will change that as long as the priciple stealth mechanic of one dice roll or all your fire from that attack misses remains the same.

minbari ships are now generally more fragile. whilst alot of fleets gained firepower they gained fragileness and occasionally an increase in stealth.

Again, it's not a case of whether it's balanced or not, the stealth rule is still hugely flawed. As an extreme example if you fight a battle between 2 IDENTICLE Minbari fleets if one player has better dice luck on his stealth rolls he's going to win.

Now I'm not going to get dragged down in yet another 'Stealth sucks' argument as frankly this topic is so old now it should be in a museum. Don't get me wrong, I love ACTA and 2nd edition is a massive improvement but until someone at Mongoose realises that most peoples issues with the stealth rule is not that it's unfair but that its an annoying fun draining frustrating mechanic and that the solution is not just to add more and more ways of modifying the target number this topic is just going to keep coming back.

The only real solution I feel is to change the mechanic in some way that stealth, when it works reduces the effectiveness of the attackers fire, rather than entirely negate it. A perfect example is interceptors, which are in my eyes a really nice mechanic that both feel right and give a good 'Babylon Fivey' atmosphere to the game.

Many options have been suggested in the past, reduced weapon range, reduced attack dice, 6s needed to hit, increased hull values while stealth is working, stealth saves on a per hit basis, loss of weapon traits, theres no end of possible alternatives, but as it stands, tart it up however you like, add all the modifiers in the world it's STILL essentially the same mechanic from the original box of roll a die and see whether you win.

And that to me is a real shame

 

[Hannibal]

*de-lurking*

but as it stands, tart it up however you like, add all the modifiers in the world it's STILL essentially the same mechanic from the original box of roll a die and see whether you win.

This whole thread is very frustrating for someone looking to take the plunge into ACTA. We tried getting into 1st ed, but found some pretty un-fun aspects to it, with Stealth at the top of the list. We were told that "all would be well in 2nd ed" so we waited. And, hearing that the fun-killer rule #1 is still there, I'm probably going to pass.

What is most frustrating is how Matt Sprange has ignored the feedback of veteran players. Over and over, these people have said the same thing: the rule may be balanced, but it's not fun. How a company can ignore their customers like that just astounds me. I find it hard to believe that Mongoose couldn't come up with a more fun way to represent stealth.

Now Matt Sprange has said over and over that it's what was in the show. That whole arguement just makes me scratch my head. The Mongoose team took liberty after liberty with show aspects (for example, the White Star is clearly a boresight weapon) and even with the Gaim they basically said they made them all up.

Specifically stealth operating as this binary works/doesn't work thing also doesn't seem to follow the story. When the EA captains fires on the Gray Council, you hear a jr officer say "we can't get lock on" and yet he fires and the ship hits. Seems they failed their roll to me.

We used to play B5 Wars and the one (possibly only) thing they got right over ACTA was how stealth worked. It was a penalty if you couldn't punch through it.

I can't see why this wouldn't work here. We house ruled stealth to have die roll as now, but if the ship misses it had a huge penalty. We tried only hitting on 6s and rerolling hits (sort of an anti-accurate). We also had accurate trait not work if you failed. This ended up weakening the Minbari so we simply gave them an across the board Hull bump. (we borrowed from the B5W fluff that stated that the ships were actually pretty tough) It worked fine, and it gave the Minbari a feel other than 'space elves' with their "fast, but fragile long ranged ships."

It just boggles me how someone can blatantly ignore customer feedback, justifying it with some silly cherrypicking of the fluff. More than any particular rule, this just shows an arrogance on the part of the company. That's why I'm going to pass on picking up the game, not because of stealth, but because the company has shown it will ignore what its customers want. If Mongoose does that now, chances are they will do that again. Sorry, but I don't want to buy into a game system only to have half my fleet nerfed when they redo the fleet book or some such.

Games live and die based on whether your buddies will play. If one person wants to get into it, he convinces one other buddy to try it so they have someone to pay against. That starts a cascade effect. The opposite works as well: if one guy doesn't get into it, then the original guy won't and the company loses 5-6 potential players, plus the opportunity to get that game established in that area. Based on what I've seen in the development of 2nd ed, it was good of us to wait. I'm spending my money elsewhere and I suspect the others will as well.

 

[MongooseMatt]

More than any particular rule, this just shows an arrogance on the part of the company. That's why I'm going to pass on picking up the game, not because of stealth, but because the company has shown it will ignore what its customers want.

Anybody who has spent anytime on these forums will find that comment incredible. If we have any kind of reputation, it is because we _do_ listen to customers.

We did listen to veteran players on the Stealth issue, and we considered many different options. The one we have is what those veteran players finally agreed upon.

Also, you should consider that many of those crying foul over the Stealth rules in 2e have not played it. Most have not even _seen_ the rulebooks.

Try playing the 2e Stealth rules. They work.

 

[H]

personally, I still don't like the stealth mechanic, but then IF we want the Minbari like they were in the show, then we wouldn't even be rolling for stealth!! I'm a bad roller at the best of times, so for me stealth is a major pain in the ass!
so I don't really think their are many ways it could have been dealt with. I do like Burgers latest idea though, but it's a bit late to stick it in second ed ;-)

 

[Davesaint]

More than any particular rule, this just shows an arrogance on the part of the company. That's why I'm going to pass on picking up the game, not because of stealth, but because the company has shown it will ignore what its customers want.

Anybody who has spent anytime on these forums will find that comment incredible. If we have any kind of reputation, it is because we _do_ listen to customers.

We did listen to veteran players on the Stealth issue, and we considered many different options. The one we have is what those veteran players finally agreed upon.

Also, you should consider that many of those crying foul over the Stealth rules in 2e have not played it. Most have not even _seen_ the rulebooks.

Try playing the 2e Stealth rules. They work.

Matt,

I have played the 2e Stealth rules. Yes, they do work, but what a lot of players have be saying is not that they don't work, it's that they don't find the all or nothing aspect of stealth fun to play. I find it very common that the first word that comes out of an opponents mouth after I tell them I am playing Minbari is "Groan." That is usually followed by {/sarcasm on} This will be fun {sarcasm off}

We have found in our area that in tournament play, the person who brings the Minbari wins the tournament 9 times out of 10. I have defeated the Minbari in a tournament Once in 5 tournaments I have played in. The only reason I won was that I got an increadibly lucky critical on a Shantavi that left him speed 0 no SA. This allowed my 2 Hyperions to move at half speed and rear boresight CAF it. In the battle I fougt I missed 14 of my first 18 stealth checks and lost 2 hermes and 2 olympus without any significant damage on the return. The only thing that saves me was that the Minbari shot my hermes instead of my Hyperions. Was the battle fun? No. I won, which shows signs of balance, but it was very frustrating to fight. That is the inherent problem with stealth. The mechanic might work, but it's not all that fun to play against it.


Dave

 

[Jhary]

The problem is in the Show we seen actually only the ea ships fighting against the minbary so we don´t know if theyre stealth woud work against all other in the same way. maybe jms planned something like that a othe race coud use the stealth as homineg beaken for theire weapons.

 

[Da Boss]

The only other ones who fight the Minbari are the Shadows - who don't care about Minbari Stealth tech and chop them up nicely when there telepaths don't interfere and other Minbari.

On the other hand I don't think anyone else is shown using Stealth Ships either? Maybe Psi Corps?

 

[LaranosTZ]

I have to agree with Davesaint up there, and it's been something I've been saying since 1st ed with no revisions. Stealth may work, but it's not fun. I have played 1st ed, I've played 2nd ed...and the fundamental break with stealth is still there.

Matt, you have put a lot of effort into balancing a mechanic that very very few people like. It's not that the balance isn't there, it's not that it doesn't work, it's that people hate it so much that it doesn't matter that it works, no one wants to play with the rule one way or the other, if it were balanced or not.

Mongoose as a whole has been very responsive to customer input, this I have to admit. That's why it is so confusing to me why you have chosen to ignore this aspect for so long. Is this your blind spot Matt? Are you so in love with this aspect of the system that you're willing to ignore all the slings and arrows of outraged customers and say 'nope, we don't care, it's never going to change...suffer with it or get out,' because that is very much how it appears right now. As anyone can tell you, it doesn't matter how attentive you are to your customer's normally, if you basically tell them to screw off, or ignore them on one thing they think is vital, then all that customer good will doesn't mean squat, and you will lose your customer base.

In the place I game I don't even bother to bring out my minbari fleet, because no one will play me. It doesn't matter how much I try to convince them the mechanic is balanced, and all the things they can do to make it easier on themselves...all they see is 'well, it's one die roll that determines whether I win or lose, and I don't want to deal with that sh#t,' so I just gave up, and my minbari have been completely retired. I like them, I'd play them even without stealth, but if my opponent even thinks he has no chance, or is not going to have fun it's not worth the effort.

Obviously since this has been printed in the 2nd ed rulebook there's almost no chance that the stealth rule will change now, and that makes me sad, because this is probably the point that will kill ACTA where I play, not to mention destroy any possibility I have of pushing Mongoose games in the future.

 

[MustEatBrains]

Two words hannibal: screw you! Sorry, but what the hell were you going on about? Some people say stealth doesn´t work, some say it does (me included). Ok, so the guys who are unhappy with it are more vocal than those who are, so what? Rulebooks have been changed while being printed to accomodate feedback from this forum, if you find this with any other company or any other game, have fun playing that.

Ok, so there is one rule in ACTA that some people don´t like. Ok, maybe interceptors too, so there are two. Try to find only two rules you might not be happy about in another game. In any other game.

And then, please go back to what you said, and what all the playtesters wrote, and give it some more thought, ok? Please?

 

[Locutus9956]

Ok Hannibal: As one of the long standing anti-stealth mechanism people on this forum I'll say this much that if the stealth mechanic is the only thing you don't like in ACTA and thats the reason your not picking it up then that's rather shortsighted in my oppinion, ACTA is alot of fun and if you REALLY hate stealth that much then make up your own houserule or ban Minbari (ok so the latter is far from ideal as theyre one of the most iconic parts of B5 but I really do love this game still!).

As for ignoring feedback from veteran players, again I'd say that's rather harsh! Just because they didnt go with the oppinions of the players who happen to agree with you doesnt mean theyre just sticking they're fingers in their ears! Stealth is frankly always going to be one of those things thats very tricky to get right and theres just as many people who like the current rules as those who don't. My advice would be to track someone down who has a copy of the rules and actually TRY the game before you decide to boycott it based on some poeples oppinion of one rule!

And Matt: On this point I still can't help feeling that you're not really listening to what's actually being said and just coming back with knee jerk 'stealth works now' reactions. Yes you're right it does and I'm sure it's more balance than ever before (frankly I never found it unbalanced anyway except in SFoS when Minbari ships were just too tough with it).

As EVERYONE who's critisising the stealth rule is saying its not the balance or the effect it has on the game were critisising. Stealth fleets now I really feel DONT have an unfair advanatage and have a pretty much equal chance of winnign depending on player skill but the fact remains that the stealth rolls are still 'all or nothing' and thats just not as much fun as it could be if stealth was a partial effect like interceptors or GEGs or Shields and so on.

Again I'm not saying you, mongoose or the playtest group haven't listened because they clearly have and the game is much better for it but this one issue seems to keep being interpreted as 'we like the rule but its just too hard to roll that number you change the modifiers slightly it will be fine' The problem is the very core of the stealth mechanic and it needs changing from the ground up not tweaking imho. It's that one thing that's keeping ACTA from being all it could be!

As it stands it's still an awesome game and I really think anyone who refuses to play it/buy it because of one rule that one fleet uses is missing out. Now if you abosoultely have your heart set on playing Minbari and don't like stealth then that's fair enough but I'd still say its stupid to make that judgement based soley on reading the forums. TRY the game and judge for yourself!

 

[Dizzy Vree]

two frustrating rules, thats it, neither of those are game killers all you need is a bit of luck, just dont ever play a minbari player, and its an awsum game.....

 

[MustEatBrains]

two frustrating rules, thats it, neither of those are game killers all you need is a bit of luck, just dont ever play a minbari player, and its an awsum game.....

Oh come on, playing Minbari isn´t that bad, especially now that you do more damage/bring the ship closer to crippled than ever before everytime you manage to break stealth with the changes to both the stealth rules and the ships stats. :roll:

 

[Dizzy Vree]

i luv playin with or against minbari (sap guns+patrol level scouts=lots of fun) its just for people who hate the stealth mechanic,
although i dont "hate" the mechanic in our club we are lucky that we only have 1 minbari player, who has a tendencie to use veshtans and troligans, i dont complain or advise him otherwise 8)

 

[MustEatBrains]

Actually, the changes in 2nd ed will be "desastrous" for my games with Minbari; mainly because I try to squeeze in at least 1 Sharlin as early as I can - now it will be crippled faster than ever, but I will still use as many of them as I can just because they are Sharlins. Loved them in the show, love the miniature, so I´m sure to have fun with them no matter who wins.

But then, I can see where the frustration lies when fighting a more competitively selected Minbari fleet. But frankly, I´m not sure we´ll ever come to a solution satisfying everybody (or even the majority). At least you can improve your odds now (with the Minbari player trying to deny you those bonuses), so facing Minbari now is a pretty different gaming experience than any other fleet. But then, after all I´ve seen from the new fleet lists so far, now every different fleet should give you a unique experience, both while playing them as well as facing them. Of course, I might be wrong here, but that´s my impression so far.

 

[Right Hand of God]

Hanibal throwing his bat and ball away was not to do with stealth, but with Mongoose not listening to players opinions about stealth. Hanibal if that is your reason, you are off your trolly!

I have critisesed MGP many many times on these forums, I say that simply so that you know I am not one of those who constantly kow-tow or praise the company and will not hear that it can do wrong.

In all my years of war gaming, I have never seen a company that listens to its customers opinions on the products as much as Mongoose do. I don't agree with all of their practises, I don't like all of their miniatures, but to refuse to play because in your opinion they don't listen to the players is quite frankly childish. It is a rediculous reason to refuse to play the best space combat game on the market (I have said that last bit an awful lot lately but it's true).

This is a competitive business, you can't stay i it if you don't listen to what the customer wants. Unfortunately, what you don't see on the forums are those players who like the stealth rules speaking up in their defence as oopposed to those that dislike them.

Now I don't really care what happens to stealth, as long as there is a corresponding change to the ship stats to make up for any change. The way it looks at the moment is that Minbari ships become crippled if you sneeze on them, you don't have to pass nearly so many stealth rolls to inflict significant damage on your opponent.

Maybe you should find a game more suited to your needs Hanibal. Try GW they are well known for how much influenence their customer base has on the product

 

[Triggy]

Ok Hannibal: As one of the long standing anti-stealth mechanism people on this forum I'll say this much that if the stealth mechanic is the only thing you don't like in ACTA and thats the reason your not picking it up then that's rather shortsighted in my oppinion, ACTA is alot of fun and if you REALLY hate stealth that much then make up your own houserule or ban Minbari (ok so the latter is far from ideal as theyre one of the most iconic parts of B5 but I really do love this game still!).

As for ignoring feedback from veteran players, again I'd say that's rather harsh! Just because they didnt go with the oppinions of the players who happen to agree with you doesnt mean theyre just sticking they're fingers in their ears! Stealth is frankly always going to be one of those things thats very tricky to get right and theres just as many people who like the current rules as those who don't. My advice would be to track someone down who has a copy of the rules and actually TRY the game before you decide to boycott it based on some poeples oppinion of one rule!

And Matt: On this point I still can't help feeling that you're not really listening to what's actually being said and just coming back with knee jerk 'stealth works now' reactions. Yes you're right it does and I'm sure it's more balance than ever before (frankly I never found it unbalanced anyway except in SFoS when Minbari ships were just too tough with it).

As EVERYONE who's critisising the stealth rule is saying its not the balance or the effect it has on the game were critisising. Stealth fleets now I really feel DONT have an unfair advanatage and have a pretty much equal chance of winnign depending on player skill but the fact remains that the stealth rolls are still 'all or nothing' and thats just not as much fun as it could be if stealth was a partial effect like interceptors or GEGs or Shields and so on.

Again I'm not saying you, mongoose or the playtest group haven't listened because they clearly have and the game is much better for it but this one issue seems to keep being interpreted as 'we like the rule but its just too hard to roll that number you change the modifiers slightly it will be fine' The problem is the very core of the stealth mechanic and it needs changing from the ground up not tweaking imho. It's that one thing that's keeping ACTA from being all it could be!

As it stands it's still an awesome game and I really think anyone who refuses to play it/buy it because of one rule that one fleet uses is missing out. Now if you abosoultely have your heart set on playing Minbari and don't like stealth then that's fair enough but I'd still say its stupid to make that judgement based soley on reading the forums. TRY the game and judge for yourself!

Very well said - I think this echoes what a lot of people are thinking!

To slightly defend Stealth in 2nd ed. - several other mechanisms were tried and most either ended up having little effect on the game (range modifiers with failed rolls) or ended up as bland, generic rules that felt like others (such as rolling for Stealth for every weapon system separately just felt like Dodge rolls/armour saves). One of the tactics that was developed after we had the "target the already targetted ship" rule introduced was splitting fire from a multi-AD weapon over most of an enemy fleet and targetting any ships successfully hit. This sort of spread fire then narrow down on a "visible" target felt quite fun. I admit that a string of passed/failed Stealth rolls was no fun for either player, the way we've ended up trying to counter this is to increase the number of rolls you make rather than change the odds too much. It's a flawed mechanic but one of the better ways we found for dealing with it.

 

[Locutus9956]

Just to pipe in with the range modifier thing briefly, when I suggested it ages ago the idea for that was basically like B5Wars Jammers, in that you dont roll at all. The range modifier is ALWAYS in effect (of course this isnt a rule you can easily inotroduce without completely redoing the minbari but maybe something to consider if/when 3rd ed appears (The one thing I do agree with Hannibal on is that AoG did nail the minbari stealth mechanic pretty much spot on )

And yep, that idea had occured to me about the splitting fire and then nailing any unfortunate victims Triggy

Just to add one more thing for the nay sayers: whilst its not the redesign I'd hoped for, 2nd ed stealth IS an improvement still in that you really can impact it heavily depending how you play its just the mechanic itself I'm still not overly fond of. But I WILL happily play my Minbari again now which should say something at least!

Oh and for whoever suggested BSG holofields a while back, for them to work properly you need a gunnery table as per BSG and ACTA doesnt use that (which is neither here nor there, personally I quite liked the gunnery table but its designed for BSG's very simple weapons systems which dont have a great deal of variety)

 

[Da Boss]

Probably right re holofields - i was just responding to the quesion "is there any other ideas and used that a start point:

Ie for most weapons firing at Stealth ship within 8" use half AD, witin 20" use 1/4 AD, over 20" 1/8 AD (always minumum of 1AD?) this represents batteries etc of guns fiing into an area.

For Beams, Torpedos, Missiles roll D6 1 (1-2 inside 8") hit as normal, 2-6 missed. For Beams only roll for stealth against initial hits, once stealth has been penetrated roll normally.

re the idea of quitting the game - most folish IMHO as 2nd Ed is great

 

[katadder]

an alternative method I came up with was you cannot even target them above certain ranges, but get within that range and you can see them, getting a bonus for scouts.

so a stealth 6 ship cannot be seen past 10", stealth 5 at 15"+ and so on. this then becomes more tactical as the minbari try to stay at range and the opposing fleet trys to close.

 

[LaranosTZ]

Ahem....you came up with Kat? *snicker*