Is stealth too powerful?
- Thread starter zulu01
- Start date
Always a fun thread to visit.
Just note on the idea that Minbari gained fragileness.
While it is true that you need to pass fewer rolls to defeat a Minbari, this just makes it even more of a 'did I pass...I did...weeee....I win' type effect. I don't want to roll a die and find out if won. Simple...
The general tendency of the game now to be I shot/I destroy is disappoiting. It is fairly B5ish, so I won't complain too much, but I prefer to play a game where a ship has to get hit a few times over a number of turns to die. The increase in range of moderate weapons for some races (Vree and Centauri being big here) have made it very easy for whole fleets to fire on one or two ships with every AD they have. Not much survives that.
Sadly, we rarely see that kind of thing in movies and shows...ie all of fleet fireing at only one ship. But gaming wise it is almost always to way to go.
Ripple
Just note on the idea that Minbari gained fragileness.
While it is true that you need to pass fewer rolls to defeat a Minbari, this just makes it even more of a 'did I pass...I did...weeee....I win' type effect. I don't want to roll a die and find out if won. Simple...
The general tendency of the game now to be I shot/I destroy is disappoiting. It is fairly B5ish, so I won't complain too much, but I prefer to play a game where a ship has to get hit a few times over a number of turns to die. The increase in range of moderate weapons for some races (Vree and Centauri being big here) have made it very easy for whole fleets to fire on one or two ships with every AD they have. Not much survives that.
Sadly, we rarely see that kind of thing in movies and shows...ie all of fleet fireing at only one ship. But gaming wise it is almost always to way to go.
Ripple
Locutus9956
Mongoose
katadder said:
This is more or less what I was going for with the 'AoG stealth' idea originally, basically stealth makes the target count as being at twice the range when you come to shoot at it, so a 30" range weapon needs to get to 15" to hit a stealth ship acurately and a range 12" battery has to get withing 6" to target it.
If that sounds a tad extreme you could make it so that beyond that range but within the weapons ACTUAL firing range you require 6s to hit (regardless of traits)? The basic thing I've always wanted was to completely take the dice roll out of the stealth rule so its a flat penalty that will always apply. Stealth with dice just seems a bit random to me, rather than a proper defence system, an active defence system like interceptors or doging I can understand but a passive defence like stealth technology and shields shoulnt be left to the randomness of dice, either your sensors are good enough to detect a ship at that range or your not. Period.
Locutus9956 said:
Just a quick note here, but the Minbari version of Stealth at least is not passive.
I have no problem with the stealth stuff and the new rules make it better. the way I see it become better at tactics or don't complain. theres plenty of modifiers and things to bring it down and there ships are fragile. So its roll make it you hit dont and you miss. crap happens life gose on and so dose the game getting bitter over one rule is silly. And I think white star carrier with dodge is silly. and fighting white stars with a 3 plus dodge is annoying. If they wanted I suppose you could make it like a armour save for the minbari and they get negatives to there saveing throw from scouts and scanners and closeness and what not. But I think the rule is just fine. 
Locutus9956
Mongoose
msprange said:
Not what I meant Matt, I wasnt commenting on the nature of the stealth technology but more on the fact that the stealth mechanic is effectively passive in that it makes it harder for you lock on rather than actively intercepting individual incoming shots
Stealth is the #1 problem we have with the system, but it is not the only one. We dislike the fact that the game requires initiative sinks and in general favors hordes of smaller ships over the iconic large ships out of the series. All things that seem not to have been improved with the current edition.
What really puts it over the top is the response to the whole sleath thing. The conversation goes like this:
The problem is that responding to feedback does not equal listening it. It's very clear that Mr. Sprange is missing the point: stealth is not unbalanced. It's just not fun. He refuses to hear that, and that's why I'm saying he's ignoring folks. Responding to people with "you're wrong" is not listening.
Hannibal said:
Take a look at the title of this thread. What do we think I was responding to?
Hannibal said:
believe me feedback is listened to, and alot of changes come from stuff on forums. but then things cannot be changed to fit the way every forum member likes.
as you said stealth works, just not fun in your opinion. so it works, good.
am sure there are lots of other people feel they are not listened to, but at the end of the day there has to be a final voice. amongst playtesters not every playtester agrees on every single thing, but the game has to go forward so a majority or the deciding vote is what goes with as long as it works and isnt broken.
Boy lol this is funny so basically hannibal is saying stealth works but is not fun. Guess what earth did not find stealth fun when they got the crap kicked out of them. so it should be in the game. they made it a lot easier to brake stealth. And this is a tactical wargame not some baby game like mage knight or hero clicks or gay stuff like that. this game requires you to think and use tactics. The game is fun and no matter which race you play against it can be always fun. and besides who says you have to win to have fun. I take moral victorys over winning a game any day. when i play ISA as long as i kill the victory I won the game. so games are always fun. If i can get that one tactic off and jack his plans up im haveing fun. To many people from this thread worry about the little stuff and let the little stuff take the fun away. stop complaining and play the game and banning stealth or minbari is so childish its not even funny.
I fail to see where one rule makes the entire game bad. You think people in warhammer 40k like that necrons have a 50/50 chance to get back up no they don't but it dose not ruin the game. it dose not make the game unplayable. so neither dose the stealth. there ships are to flemsy to take the hits other races cans and they rely on the stealth. sure there could be other ways to do stealth like make it a armour save that the minbari player has to roll and you could add negatives to that roll by scouts locking on closer range ect. but it dose not brake the game or make it unplayable so saying otherwise is silly.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Drahzar, Im sure you mean well but your really not helping here. Frankly the last two posts come across as rather childish.
For starters saying 'it wasnt fun in the show so it shouldnt be fun in the game' is frankly the most idiotic thing I have read on this forum to date.
And yes this is a tactical wargame which is precicely why a rule that makes the game extremely dependant on luck is not in my oppinion the best way to implement that rule. And when I say dependant on luck I'm not talking about the luck that is inherent to all wargames with to hit rolls etc, I mean that the stealth rolls are so few in and so pivotal (if you make your roll then most of the time the minbari are screwed and if you fail then you lose). Now the number of modifiers available in the game are certainly an improvement over the original version of the rule in that your actions in the game DO influence your chances of breaking stealth but when alls said and done it still comes down to rolling that single dice and seing whether you hit or miss completely.
Now one rule does NOT make the game bad, but Hannibal's later posts are actually more sense, as he goes on to list a number of factors he doesnt like about the game (namely the lean towards many smaller ships over few big ones, the initiative sinking in adition to stealth, factors which by all reconning certainly seem to be the same in 2nd ed).
Now personally I dont agree with this nescessarily and frankly most wargames tend to favour 'spreading your points about' rather than putting all your eggs in one basket. Initiative however is handled better in battletech for one other example, whereby the initiative system is staggered so swarms dont get any particular advantage (from iniitiative anyway).
And for the record thats BATTLETECH not MechWarrior before you make some childish quip about 'gay clicks'. I don't like those games personally either but people can play whatever they like and if theres one thing I cant stand its gamers who kid themselves into thinking that THEIR games are somehow more mature and clever than such and such other system, lets not delude ourselves, we're all really just folks who never quite grew out of playing with toy soldiers
I don't mean to be harsh but responding to Hanibal like you did is just going to start another petty flamewar and frankly I'm sick of them. Theyre pointless and dont ever solve anything and to be quite honest are probably pushing Matt and mongoose to ignore the issue more than anything!
For starters saying 'it wasnt fun in the show so it shouldnt be fun in the game' is frankly the most idiotic thing I have read on this forum to date.
And yes this is a tactical wargame which is precicely why a rule that makes the game extremely dependant on luck is not in my oppinion the best way to implement that rule. And when I say dependant on luck I'm not talking about the luck that is inherent to all wargames with to hit rolls etc, I mean that the stealth rolls are so few in and so pivotal (if you make your roll then most of the time the minbari are screwed and if you fail then you lose). Now the number of modifiers available in the game are certainly an improvement over the original version of the rule in that your actions in the game DO influence your chances of breaking stealth but when alls said and done it still comes down to rolling that single dice and seing whether you hit or miss completely.
Now one rule does NOT make the game bad, but Hannibal's later posts are actually more sense, as he goes on to list a number of factors he doesnt like about the game (namely the lean towards many smaller ships over few big ones, the initiative sinking in adition to stealth, factors which by all reconning certainly seem to be the same in 2nd ed).
Now personally I dont agree with this nescessarily and frankly most wargames tend to favour 'spreading your points about' rather than putting all your eggs in one basket. Initiative however is handled better in battletech for one other example, whereby the initiative system is staggered so swarms dont get any particular advantage (from iniitiative anyway).
And for the record thats BATTLETECH not MechWarrior before you make some childish quip about 'gay clicks'. I don't like those games personally either but people can play whatever they like and if theres one thing I cant stand its gamers who kid themselves into thinking that THEIR games are somehow more mature and clever than such and such other system, lets not delude ourselves, we're all really just folks who never quite grew out of playing with toy soldiers
I don't mean to be harsh but responding to Hanibal like you did is just going to start another petty flamewar and frankly I'm sick of them. Theyre pointless and dont ever solve anything and to be quite honest are probably pushing Matt and mongoose to ignore the issue more than anything!
No where in my thread did I say anything about battletech. I like battletech its a good game nor did i mention mechwarrior. And Im not saying any other game is better than another. I was stateing I did not like them and that this game requires more of a tactical edge than is required by the other games. I don't like the Lord of the rings game as its all relient on heros and if you play with out heros its who ever rolls higher wins. if people like them games thats fine and good but tacticaly they require less thinking. and I have played them befoe so im not saying things I don't know about the game. true it can be a pivital moment in destroyeing a ship or criting it. but that happens in war as well as can happen in many games it can come done to one lucky or unlucky roll or bullet. it happens I had a 40k game and it came to on one round of a unlucky dice roll and I lost the game because of it. it happens I don't get mad I go good game and lets play again. things like it don't bother me and its only in certain instances in this game that it happens and more so depending on the race. in the lord of the rings game its everything but any who.
Locutus9956 said:And for the record thats BATTLETECH not MechWarrior before you make some childish quip about 'gay clicks'. I don't like those games personally either but people can play whatever they like and if theres one thing I cant stand its gamers who kid themselves into thinking that THEIR games are somehow more mature and clever than such and such other system, lets not delude ourselves, we're all really just folks who never quite grew out of playing with toy soldiers
Well said - I found that quite irritating and you have kindly expressed my opinion extremely well. Heroscape and other games can be extremely tactical.
Have fun!
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Anyway lets just let this rest shall we folks, I dont think Hanibal is going to be converted to ACTA no matter what anyone says and Im not going to really like the stealth rule unless its converted to some less dice dependant system (but that sure as hell doesnt mean Im going to stop playing ACTA ).
Not everyone likes the same games and trying to suggest ACTA is somehow 'more tactical' than for example 'Lord of the Rings' is just a matter of opinion. And the lord of the rings systems as you note is fairly centered around heroes and has no pretentions that it isnt, but if you think its just down to dice without heroes then I think you should probably dig into it a bit deeper.
It DOES tend to come down to luck if you play bigger games but then it is to me basically a skirmish system that isnt really designed for big battles. The main point though is that frankly I consider a game of Lord of the Rings without any heroes to still be more tacical than most games I've played involving Minbari in ACTA.
But I'm ranting again after saying 'lets drop it' myself so I'll leave it there, Stealth is always going to be a prickly issue that is going to be virtually impossible to get right to everyones liking, I would hope theres still plenty of room for constructive debate and new possibile ways to implement it but this thread has just degenerated into a slagging off match so I think it's best left alone for a while until people have cooled off a bit
I would just add (yes I know, ranting again) that one thing myself (and I daresay a lot of people) find incredibly irritating and short sighting is people thinking that 'tactical' is somehow synonomous with 'complicated' and that because games like Heroscape and Pirates and so on are simple and have very few basic rules that they are somehow less tactical than a game that requires you to work out damage for complicated weapon systems and write stuff down and measure distances and so on.
Think about Chess for a second, whether you like chess or not is irrelevant to this point, but if you think chess isnt tactical, then frankly, your off your nut. And you could write the rules to chess on half a sheet of A4 when you get right down to it (ok you could also publish a fairly sizeable encyclopedia about all the tiny little bylaws and strategies etc but the basica rules, of how the pieces move and take each other and how you win are very very simple)
Ok now I'm really gonna drop this
).Not everyone likes the same games and trying to suggest ACTA is somehow 'more tactical' than for example 'Lord of the Rings' is just a matter of opinion. And the lord of the rings systems as you note is fairly centered around heroes and has no pretentions that it isnt, but if you think its just down to dice without heroes then I think you should probably dig into it a bit deeper.
It DOES tend to come down to luck if you play bigger games but then it is to me basically a skirmish system that isnt really designed for big battles. The main point though is that frankly I consider a game of Lord of the Rings without any heroes to still be more tacical than most games I've played involving Minbari in ACTA.
But I'm ranting again after saying 'lets drop it' myself so I'll leave it there, Stealth is always going to be a prickly issue that is going to be virtually impossible to get right to everyones liking, I would hope theres still plenty of room for constructive debate and new possibile ways to implement it but this thread has just degenerated into a slagging off match so I think it's best left alone for a while until people have cooled off a bit
I would just add (yes I know, ranting again
) that one thing myself (and I daresay a lot of people) find incredibly irritating and short sighting is people thinking that 'tactical' is somehow synonomous with 'complicated' and that because games like Heroscape and Pirates and so on are simple and have very few basic rules that they are somehow less tactical than a game that requires you to work out damage for complicated weapon systems and write stuff down and measure distances and so on. Think about Chess for a second, whether you like chess or not is irrelevant to this point, but if you think chess isnt tactical, then frankly, your off your nut. And you could write the rules to chess on half a sheet of A4 when you get right down to it (ok you could also publish a fairly sizeable encyclopedia about all the tiny little bylaws and strategies etc but the basica rules, of how the pieces move and take each other and how you win are very very simple)
Ok now I'm really gonna drop this
