Latest Errata File
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Da Boss said:
The changes seem reasonable to me. The D5 and D5W are great ships, still easily worth their new point values. Also, the Romulans can probably use the help. They arn't that strong to begin with and as people develop more and more anti-Romulan tactics things will only become harder for them.
Keeper Nilbog
Mongoose
so want about the poor Gorn and our vanishing phasers - yes we can turn, but some of our ships appear to have holes where weapons used to be
It's possible that all the fleets 'may' need a review of things like Turn due to the disappearance of lumbering. Campaign to change things - Part II - starts here
Make all DN's bar C8 based models Turn 8
Fix the Forward Phaser 1 bank on the C8 (i don't want to lose 10 phaser 1 just to shot down 4 drones)
and my favourite (and one that won't happen) - remove devastating from the Photon Torpedo - it's good enough as it is without that ability. Some one did suggest it could be part of overload, not sure. The ability to 4pt leak is very good, and at over half range, though you'll only hit with 1 in 3 (33.3333% chance), you've a 50% chance of leak (as you hit on a 5 or 6). I know it has reload, but it's got all the goodies, bar accurate for little drawback
It's possible that all the fleets 'may' need a review of things like Turn due to the disappearance of lumbering. Campaign to change things - Part II - starts here
Make all DN's bar C8 based models Turn 8
Fix the Forward Phaser 1 bank on the C8 (i don't want to lose 10 phaser 1 just to shot down 4 drones)
and my favourite (and one that won't happen) - remove devastating from the Photon Torpedo - it's good enough as it is without that ability. Some one did suggest it could be part of overload, not sure. The ability to 4pt leak is very good, and at over half range, though you'll only hit with 1 in 3 (33.3333% chance), you've a 50% chance of leak (as you hit on a 5 or 6). I know it has reload, but it's got all the goodies, bar accurate for little drawback
I can't really say much about the gorn, I've only played 4 or 5 games involving them, as opposed to around 50 games with the Federation, Romulans, and Klingons.
I like that they took out lumbering, most of the things that had it didn't warrant it and I don't think the pointing on most of the lumbering ships accounted for it enough.
I agree that the phaser-1 layout on the C8 is silly and should be changed, might I recommend:
2 F,P,S
4 F,P
4 F,S
I think that is what the special rule is getting at, though it might be
6 F,P,S
4 F
as its unclear if it can fire 5 phasers port and 5 starboard or not. Why is this special rule even here? It just adds needless complication.
Removing devastating from photon torpedoes would make them pretty useless. At that point they would have less average damage then a disruptor, be shorter range, require a reload and have little in the way of advantages. 4 non-devastating hits through the shields isn't pleasant, but your ship still probably isn't going to be destroyed unless its shields go down (unless its a klingon ship and you are shooting forward shields) and at that point you might as well be doing shield damage.
I won't comment on the point values changes one way or another because my gaming group uses our own point system based on a fairly complicated excel spreadsheet, so if a Gorn ship loses 2 phasers, we type it in and it spits out a new point value.
I like that they took out lumbering, most of the things that had it didn't warrant it and I don't think the pointing on most of the lumbering ships accounted for it enough.
I agree that the phaser-1 layout on the C8 is silly and should be changed, might I recommend:
2 F,P,S
4 F,P
4 F,S
I think that is what the special rule is getting at, though it might be
6 F,P,S
4 F
as its unclear if it can fire 5 phasers port and 5 starboard or not. Why is this special rule even here? It just adds needless complication.
Removing devastating from photon torpedoes would make them pretty useless. At that point they would have less average damage then a disruptor, be shorter range, require a reload and have little in the way of advantages. 4 non-devastating hits through the shields isn't pleasant, but your ship still probably isn't going to be destroyed unless its shields go down (unless its a klingon ship and you are shooting forward shields) and at that point you might as well be doing shield damage.
I won't comment on the point values changes one way or another because my gaming group uses our own point system based on a fairly complicated excel spreadsheet, so if a Gorn ship loses 2 phasers, we type it in and it spits out a new point value.
Based on the FC Ship Card, I'd agree with gord314's first option; it seems the C8's phaser suite should be broken into three lines, with 2 AD in the F, P, S arcs, and 4 AD each in the F, P and F, S arcs respectively.
(Actually, now that I notoce it, the 4 AD for the aft phaser-3s, currently in the A arc only, should probably be split into 2 AD each in the A, P and A, S arcs, too.)
For the sake of comparison, the Ship Card for the K9R is here; its Phaser-1s should have:
2 AD F, P, S
3 AD F, P
3 AD F, S
2 AD A, P
2 AD A, S
If it doesn't have it that way as it stands.
(If it does, then forget I said anything.)
(Actually, now that I notoce it, the 4 AD for the aft phaser-3s, currently in the A arc only, should probably be split into 2 AD each in the A, P and A, S arcs, too.)
For the sake of comparison, the Ship Card for the K9R is here; its Phaser-1s should have:
2 AD F, P, S
3 AD F, P
3 AD F, S
2 AD A, P
2 AD A, S
If it doesn't have it that way as it stands.
(If it does, then forget I said anything.)
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
Nerroth said:
I agree with these phaser layouts. The K9R having 12 phasers that fire straight forward is too good.
The 10 phasers as one system on the C8 has its pros and cons but is in general an anomaly in the rules. Why is this one ship different - lots of other ships have lots of phasers with similar arcs but they are not lumped together.
-Tim
Greg Smith
Mongoose
The vast reduction in the damage capacity of the civilian ships has played merry heck with their points comparable to one another.
I may be wrong but I don't see many drones hitting outside 18" with the max 3 ship fire rule. Assuming you shoot down drones after you see if they hit.
Roughly by odds:
3 ships with 6 drones each shoot. hitting on 5+ (no TEA taken) and 6+ (with TEA taken)
- 6 drones Hit or 3 Drones hit
Roll evasions for TEA and you dodge 1 or 2 on opposed checks so 6/1 or 2 left
- Any form of Anti-drone or combined drone racks (on an 83% non-loss) and it drops to 3 or 4/0
- Fire all Phaser 1, 2 and/or 3 because you're outside 18" (so you get 83%, 66%, 66%) Assume 2 or 3 hits. (You're down to 0, 1 or 2)
- Tractors and maybe 1 drone gets through out of 18.
As I was told that means you have a 5% hit rate with 18 drones seems really low for a "seeking" weapon. I wonder if this would then drop their design point value through the floor as they are no longer a long range weapon, but a short range nuisance?
This would also mean anyone with fewer drones (1-3) would find them significantly less advantageous as a means of attack?
(The better intent could just be to reduce their range to 24 and drop the roll to hit if you're just aiming to drop the effectiveness of drones and not affect plasmas)
Roughly by odds:
3 ships with 6 drones each shoot. hitting on 5+ (no TEA taken) and 6+ (with TEA taken)
- 6 drones Hit or 3 Drones hit
Roll evasions for TEA and you dodge 1 or 2 on opposed checks so 6/1 or 2 left
- Any form of Anti-drone or combined drone racks (on an 83% non-loss) and it drops to 3 or 4/0
- Fire all Phaser 1, 2 and/or 3 because you're outside 18" (so you get 83%, 66%, 66%) Assume 2 or 3 hits. (You're down to 0, 1 or 2)
- Tractors and maybe 1 drone gets through out of 18.
As I was told that means you have a 5% hit rate with 18 drones seems really low for a "seeking" weapon. I wonder if this would then drop their design point value through the floor as they are no longer a long range weapon, but a short range nuisance?
This would also mean anyone with fewer drones (1-3) would find them significantly less advantageous as a means of attack?
(The better intent could just be to reduce their range to 24 and drop the roll to hit if you're just aiming to drop the effectiveness of drones and not affect plasmas)
Greg Smith said:
30 points for a ship with 212 damage that could tractor and drag any warship in the game with an unbreakable lock was insane though.
Civilian ships should be used as scenario objectives, rather than initiative sinks and damage sponges. I'd use a house rule that civilian ship initiative is handled separately and they all move first, before warships.
The only change to the civilian section I disagree with is not giving battlestations armour.
I'd have added an ability for boarding parties to capture civilian ships as well.
The whole issue was rooted in cargo+damage x 2 equals damage score, which is why the small freighter, which is smaller than some frigates, had a higher damage score than every dreadnought except the Federation class and C8.
I've made my feelings clear on how things could have been done differently, so I'm not going to go into that again.
Da Boss said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the D7...
Keeper Nilbog said:
The C8's phasers will not be changing.
gord314 said:
Agreed. Photons won't be changing.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Ben2 said:
I quite agree. But that has been fixed and is no longer an issue.
Civilian ships are not allowed in standard scenarios. So they are scenario-specific choices. And it looks like there will be several of those in Battleships.
Take a look at the Armed Cutter. At 30 points it is massively better armed than any other civilian ship. It is pretty much the only decent civilian choice. Others were formerly good choices because they were massive damage soaks. Previously it was hampered by low damage (very low compared to other civilian ships). Now it has only two points less than the comparable Prime Trade which has less weapons and is 10 points more.
Greg Smith said:
It should be noted that the current range of Civilian ships were included in the 'first wave' more out of completeness than anything else (and because they made sense for a few of ADB's squadron sets). In short, if you want to do something with civvies or bases, the stats are there for you.
In terms of core game design, we are not really touching civvies until either Battle Groups or the supplement after that. Then you can look forward to convoys, base assaults, and lots of other not-always-military goodness!
msprange said:
The D7 suffered by comparison to the D5 but I don't feel the D5 was undercosted hence dropping the D7 slightly (as it was in earlier errata) to make it more attractive choice?
To be fair there was nothing with a number of the Romulan ships that got free phaser upgrades to make them more SFU but no points change. Conversely the Gorns loosing phasers and no reduction?
The C8 (correctly) pays for its Command upgrade but the Fed Dreadnought does not for loosing Lumbering - I think the two primary Dreadnoughts are now farily even in capabilities and should go back to having similar points costs - ie reset the C8 to its old points cost - especially with hit the cruisers taking the hit re points.
