nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
Sure, lets ignore weapon and speed loses whilst we're at it.
Loosing traits
- Thread starter Galatea
- Start date
EDFDarkAngel1
Mongoose
And weapons no longer do hull damage. Crew loss is halved.
Dark Angel
Dark Angel
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
And it's silly compared to your comment why? You can just as easily say that speed loss is inherently biased against races with slow speeds. AD loss is inherently biased against races which use weapons with low ADs and lots of traits. Arc loss is inherently biased against against races which only tend to use one or two arcs.Burger said:
So, why ignore one type of loss and not the other?
EDFDarkAngel1
Mongoose
I believe Mongoose specifically states that they intended for certain ships to only have one or two arcs for their weapons.
Dark Angel
Dark Angel
dag'karlove
Mongoose
Heres my thing on losing traits. If the rules say you can lose a trait thne you can lose that trait. Period end of discussion. If you and your gaming club make a house rule that you cant lose certain traits great but when it comes tournament time its the rules. I can think of any number of reasons as to why you can lose adaptive armor, fleet carrier, and all he other with the exception of lumbering. its a would could shoulda. They play tested the game found the balance and by suffering hits you loose things that make you good. Its not a hard thing to understand. I say its people whining that they dont like teh rules the way they are written. If you dont like them sign up to play test or write mongoose and say there rule is BS. We have discussions all teh time as to what rules we should change but we still play by the all holy rule book.
Omnipotent
Mongoose
played a few games last evening/night and they were perfect examples of this discussion =)
First I played as Dilgar against EA third age, 5 point skirmish, I had a hunch there was going to be an avenger on the table and picked the Garasoch. I was right.
Anyhow, EA tryied to swarm me, but I managed to fend him away with my Darts, I also managed to kill of one of his hermes and things started to look really bad for EA, I got better dogfighters, cause he used thunderbolts(a few less but still), and I only got a few damage done on me.
Then he got a through with a single shoot from his 3 remaining hermes, it hit my garasoch, critical, destroyed my hangars and suddenly it started to look a bit darker for me...We didn´t play that game til the end cause we started a multiplayer game, but as said one hit turned the tie.
In the multiplayer game we had 2 EA, third and crusade against the allien scum, Vree and Dilgar. I played Dilgar of course =)
5 point skirmish for each player, The Vree player took a Xill...as u already may have guessed they hit a single hit with a Hermes AGAIN, and it hitted a crit again, disabled a fire arc, BANG, the Xill was useless...We still won the fight, cause we destroyed 5 hermes on the first two rounds, which gave us the upper hand in movement.
Anyhow, the games would defiently not have been as fun and intense if those crits wouldn´t have happened. I say play by the rules, it is as said, also not that big a chance to get a really bad crit effect
First I played as Dilgar against EA third age, 5 point skirmish, I had a hunch there was going to be an avenger on the table and picked the Garasoch. I was right.
Anyhow, EA tryied to swarm me, but I managed to fend him away with my Darts, I also managed to kill of one of his hermes and things started to look really bad for EA, I got better dogfighters, cause he used thunderbolts(a few less but still), and I only got a few damage done on me.
Then he got a through with a single shoot from his 3 remaining hermes, it hit my garasoch, critical, destroyed my hangars and suddenly it started to look a bit darker for me...We didn´t play that game til the end cause we started a multiplayer game, but as said one hit turned the tie.
In the multiplayer game we had 2 EA, third and crusade against the allien scum, Vree and Dilgar. I played Dilgar of course =)
5 point skirmish for each player, The Vree player took a Xill...as u already may have guessed they hit a single hit with a Hermes AGAIN, and it hitted a crit again, disabled a fire arc, BANG, the Xill was useless...We still won the fight, cause we destroyed 5 hermes on the first two rounds, which gave us the upper hand in movement.
Anyhow, the games would defiently not have been as fun and intense if those crits wouldn´t have happened. I say play by the rules, it is as said, also not that big a chance to get a really bad crit effect
dag'karlove - it's a bit harsh but I understand your sentiment. Tournaments and pickup games with strangers will always default to the rules as written but in a gaming group, if people agree on house rules and like them then that's great! Anything to improve a person's/group's gaming experience is a good thing to me 
Omnipotent
Mongoose
Sure, we don´t use the "I win initiative, I win the game rule" either, meaning we deploy our ships one at a time =)
Dag'karlove
No offense to the playtesters... but we've seen a number of discussions come up where we learn the playtesters were testing with different interpretations of a rule. See Triggy's use of crewed missiles vs one of the others, base vs stem contact. Not sure it is still true, but Wulf used to playtest with all different scales of ships (20 mm square bases, which makes range 8 effectively much longer in furballs), and didn't bother lining up warbirds (they could be side to side on square bases but still boresight the same ship... mathmatically impossible and but it worked for his group).
Rules like the Early EA being able to swap out for Aurora's came as a surprise to Triggy. Our group was asked to review the rules before release and had a bore sighted laser on the whitestar. We thought it was perfect and stamped approved on it. Later it retained the extra laser die but got a full arc and we've since retired the whitestar from play as it is overpowered now.
The holy book is just like every other holy book, written by men... and just as fallible as the men who wrote it. Even tourney play can change the rules as long as everyone knows before they pick their fleet what the changes are. You don't like that folks change the rules.... don't play with folks... seems just as good a statement as yours.
Ripple
No offense to the playtesters... but we've seen a number of discussions come up where we learn the playtesters were testing with different interpretations of a rule. See Triggy's use of crewed missiles vs one of the others, base vs stem contact. Not sure it is still true, but Wulf used to playtest with all different scales of ships (20 mm square bases, which makes range 8 effectively much longer in furballs), and didn't bother lining up warbirds (they could be side to side on square bases but still boresight the same ship... mathmatically impossible and but it worked for his group).
Rules like the Early EA being able to swap out for Aurora's came as a surprise to Triggy. Our group was asked to review the rules before release and had a bore sighted laser on the whitestar. We thought it was perfect and stamped approved on it. Later it retained the extra laser die but got a full arc and we've since retired the whitestar from play as it is overpowered now.
The holy book is just like every other holy book, written by men... and just as fallible as the men who wrote it. Even tourney play can change the rules as long as everyone knows before they pick their fleet what the changes are. You don't like that folks change the rules.... don't play with folks... seems just as good a statement as yours.
Ripple
dag'karlove
Mongoose
I have no probems with people changing rules. What I do have problesm with is People having to change every rule in the book beause ohh this is broken or ohh that is broken. The game works very well in its Current form and then they constantly whine. If you want we can go over rule by rule as to why its there and why this trait can be changed and why this ship shouldnt be able to do this. I Have several cannon instances where certain ships should be able to do this or that. If i go and play someplace where this guys rule is this and this guys rule is that ill play by them. However te most Holy rule book is that Te rule book. Abide by it till they change itt. Its Just Liek The law. We have to abide by them becase they are teh law. We cant Ignre teh ones we dont like there are consequences. There is too much complaining about making things equal. Well Guess what as much as we all like equality were not all equal. Thats not the way it really works Other races are designed to be more challenging to play than others. . Yes the ISa Is a tough fleet to beat. They were designed that way. Yes Teh drazi take some thought to play They were designed thsi way. It seems everyone wants to put everyone on equal footing. The game is Not designed that way sorry.
Actually, the design intention is for everybody to be on equal footing. The problems come about like Ripple says from humans either making mistakes or some things not being immediately apparent. This causes imbalance in the game and many people want these situations remedied, at least in their own groups.dag'karlove said:
Ripple, nice that you remember all of my "points"
, admittedly missing the EA Starfury swapping is probably my fault but I'm not sure anyone else noticed it either. The Whitestar is a whole other debate but I was along with you that the 2AD beam being boresighted was balanced and made the Whitestar a little trickier to use (and fitted the show's canon). Stuff like stems/bases may seem trivial but can have a huge effect on the game - your example of Gaim fighters is classic, they go from being able to get four in per turn to 12 if they can "target" the base, not just the stem. As there was no exception made in the rules, I played it as "rules as written" as per any other ship and counted the stem as the ship, with the base just there to support the miniature.Triggy said:
I'm not sure that a 5FP Raid EA fleet is on equal footing with a 5FP Raid Minbari fleet--particularly Early Years and particularly if the game is anywhere close to B5 canon. By all rights, the EA ought to get its cheeks handed to it every time. There ought to be some imbalance there. Dumb luck takes care of the rest.
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
If you look back, most of the rule changes from 1st to 2nd ed. came about because of discussions like this. Bad rules make it through play testing all the time. Many of these bad rules have been fixed by Mongoose (having been brought to their attention by discussions like this).dag'karlove said:
Rules do not change without this sort of testing. A bad rule that no one ever talks about will never change. Call it whining if you like, I call it constructive and helpful to the game.
We play by the rules as written for just the reasons that you mention. It is easier to teach new players and it is easier to play with people outside of our group without having to relearn the "real" game.
We also try out rule variations just to see what the game would be like with them (or to match a specific scenario we've come up with). Some of these work and some of them don't, but they all give us a better understanding of the game when we return to the rules as written.
As for it being just like the law, laws are challenged all the time through the court systems of our respective countries. Many of these laws wind up being struck down or revised after judicial review. This is a good thing. Could you imagine living in a place where laws could never be changed?
ShopKeepJon
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
Having both sides have equal FP is a game mechanic. It exists only to make the game balanced and fun for all sides.wkehrman said:
If you look at what was presented in the shows, the Minbari usually had at least double the FP in their fleets when compared with the EA fleets that they were facing.
Try doing that an the gaming table. You should get an appropriately Earth/Minbari war feel out of it... :wink:
ShopKeepJon
As far as balance goes, I seem remember hearing that the fleets are designed to be competitive with each other, not balanced. There is a subtle difference.
I do play the advanced younger races. ISA and Minbari are my two favorites. I've also got a whopping good size EA fleet, mostly 3rd Age and Crusade, and I'm starting on a Psi Corps fleet. I think the rules are amazing. There are some instances where they could be better stated, and there are a couple of rules I dislike. But that being said, I work within them so that I may maneuvre around the ones I dislike as much as possible.
For instance, I see no reason ships can't decide to squadron together during a game. I wish there was a SA to allow this, there's not so I deal with it by creating them at the beginning and slowly breaking them apart. I also believe the squadron should get eight inches in stead of six. Mainly because I do use squadrons and I am tired of emines. Maybe soon there will be a change, maybe not.
Another example is in 1e the last campaign we played I played the drakh. The Centauri player and I never faced each other. Through most of the campaign, I believe I decided six fights per campaign turn. This occurred five turns in a row, or close to that. I will never play the drakh again in a campaign, but if someone else in our group wanted to we wouldn't actually complain too much. We would never seriously consider banning any type of ship or race just because we felt it was over the top. We'd all set around when that player wasn't there and try to figure out the best way to beat him. We're that kind of competitive.
The point is, I deal with the rules as written. And my group tries to find out a way to make them work for us as best as possible.
I do play the advanced younger races. ISA and Minbari are my two favorites. I've also got a whopping good size EA fleet, mostly 3rd Age and Crusade, and I'm starting on a Psi Corps fleet. I think the rules are amazing. There are some instances where they could be better stated, and there are a couple of rules I dislike. But that being said, I work within them so that I may maneuvre around the ones I dislike as much as possible.
For instance, I see no reason ships can't decide to squadron together during a game. I wish there was a SA to allow this, there's not so I deal with it by creating them at the beginning and slowly breaking them apart. I also believe the squadron should get eight inches in stead of six. Mainly because I do use squadrons and I am tired of emines. Maybe soon there will be a change, maybe not.
Another example is in 1e the last campaign we played I played the drakh. The Centauri player and I never faced each other. Through most of the campaign, I believe I decided six fights per campaign turn. This occurred five turns in a row, or close to that. I will never play the drakh again in a campaign, but if someone else in our group wanted to we wouldn't actually complain too much. We would never seriously consider banning any type of ship or race just because we felt it was over the top. We'd all set around when that player wasn't there and try to figure out the best way to beat him. We're that kind of competitive.
The point is, I deal with the rules as written. And my group tries to find out a way to make them work for us as best as possible.
