Move and fire ship activation

[Lord David the Denied]

It's a possibility, certainly, but then if you lose init the ship you just blasted will blast you back. Is that unbalanced? I don't think it is, just the luck of the dice - which is a factor in wargaming you can't avoid. If you're a race with naff init you'd take steps to try to avoid the scenario you mentioned.

 

[SylvrDragon]

I'm really glad you are putting the effort in to play test this version of the game even though I don't think it will work. It's good to see more than armchair quarterbacking (what is the British phrase for this?) - and I put myself in that group too as unfortunately I don't get to play much.

However here's what I think is the problem with move and fire.

I could hide my ship behind an asteroid field at long range and leave it until the last ship to move. Then it comes out and fires at a ship that's already moved and fired. The next turn I win initiative. I fire that same ship again. I've now effectively had two consecutive turns with one ship against a ship that has had no chance to react.

I can't see how this isn't unbalanced (sat comfortably in my armchair). :wink:

That's called good tactics. It's not broken in the least. Why shouldn't you be able to execute "ambushes" if you play your cards right? Calling that broken is like saying anything that plays using their brain is a cheater. If everyone has an equal opportunity to take advantage of existing rules, then there's nothing wrong with it. And I'm NOT an armchair quarterback. I've been doing my best to not only back positive rule changes, but I had also been play testing new rules whenever given the chance. That being said, move-fire is not one I've had the pleasure of testing much, though it is one that I would love to put to the test. Biggest problem is that not all of my friends are not as pioneering as I am. Most prefer to sit back, play the game as is, and accept the changes, or lack there of, with out a care as to if such is good for the game. : /

From what I've seen the move-fire has a few kinks here and there, but in the overall scheme it is a good thing for the game. It seems to make big ships more useful, and it has the potential to make the game move faster. From my observance, most of the "issues" people call balance problems are merely these things called tactics. I know that's a word that seems to have become less and less familiar to people in table top gaming *cough*warhammer40k*cough*, but at one time it was the heart of all this. lol

 

[katadder]

Yeah, we wouldnt want the big ships to be a threat now, would we? Heaven forbid, if a battleship was actually scary.

Oh god no, that would just be horrible. Who ever heard of a Battleship blowing a frigate to bits with ease?

Yea, my number one complaint about this game has always been that big ships have little teeth. No one takes caution when they see a battle level ship on the table. No one truly takes none when a war level ship is place on the table. People hold back laughs when Armageddons are brought the board. No, it's the Raid and Skirmish level vessels that are the kings of the skies. There's something very wrong with this picture.

certain war ships bring a measure of respect - sharlins and variants, g'vrahn, warlock.
and certain armageddon ships scare people like the victory and the adira. i would put my adira against most fleets of smaller ships as it has regularly ripped the heart out of an enemy fleet. nothing beats jumping out of a jump point into the middle of a fleet and having targets in all arcs for such heavy firepower, no skirmish or raid ship can manage this.

However here's what I think is the problem with move and fire.

I could hide my ship behind an asteroid field at long range and leave it until the last ship to move. Then it comes out and fires at a ship that's already moved and fired. The next turn I win initiative. I fire that same ship again. I've now effectively had two consecutive turns with one ship against a ship that has had no chance to react.

I can't see how this isn't unbalanced (sat comfortably in my armchair). :wink:

That's called good tactics. It's not broken in the least. Why shouldn't you be able to execute "ambushes" if you play your cards right? Calling that broken is like saying anything that plays using their brain is a cheater.

and how is this tactics? its luck of the dice if you get to move/fire a ship twice in a row and is broken if it can do all this without another ship being able to react in the slightest.

 

[SylvrDragon]

certain war ships bring a measure of respect - sharlins and variants, g'vrahn, warlock.
and certain armageddon ships scare people like the victory and the adira. i would put my adira against most fleets of smaller ships as it has regularly ripped the heart out of an enemy fleet. nothing beats jumping out of a jump point into the middle of a fleet and having targets in all arcs for such heavy firepower, no skirmish or raid ship can manage this.

Certain war ships such as the Sharlin, G'Vrahn and Warlock, and certain Armageddons ships such as the Victory and Adira. First flaw in this argument is the word certain. ALL War level ships should be scary, not certain ones. Now let's move on the second, and fatal flaw. That would be the poor choices in your list of "scary" ships.

The G'Vrahn is getting gimped in the next update, which is already in effect in P&P. After said update the G'Vrahn won't be so nasty.

The Warlock scares you? Are you actually serious? It's only scary weapon is a boresight! And if you take a War level vessel you're seriously reducing any chances of getting to use this weapon. Sure it has railguns and missiles, but you get get more missiles and/or railguns, or even more beams for a War point by taking smaller vessels. Which is one of my biggest problems with Wars to be honest. Spend one war point and what do you get? Fewer teeth in an easier to destroy package. Seriously, under the current system you can take an Apollo and 4 Chronos for the same cost! I could go into how the combined firepower of these vessels could match that of a Warlock, but I won't. It's simply enough to say that this gives you 5 targets as opposed to 1 target that will most likely be critted out of the game by turn 2. I've used Warlocks, very fun, but not the most functional of choices.

The Victory is ISA, so it's no surprise it's an effective ship. Though I don't think it's quite as good as you make it out to be. It's really more just hard to kill than anything.

The Sharlin is an effective ship, I'll give you that. And it earns my respect. But it's nothing a solid fighter swarm can't crit into oblivion. I'd bet a pair of my Raid level carriers could take one of these out if played properly.

The Adira...well, it is what an Armagedon should look like in my opinion, more of what an Armageddon should be. I'll give you that much. If all the Armageddons were as powerful as this beast, we'd see them on the table much more often.

and how is this tactics? its luck of the dice if you get to move/fire a ship twice in a row and is broken if it can do all this without another ship being able to react in the slightest.

First, you tell me how it isn't tactics to place a ship in a spot where it can jump out and unleash hell before your opponent can react? It's called an ambush, and if both players are capable of doing, and one player does, then the player that got caught by it deserves what he gets. lol Secondly, I'd like you to tell me how it is so unavoidable? Last I checked ships behind terrain weren't hidden. What stops the player who's intended as the target of this tactic from taking a different route around the terrain, or using some defensive SA such as "Run Silent!", or from simply planting himself behind the terrain far enough that that ship can't get to him in a turn like the player intended and instead taking advantage of the fact that he's only facing a portion of his enemy's fleet? Luck is one-shotting an enemy ship with a triple damage 1 AD die by rolling a 6/6 or 6/5 crit. Intentionally placing a ship in a convenient spot to surprise an enemy ship is taking advantage of terrain via using tactics.

 

[mollari_uk]

No one is disagreeing that either hiding behind cover, ambushing, using SA's at the right time are all tactics. Moving and firing twice before anyone else can react isn't. It's a flaw in the rules.

 

[Burger]

First, you tell me how it isn't tactics to place a ship in a spot where it can jump out and unleash hell before your opponent can react? It's called an ambush, and if both players are capable of doing, and one player does, then the player that got caught by it deserves what he gets.

As the others say, what you describe is tactics. Getting to do it for 2 turns, without the opponent ship being able to react at all, is the part that is not tactics, it is broken.

If one player has a higher initiative than the other, then both players do not have even chances to use this so-called "tactic". Eg +1 vs +4... the +4 will win initiative approx 80% of the time, so the +1 basically cannot use the tactic whereas the +4 can use it at will.

lol Secondly, I'd like you to tell me how it is so unavoidable? Last I checked ships behind terrain weren't hidden. What stops the player who's intended as the target of this tactic from taking a different route around the terrain, or using some defensive SA such as "Run Silent!"

Well, the part that the Run Silent SA is a pile of steaming horse dung?
No ships behind terrain aren't hidden, but if the terrain is near one player's deployment zone then the other player hasn't got a chance of getting around it - especially with his big guns which are likely slow or lumbering ships. Whereas the "tactical" player can just pop out a couple of inches and unleash 2 turns worth of fire.

 

[Banichi]

I could hide my ship behind an asteroid field at long range and leave it until the last ship to move. Then it comes out and fires at a ship that's already moved and fired. The next turn I win initiative. I fire that same ship again. I've now effectively had two consecutive turns with one ship against a ship that has had no chance to react.

I can't see how this isn't unbalanced (sat comfortably in my armchair). :wink:

Remember that ACTA is not a fight between two ships, it's a game between fleets.

Ok, the ship you mentioned would get two, back to back, rounds of shooting. But to do so it has to forgo, or limit its movement on the second turn. Which happens before shooting. And since it went first, and didn't move back into cover, it is now sitting in front of every enemy ship that can have a go at it.

It isn't really a very good hit and run kind of attack. It would probably work out to be more like hit and die. :wink:

 

[mollari_uk]

Remember that ACTA is not a fight between two ships, it's a game between fleets.

Ok, the ship you mentioned would get two, back to back, rounds of shooting. But to do so it has to forgo, or limit its movement on the second turn. Which happens before shooting. And since it went first, and didn't move back into cover, it is now sitting in front of every enemy ship that can have a go at it.

It isn't really a very good hit and run kind of attack. It would probably work out to be more like hit and die.

That's like saying that there are ways to beat the current Demos, it doesn't make it unbroken. The tactics employed aren't the issue, the issue is two rounds of firing with no comeback!

To use an example previously mentioned. If I come out of a jump point with an Adira slap bang in the middle of your fleet then currently that's a valid tactic and you should have expected it. It's your fault for not seeing it. However with move and fire rules, if I win initiaive I get to fire again at all of your ships. This is broken.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

You get to fire again, sure, then the Adira gets blatted by the first enemy unit your opponent activates - either that, or he slams something you haven't used yet and maybe stops it doing anything.

 

[Burger]

You get to fire again, sure, then the Adira gets blatted by the first enemy unit your opponent activates - either that, or he slams something you haven't used yet and maybe stops it doing anything.

If there is anything left after 2 turns of Adira fire!!
The opponent is likely to have a significantly reduced force after a beating like that.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Yeah, true, but the Adira could get unlucky and do very little damage, we've all seen it. The opponent still has a turn before the thing comes through the jump point to react, same as now.

 

[katadder]

well how about if as you say the adira gets 2 turns in a row - you cant react to its JP then as it opens one at end of turn 1 as last ship, then as gets to go first in turn 2 coming out into the middle of the enemy fleet and firing before they could react to its JP.

as said this is the broken bit, and as burger pointed out, an ambush is fine tactically but getting a 2nd lot of move/fire with the ambushing ship is the broken part and nothing to do with tactics.

 

[Burger]

Yeah, true, but the Adira could get unlucky and do very little damage, we've all seen it.

Sorry but I don't like my only defense, being my opponent "getting unlucky".......

That is like saying my Sharlin can have 20AD beam... that is balanced because I might get unlucky and miss!

 

[KennyBoy]

But, let's be fair, even if the Centauri's opponent could get a shot off, even with HIS War or Armageddon level ship, he still won't stop the Adira from firing again.
And he'd still need to be lucky to significantly reduce it's firepower!

 

[katadder]

dunno, with a crippled victory triggy rolled lucky enough to cripple my Adira in the earth centauri war, didnt help as was last shot of game for the earthers but with luck you can stop it.
main point is though 2 turns of firing from adira would rip out most of a fleet. or opening Jp, jumping in and firing before the opposing fleet gets to react is broken.

 

[Target]

I don't seeing be able to fire twice as broken, you do know it's going to pop out from the asteroid at some stage, you know the trap is there. This all hinges on winning the second round of int. Bad new's if you don't.
Go through the field to get it if you think it's that big of a problem.
Go the other way round the field. If it's a big nasty ship, it's going to struggle to turn to face the new direction.
It's the same for both player's. The lucky part is having a piece of terrain in the right place.

 

[katadder]

of course it is, certain fleets can pretty much always win init against others anyway - shadows v any fleet with init+0 or worse.

this rule also gives access to the old 2nd ed eldar pop-up attack where something shoots you can you cant kill it without trogging all the way across the battlefield - hull 4 vree torpedo saucer, moves out, shoots, moves back into cover. or ancient shadow ship does the same not having the rest of the enemy fleet retaliate against it after its popped something.

this ruling just wouldnt work as it would make some fleets/ships far too powerful.

 

[Target]

If it's 1 on 1 the shadow will win either way & maybe 3 on 1 with terrain.
Vree won't be winning int most of the time.
If you have more ship's lure him out( most ships can't reverse) or go both ways round the field (pincer) or through the field (psyho manuever)
The scenario we are talkin is one kickass ship is hiding behind a field vaping a piecemeal fleet coming in one at a time. Go in force just like you would if you going down it's throat without terrain. " He can't get us all... I hope"

 

[SylvrDragon]

of course it is, certain fleets can pretty much always win init against others anyway - shadows v any fleet with init+0 or worse.

this rule also gives access to the old 2nd ed eldar pop-up attack where something shoots you can you cant kill it without trogging all the way across the battlefield - hull 4 vree torpedo saucer, moves out, shoots, moves back into cover. or ancient shadow ship does the same not having the rest of the enemy fleet retaliate against it after its popped something.

this ruling just wouldnt work as it would make some fleets/ships far too powerful.

I'll agree, this is a solid point. I'm not convinced this idea in general is bad, but super maneuverable fleets could really have a hay day with this, and that could prove to be a real balance issue right there. God knows the Shadows don't need anymore help after all. lol

Question is, how do we fix it? One of my first thoughts was introduce a new SA, such as something akin to Overwatch, but this could lead to other issues. Could you imagine an entire fleet on Overwatch? >.o Though you could always give some limit to the number of ships on Overwatch. Say no more than one ship can be on Overwatch against any single ship, or maybe just one ship per fleet can be on it. The only other thing I can think of, would be to disallow ships from activating twice in a row, unless of course said ship is the only ship you have left of course.

 

[Foxmeister]

of course it is, certain fleets can pretty much always win init against others anyway - shadows v any fleet with init+0 or worse.

this rule also gives access to the old 2nd ed eldar pop-up attack where something shoots you can you cant kill it without trogging all the way across the battlefield - hull 4 vree torpedo saucer, moves out, shoots, moves back into cover. or ancient shadow ship does the same not having the rest of the enemy fleet retaliate against it after its popped something.

this ruling just wouldnt work as it would make some fleets/ships far too powerful.

I'll agree, this is a solid point. I'm not convinced this idea in general is bad, but super maneuverable fleets could really have a hay day with this, and that could prove to be a real balance issue right there. God knows the Shadows don't need anymore help after all. lol

Question is, how do we fix it?

I've an idea that could help!

Why not split the turn up into distinct "phases", then you could have a "movement phase" during which all the ships move with each player taking turns moving ships, and a "shooting phase" during which all the ships get to shoot again with each player taking turns to shoot with ships!

Sounds brilliantly simple to me!

Ok, sarcasm aside, I can see what you are trying to achieve here but what you are really talking about is a different game entirely and therefore really needs rearchitecting from the ground up rather than trying to graft something on to an existing system which wasn't designed for "move & shoot".

Yes, there are issues with the way ACTA handles initiative, but IMHO for the most part it is boresight that is the main problem and that could be fixed with a limited arc (say 30 degrees). There are other issues yes, but they are minor in comparison and no system is ever going to be perfect - overwatch is already been mentioned here as a bandaid to "fix" some of the move&shoot issues.

Regards,

Dave