Narn thoughts and suggestions
- Thread starter Greg Smith
- Start date
Methos5000
Mongoose
Da Boss said:
Just a quick question. If they are doing the whole self-sacrifice thing and activating repair crews in dangerous areas....shouldn't they still suffer full crew loss? Maybe not the crit crew loss if they prevent the crit but the regular crew damage and if they fail the check to resist the crit it means something went wrong and alot of Narn are gonna die. I mean you are throwing crew members into lethal situations to keep the ship running after all. I dunno, it just seems odd to word it with sacrifice and dangerous conditions and then give a crew damage resistance also.
Foxmeister said:
Yes, but in order to get it you have to sacrifice the *only* form of protection most of your ships have, thus making them vulnerable to everything on the table. At hull 4 and slow, the Amu and Ma'cu are sitting ducks to things like fighters, and the rest of the fleet is even worse off (except maybe the Dra'Vash). A friend of mine described it as "The Death of 1000 Paper Cuts." In other words, doesn't matter how many crits you can ignore if you just plain die.
On topic, as I said, I don't think giving crit protection to just the Narn is a good idea. Personally, the best solution to me is to make it global and part of CBD. JMO though.
Cheers, Gary
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Absolutely not as part of this release. Redundancy is out of scope; we don't have the time for this massive retest. What we are trying to do is give the Narn ships that need it the most something that brings them back into line. An advantage; an edge. If you don't like crit effects, but like big ships, this says, writ in large, Buy Narn. It's finally a compelling reason to the the T'Loth and G'Quan, has racial flavor, and is flatly overdue.
just trying to write fluff to fit the idea CZuschlag said:
While I agree with the intent (and it applies to the Centauri as well, i.e. they need a reason to field the big ships), I definitely don't agree with this mechanism for multiple reasons, not least of which is I don't think a 5+ to save vs crits is a good idea for only one fleet since lots of them could use the same justification. Heck, you could argue that the Victory, K'Bin'Tak, Adira, Amu or any other large ship is so big that criticals are harder to get simply because there are more layers of stuff (walls, bulkheads, even tissue) between the outside and where the critical systems would be located.
In essense, that's what Greg's idea really represents anyway and why it should definitely not apply solely to the Narn. If it were me I'd go for a gradiant mechanism based on hull points, i.e. 41-50 hull points = 6+ save, 51-65 = 5+ and 66+ a 4+. Granted, this would need to be playtested to get the right spread for the actual hull points, but it would certainly represent the inherent redundancies of a large vessel better IMO.
Cheers, Gary
stepan.razin
Mongoose
I have said it before, but here it is again... let the flaming begin.
From the game balance view, I am against the first SA, I dont like giving crit mitigation to only a specific fleet. Especially when that fleet is already very very good.
From the game balance view, I am against the first SA, I dont like giving crit mitigation to only a specific fleet. Especially when that fleet is already very very good.
Greg's idea seems to me no different that what the Pak have... a special rule that adds defense to the race. Are we to believe that the Pak have better constructed ships than every other race? That the Minbari skimp on redundant systems?
The Narn ships are supposed to be tough, hard to take out, but through construction rather than active defenses... the G'Quan ship plans they put out talk about the onion formation of the decks to put even more internal defense in.
How should we represent this?
They do the onion skin approach to add additional armor to the vital systems and actively add fake windows to the outside to confuse even close fighter attacks looking for the bridge.
How about this one...
Narn have a 4+ save vs vital crits... stops the worst crits but won't come in to play that often... and means the Narn will always be able to eventually do All Hands.
Ripple
The Narn ships are supposed to be tough, hard to take out, but through construction rather than active defenses... the G'Quan ship plans they put out talk about the onion formation of the decks to put even more internal defense in.
How should we represent this?
They do the onion skin approach to add additional armor to the vital systems and actively add fake windows to the outside to confuse even close fighter attacks looking for the bridge.
How about this one...
Narn have a 4+ save vs vital crits... stops the worst crits but won't come in to play that often... and means the Narn will always be able to eventually do All Hands.
Ripple
Our group came up with a Special Action called Brace for Impact. CQ8 If you pass you take all the damage and crew casualties, but ignore critical hit effects on a 5+ roll.
The couple of time that we played it, it seemed to work ok and allow the bigger ships get in close and really have an effect.
Since you don;t ignore the dameage and crew, you could reduce it to a 4+ on the roll.
Tschuma
The couple of time that we played it, it seemed to work ok and allow the bigger ships get in close and really have an effect.
Since you don;t ignore the dameage and crew, you could reduce it to a 4+ on the roll.
Tschuma
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Keep in mind, posters, this is special for the Narn Only. There will not be (at least in this release!) such an upgrade for Minbari, Centauri, et. al.
stepan.razin, this would only go to the Ka'Bin'Tak, Bin'Tak, G'**s, T'Loth, and T'Rann; all ships that, flatly, need the help. The "good" Narn ships didn't get an upgrade with this (specifically the Dag'Kar, G'Vrahn, Var'Nic, and the Skirmish choices other than the Rongoth/Rothan.).
stepan.razin, this would only go to the Ka'Bin'Tak, Bin'Tak, G'**s, T'Loth, and T'Rann; all ships that, flatly, need the help. The "good" Narn ships didn't get an upgrade with this (specifically the Dag'Kar, G'Vrahn, Var'Nic, and the Skirmish choices other than the Rongoth/Rothan.).
Greg Smith
Mongoose
CZuschlag has it right. This would only really affect the G'Quan and variants, the Bin'tak, the T'Loth and T'Rann. And it will only help to keep them going until the point at which they get into secondary weapon range, at which point the stop using CBD.
In fact the Bin'tak, G'Quanth and Ka'Bin'tak have enough long ranged weapons that using it may be detrimental.
I like that idea, too.
In fact the Bin'tak, G'Quanth and Ka'Bin'tak have enough long ranged weapons that using it may be detrimental.
I like that idea, too.
stepan.razin
Mongoose
CZuschlag said:
I am against this on principle... Unless crit mitigation applies to all "bad" ships, I am against it. With the new FAP rules, a lot of bad ships will have to be used to facilitate new FAP breakdowns. Besides, the reasoning given for this special rule is to satisfy some fluff, and I am game balance first kind of a player. If the reasoning is to fix the crit system, then why not fix it for everyone.
Hey ISA never lost on the show, doesn't mean that the rules should favor them because of that.
But that is just me.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
stepan.razin said:
Other bad ships are getting different fixes - stealth added to the Shadow stalker, for example.
The FAP doesn't force you to use bad ships at all.
But every special rule satisfies fluff - Minbari stealth, EA interceptors, Narn energy mines... It doesn't mean it isn't balanced.
The reasoning isn't to fix the critical system. The reason is to give the Narn something interesting in P&P, to address problems with certain ships in its fleet, to do it better than the proposed blanket 4+ CBD save.
Greg Smith said:
I disagree infact apart from the ISA player I think everyone I know has complainned at the prospect of fielding ships they do not like.
You get handicaped for skipping a level. So for me a raid point is
2 x shadowcloak escorts + fighter carrier
3 x shadowcloak escorts
2 x shadowcloak escorts + black Omega fighter flight.
2 x shadowcloak escorts + Shadow Fury flights.
The latter option is the better in my opinion
It's a sorry state when you can consider fighters better than a skirmish class.
stepan.razin
Mongoose
Greg Smith said:
So what does PsiCore carrier get?
Greg Smith said:
If you want to get some raid ships in a war PL battle, you have to break down 1 War = 1 Battle 2 Raid, or just 3 raid. So, what do Narn take for the Battle level choice?
Greg Smith said:
Stealth/Int/emines ets are major aspect of the fleet/race and serve as fleet differentiators, making each race unique. And unlike those rules, this has barely been tested.
Greg Smith said:
It just seems that the only reason this rule was proposed is because someone is not satisfied with the GQuon boost. I just dont feel that the Narn need any more help, and this risks unbalancing the game.
Methos5000
Mongoose
Its an interesting idea but I think it will be bring about many complaints from other fleets.
What about the Dilgar war pl choices. Sure they have firepower but most rarely survive to use it very long.
What about the Brakiri Avioki its has about the same damage and crew as a Q'Guan and like the G'Quan has no active defenses. So the G'Quan can now sit back and 30" and snipe targets with a 5+ crit resistance but the Avioki has to rush in(at speed 6) and still become critted to uselessness long before it runs out of damage and crew?
I'm not opposed to added crit resistance to the game. Most fleets have it indirectly through active defenses on most or all of their ships. However the Big Narn ships are not the only big ships without active defenses. I know you want to give the Narn something neat and useful in P&P but lets not forget that other races have big ships that are just as vulnerable and will be more vulnerable if the Narn get this special ability but they don't.
What about the Dilgar war pl choices. Sure they have firepower but most rarely survive to use it very long.
What about the Brakiri Avioki its has about the same damage and crew as a Q'Guan and like the G'Quan has no active defenses. So the G'Quan can now sit back and 30" and snipe targets with a 5+ crit resistance but the Avioki has to rush in(at speed 6) and still become critted to uselessness long before it runs out of damage and crew?
I'm not opposed to added crit resistance to the game. Most fleets have it indirectly through active defenses on most or all of their ships. However the Big Narn ships are not the only big ships without active defenses. I know you want to give the Narn something neat and useful in P&P but lets not forget that other races have big ships that are just as vulnerable and will be more vulnerable if the Narn get this special ability but they don't.
It isn't based solely of fluff... it's based on a game balance issue that has come up. Narn balance was supposed to be achieved through additional damage and crew points. This has turned out not to be valid, as they take a disproportionate about of crit effects (and crit related additional damage/crew) rendering the few points they got in exchange off active defenses useless.
I'm not saying there aren't other ships that have this issue (the Avioki is a great example) but that the Narn, racially, are somewhat unique in design concept... they are supposed to be tougher by design, the design just failed. The Dilgar are different, in that they are supposed to be vulnerable to damage, and got extra AD in exchange. They are classic glass hammers (though in some cases that is bullet proof glass).
Drazi have the same issue on their big ships... but they are supposedly able to avoid much return fire... non-lumbering 2/45 battle hulls at speed 10. I think that concept has also failed... as they are neither maneuverable enough nor pack enough wallop to be equal to their level.
However... doesn't mean I want the Narn to suffer.
Ripple
I'm not saying there aren't other ships that have this issue (the Avioki is a great example) but that the Narn, racially, are somewhat unique in design concept... they are supposed to be tougher by design, the design just failed. The Dilgar are different, in that they are supposed to be vulnerable to damage, and got extra AD in exchange. They are classic glass hammers (though in some cases that is bullet proof glass).
Drazi have the same issue on their big ships... but they are supposedly able to avoid much return fire... non-lumbering 2/45 battle hulls at speed 10. I think that concept has also failed... as they are neither maneuverable enough nor pack enough wallop to be equal to their level.
However... doesn't mean I want the Narn to suffer.
Ripple
Methos5000
Mongoose
I understand what your saying. Its just if the Narn get this and no one else does the amount of 'Why didn't we get something like this too' complaints will go through the roof.
I'm not saying every fleet should necessarily have a crit resistance save, but this is being targeted directly that the big slow lumbering Narn ships to make them more worthwhile, while other races with big slow lumbering ships with no defenses are basically be told for now anyway, tough cookies.
I have had plenty of Aviokis be rendered useless in combat because of crits. They can't avoid fire, their weapon range mixed with their speed and lumbering don't allow for it. Give me one good reason to be happy the G'Quan is getting crit resistance but the Avioki isn't?
And even those big lumbering ships that have defenses are getting critted into uselessness also. Interceptors are not a defense against beams (arguably some of the biggest violators when it comes to dishing out crits for races that have them), the GEG (in standard mode) doesn't even stop crits so a big Drakh ship with a GEG might be missing about 20% of it damage and crew but be utterly useless because crits have made it a giant brick in space.
All I'm saying is when you are going to give one race something new and cool you have to consider how it will impact other fleets as well. Narn are not the only race the suffers from lack of defenses on big slow lumbering ships and I will be disappointed if a G'Quan can sit back and CBD at 30" and ignore 33% of the crit effects while my Avioki has to charge in get one attack run(if that) and be rendered useless because its adrift with a front arc offline(has happened more times then I want to remember).
I agree the Narn need something to help out but I don't think it should be a Narn only crit resistance. Maybe something like they can ignore No DC crits (as they go into lethal situation without a second thought to personal safety). That way they can always attempt repairs and maybe give them 2 crit repairs per turn instead of 1. This way at least you still might end up adrift or something like the other big defensesless ships you just have a better opportunity to fix the problem in that the ability to attempt repairs is never taken away from you.
I'm not saying every fleet should necessarily have a crit resistance save, but this is being targeted directly that the big slow lumbering Narn ships to make them more worthwhile, while other races with big slow lumbering ships with no defenses are basically be told for now anyway, tough cookies.
I have had plenty of Aviokis be rendered useless in combat because of crits. They can't avoid fire, their weapon range mixed with their speed and lumbering don't allow for it. Give me one good reason to be happy the G'Quan is getting crit resistance but the Avioki isn't?
And even those big lumbering ships that have defenses are getting critted into uselessness also. Interceptors are not a defense against beams (arguably some of the biggest violators when it comes to dishing out crits for races that have them), the GEG (in standard mode) doesn't even stop crits so a big Drakh ship with a GEG might be missing about 20% of it damage and crew but be utterly useless because crits have made it a giant brick in space.
All I'm saying is when you are going to give one race something new and cool you have to consider how it will impact other fleets as well. Narn are not the only race the suffers from lack of defenses on big slow lumbering ships and I will be disappointed if a G'Quan can sit back and CBD at 30" and ignore 33% of the crit effects while my Avioki has to charge in get one attack run(if that) and be rendered useless because its adrift with a front arc offline(has happened more times then I want to remember).
I agree the Narn need something to help out but I don't think it should be a Narn only crit resistance. Maybe something like they can ignore No DC crits (as they go into lethal situation without a second thought to personal safety). That way they can always attempt repairs and maybe give them 2 crit repairs per turn instead of 1. This way at least you still might end up adrift or something like the other big defensesless ships you just have a better opportunity to fix the problem in that the ability to attempt repairs is never taken away from you.
