New Playtest Pack V1.2

[SylvrDragon]

Only took a quick glance at 1.2, and I didn't read any posts here, because I'm heading out the door. But it seems they've improved Space Stations, if they're fixed or not it's hard to tell at a glance. I'm very much not happy about the Centauri Hunting packs. With them limiting the packs to raid level, and no longer requiring a single Battle or higher, it'll be much easier to field them and we'll be likely to see more of them. Requiring them to have at least one battle meant they'd have no more packs than battles, so this could prove to be bad as they can just bring in scores of patrols and form them in to large groups. They took something that was a bad idea and made it worse...Guess I shouldn't be surprised, this is Mongoose after all. : /

 

[katadder]

dunno why that is back in, am sure it was an idea we binned at 1.0 and would prefer DaBosses engine one for large centauri ships.

 

[Da Boss]

Firstly - thanks for listening to the problems of Space Stations its a lot better however.............

I am also confused why the worse version of Hunting Pack is back???

Space Stations -but I think is still open to very nasty combinations

how about:

Minbari Carrier Base (raid) 100 damage (at hull4), AF 4 and 5 interceptors

12 flights of Nials (9HP)
Command Module - Fleet Carrier, Scout, Command +1, (3HP)

Centauri Carrier Base (raid)
Rather than a Balvaran (which is already a great ship)

120 damage (at hull 4 ), AF 4 and 5 inteceptors
4 flights of Rutarians (3HP)
8 Flights of Sentris/ raziks (4HP)
Command Module - Fleet Carrier, Scout, Command +1 (3HP)
2 Ion Cannon Batteries, 8 AD, 18" range, Turreted, DD, TL (2HP)

(note both are extra useful in campaigns)

I still don't like the disparity on station ranges - 52" to 27" - thats nearly double and can mean one station can reach into the enemy deployment zone in most scenarios whilst the other can not?? Bring all fleets upto 36" with their main weapon at least (longer range beams for Abbai and Ballastic Torps for Centauri)

There are a number of rules questions the present incarantion

1) There are no restrictions on scenario use of Space Stations - Ambush - "Decloaking space station off the starboard bow Captain" ?

2) Blockade Run - er yeah I have this really big defensible station thats not going to run and you need to kill it to win.

3) What about scenarios where one side enters from a table edge - is the station towed on and left (we need Tug variants?)

4) If a campaign scenario is lost and a station is captured - can you use all of its abilities, weapons and most importantly fighters? can you replace lost ones? Or should you just replace with a equivalent level station of your own?

5) At present the loss of a patrol level scenario can lead to the capture of a War level station as well as the Target?

:idea:
Perhaps there should be a special "Station Assault" Scenario that takes place if there is a station at the campaign target?

6 ) Does a station that has been reduced to 0 damage still repair one level automatically at the end of the campaign phase?

 

[Grunvald]

At first glance upon the space stations, What a complete waste of time we had discussing the pros and cons of weapon fits etc.

Seems all Matt has done is lower the damage of the station cores!

Result = NOT FIXED

Still up for abuse on the Space Station Front, which gives us a net result of BANNED!!!! from any tournamets etc. before the book is even published.

Vorlon new ships....No change there then, what a complete waste of time AGAIN!

White* Enforcer -1 Com to gain +1 Dge ok as it should be being what hull it is based upon.

Is it worth me carrying on with the obvious things that NEED to be change and havent been.

Do we need to use a megaphone and use it right next to someones ear to get some one to listen to reason???

We have waited what 2 months and we get what seems like a 30min change to some rules!

Right now all i can say is what a complete waste of time!

 

[Triggy]

For all those people who think the changes aren't enough - playtesting has to be a gradual process otherwise you end up with a situation of seesawing between overpowered and underpowered.

Firstly I'd echo Greg and ask people to actually test things out and report your game. Use TBS/BBS and reroll the huge criticals if you want to reduce the likelihood of freak results ruining a playtest. One of the main reasons some things haven't changed is because there has been zero playtesting on many topics.

Space stations - I've really not been following them at all. If a majority of other things are ok then I can change my focus to this area (in combination with reading the backlog of posts on the various threads on the subject).

Vorlon ships - a PL above armageddon doesn't exist hence the resistance to change. The only example that is an exception is the First Ones who have one ship fleets and count as two armageddon FAPs. The Vorlon Frigate looks ok but maybe the Dreadnought could use a small boost. Guns or damage people?

Enforcer - the couple of minor changes suggested seem fine and don't require a huge amount of testing.

Vree Extraction - As far as I can tell everyone agrees that this needs to be linked to PL. My simple suggestion was keep it as is (ignoring defences) but only does 1 point of crew loss for skirmish and patrol ships using the action.

Centauri Hunting Packs - I think pretty much everyone agrees that these aren't a good idea - they aren't fun and they are overpowered (or useless). Simple suggestions like the engine strain, etc. would probably work much better.

G'Quan - Try it, particularly with the new CBD and TTT... we're still willing to listen to actual playtesting (I'm not sure I can remember any G'Quan playtesting from pack 1.1).

Shadow Stalker - With so many layered defences you need to be careful. Try it out in a 5 FAP skirmish game and see just how hard it is to kill.

 

[Ripple]

Track that Target - says the ship gives up power to get this, but it doesn't.

Maneuver to Shield - may only shield a ship within five inches of you, perhaps should be if the target or firing ship is within five of you.

Small Ships - all the unresolved issues still there, change to activate a full patrol point at a time.

Skin Dancing - still have big ships dancing little tiny ships, would rather at least have a minimum PL or damage number on skin dance target rather than 'not a fighter'.

Army of Light fleet list is still stupid. (and I don't mean in concept here, though I don't like it) Pak - not the native built ship? Abbai - only one hull? You can't choose your fighters. No brakiri or Minbari in smaller fights.

The list simply has no basis given that the vast majority of the fleets we use are made up. If you want to limit specialty ships (scouts, carriers, command ships, escorts) that these fleets might have been short on, go ahead, but this limitation on basic hulls is just strange and feels very forced. If you want to do it by date, then just stick with date.

My impressions on the first doc I've gone through...

Ripple

 

[Ripple]

We tested the G'Quan... but the beam results through it off.

I agree some things need more testing, but if something is blatantly problematic your going to have a hard time getting folks to test it.

In some cases the issue isn't even testing. The AoL argument was one of concept not balance, no way to 'test'.

Ripple

 

[Foxmeister]

G'Quan - Try it, particularly with the new CBD and TTT... we're still willing to listen to actual playtesting (I'm not sure I can remember any G'Quan playtesting from pack 1.1).

I tried it, and it was still rubbish. Nothing has changed IMHO, so no point playtesting it further (again IMHO).

There isn't a single situation where I would take a G'Quan or any of the variants over two Raid level ships - hell, if I was splitting a War point and could choose 2 Battle or 3 Raid, I'd take the 3 Raid. If I had to play a scenario which required a Battle level ship, I just wouldn't play Narn.

There was a lot of discussion about the G'Quan, and it seems that none of it was taken into consideration, which is very disappointing IMHO. Shame, because it is by far the best looking ship in ACTA.

The new CBD is an improvement on the last version, except that the 35+ starting damage means that it is only really useful for T'Loths/T'Rakks because you'll never use it on War+ level ships because a 6+ crit save doesn't compensate for the loss of firepower (and we've already discussed the worthlessness of Battle).

Anyway, it looks like P&P brings nothing to the Narn except for a slightly weakened G'Vrahn.

With respect to TTT, I'd rather have half AD with CQ8+ than this version, because it just won't come off often enough to have any real impact unless you are Psi-Corp - fear those motherships because they are real nasty now.

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Track That Target at the moment still has the problem that if you fail to target your primary target, you can still fire at another target along your boresight. Surely if you're trying to target a ship that it manouvering away from your boresight, you won't have enough time to quickly line up with another target if you fail. I can live with the idea of getting your shot at full power, but you should risk a bit more to do so I think.
And yes, I found this out by playtesting - I ended up quite happily boresighting secondary targets with my Omegas and G'Quans, and not particularly minding if I failed to TTT on my primary target, because at least my firepower wasn't going to waste.


That said, the description for TTT says that it's intended to get a snap shot off. Maybe it would be worth considering the Snap Shot SA that I suggested in the other thread - whilst were disagreeing on the finer points of implementation, I think the general consensus about it was good. It means to have to take more of a risk to fire your weapons (CQ4 ships will only pull it off 1/3 of the time, and will lose the ability to fire those weapons when they fail). It is also a bit more general purpose, rather than being a booster for boresight using fleets and only boresight using fleets.

 

[Triggy]

G'Quan - Try it, particularly with the new CBD and TTT... we're still willing to listen to actual playtesting (I'm not sure I can remember any G'Quan playtesting from pack 1.1).

I tried it, and it was still rubbish. Nothing has changed IMHO, so no point playtesting it further (again IMHO).

There isn't a single situation where I would take a G'Quan or any of the variants over two Raid level ships - hell, if I was splitting a War point and could choose 2 Battle or 3 Raid, I'd take the 3 Raid. If I had to play a scenario which required a Battle level ship, I just wouldn't play Narn.

There was a lot of discussion about the G'Quan, and it seems that none of it was taken into consideration, which is very disappointing IMHO. Shame, because it is by far the best looking ship in ACTA.

The new CBD is an improvement on the last version, except that the 35+ starting damage means that it is only really useful for T'Loths/T'Rakks because you'll never use it on War+ level ships because a 6+ crit save doesn't compensate for the loss of firepower (and we've already discussed the worthlessness of Battle).

Anyway, it looks like P&P brings nothing to the Narn except for a slightly weakened G'Vrahn.

With respect to TTT, I'd rather have half AD with CQ8+ than this version, because it just won't come off often enough to have any real impact unless you are Psi-Corp - fear those motherships because they are real nasty now.

Regards,

Dave

I still maintain that E-mines are a much, much better weapon than anybody else seems to think. From most (all?) of the comments on how players use them I see why though. Pretty much everyone just fires them at the start and then switches to firing the beam only. That really, really, is not the only way to use the G'Quan, let alone is it the best way.

I know Dave that you are actually a pretty good Narn general but I respectfully disagree with your assertation that the G'Quan is a next-to-useless ship (and would never use CBD). It needs some fighter support (for the interceptors) and either has to get stuck into the enemy to make the most of its secondaries (use your initiative sinks to allow it to move where you want to get multiple arcs in) or it has to have a screen to allow it to snipe (and it can do this virtually as well as an Omega). I've rarely had a problem with it to be honest.

As for the 35+ damage requirement, this allows it to be a boost for almost every Narn ship that could use one (except the Rongoth/Rothan). This is a genuine boost, and is on top of the other G'Quan improvements.

Track That Target - I'm sure this is still up for debate and it almost certainly isn't quite right at the moment.

AoL - The ships available are there for two main reasons - most governments only lent minimal support to the AoL and these were the main "line" ships at the time. Also, this isn't a list to remove specialist ships, it's one to represent the show closely and probably more of a "fun" list than anything else. Trust me, I've tried it several times now and on the table it is fun to play with/against. I also agree on the pak'ma'ra ship choice - it really should be the Urik-Hal in the list. The Abbai only get one ship as do most other League races (not counting variants).

 

[Ripple]

I guess that was my point. I can pull any random ships from any list and call that 'fun' and given most of the ships in the game are made up, I can do the same thing for the AoL list.

The Abbai are never seen - they get one (and its a specialist).
The Brakiri only ever show one ship it's there
The Vree show two - and both are there
The Drazi show two - both are there
The Narn show two ships - both are there
The Earth Alliance shows five/six ships - all but the enemy ship/warlock are there.
The Minbari only show two ships, one ancient - the timeline appropriate one is there.
The Gaim are never seen - they get one.
The Pak show only one ship - they get a different ship.. and not even a home made one.

My point I guess is that one ship isn't the norm, it's the norm for the fleets that are made up. It's not even really the norm for the leauge... as the races that have more in the show have more.

It would be more appropriate it to almost call this the 'as seen on TV' list and drop the couple of anomolies. I don't agree on your call on 'line' ships, at least in a couple of cases. How many Bimiths do you see in a typical Abbai fleet vs Tiraca/Milani/Lakara mixes.

Your officially limiting the use of League ships to create a list that is 'fun' to play against, when the League is already fun to play against. In a way your just creating an alternate ISA list... and taking away Fleets that might be plausible alliances for fighting the Drahk.

Ripple

 

[Foxmeister]

It needs some fighter support (for the interceptors) and either has to get stuck into the enemy to make the most of its secondaries (use your initiative sinks to allow it to move where you want to get multiple arcs in)

Except for the fact that the Narn have lost initiative sinks now due to the mandatory use of two'fers in squadrons which makes this much harder than it was before, and is another feather in the "Two Var'Nic" cap over the G'Quan.

I only ever use my Frazi's as interceptors, and the group I regularly play with will generally not allow a lumbering, slow, moving ship to get within 8", so the secondaries are largely moot in my experience.

or it has to have a screen to allow it to snipe (and it can do this virtually as well as an Omega).

But not *as* well as an Omega. The Omega also cannot be flanked in the same way as the G'Quan due to the rear beam and longer ranged secondaries. Essentially, in all respects that matter, the Omega is a superior ship. The G'Quan might last a bit longer, but discounting runaway beams and crits, the Omega is going to earn far more bang for the buck by the time it shuffles off to meet the Great Maker.

As for the 35+ damage requirement, this allows it to be a boost for almost every Narn ship that could use one (except the Rongoth/Rothan). This is a genuine boost, and is on top of the other G'Quan improvements.

Whilst I prefer this incarnation to the previous straight 4+ save which I though was gross on a Sho'Kov and Dag'Kar, I disagree that it is much of a boost to a G'Quan. If it is using this SA, it can't TTT (which is too hard anyway, but I digress) and it also cannot make use of movement SAs (e.g. Come About, All Stop, ASaP etc) that it needs to use almost every turn to actually start being useful, and this will have been further exacerbated now that Sho'Kovs can't sink individually.

I will make a prediction though - if it stays as it is now, these forums won't have seen the last of the "Why does the G'Quan suck so much?" question!

They are not the worst Battle level hull out there, but they are the only Battle level hull the Narn have and they are definitely below the curve. To be honest though, I'm rather tired of the whole G'Quan conversation now, because the PTB don't feel that they are underpowered enough to warrant a proper review..

I have 3 of them, and despite the fact that they are almost never used they have all broken off their Ninja Magic adaptors, which is odd because my Bin'Tak is bigger, heavier, and more frequently on the stand and it has never had the problem - I think my G'Quans are just committing suicide because they can't suffer themselves to live!

So, in my fleet at least, the models will remain wallflowers whilst others ships get to party in their stead!

Regards,

Dave

 

[Da Boss]

Space stations - I've really not been following them at all. If a majority of other things are ok then I can change my focus to this area (in combination with reading the backlog of posts on the various threads on the subject).

Please have a look,
Firstly the present rules are not worth testing given the examples I have already posted
battle level station with 300+ damage (and 8AD Beams),
Raid level carrier with 12 flights of superb fighters and 120 damage plus other stuff. It took me 5 mins to work out - bet other people can come up with worse

The other thing is my post has a number of question about the rules themselves which are either unclear esp for campaigns and need to be clarified.

 

[Juzza]

And I don't have the zip programe so I am unable to download the rules. So I am unable to comment or test new rules myself. (but i reserve the right to complain )

 

[l33tpenguin]

And I don't have the zip programe so I am unable to download the rules. So I am unable to comment or test new rules myself. (but i reserve the right to complain )

doesn't windows handle .zip on its own now a days?

 

[silashand]

Vorlon ships - a PL above armageddon doesn't exist hence the resistance to change. The only example that is an exception is the First Ones who have one ship fleets and count as two armageddon FAPs.

So what? From a background perspective there is no reason to suggest that the Shadows or the Vorlons would not also have an Ancient level ship since they are of the same era. Sorry, anything less makes the ship just another Armageddon ship and IMO meh. At that point I could care less.

Cheers, Gary

 

[silashand]

Your officially limiting the use of League ships to create a list that is 'fun' to play against, when the League is already fun to play against. In a way your just creating an alternate ISA list... and taking away Fleets that might be plausible alliances for fighting the Drakh.

Agree wholeheartedly. The League is already a fun list to play and this is IMO just an attempt to limit something that isn't broken and fits the background a lot more than the AoL which is as I've stated before was brought together in the show only once in force. As noted the vast majority of these ships are made up anyway so creating an entire fleet list limited to certain choices as per one episode is both inappropriate and counter-intuitive, otherwise we would have no ships at all except those from the series.

Sorry, I don't like it and IMO it doesn't fit, playtest or no. I personally won't ever use it. Don't like allies? Just drop the rule all around, including for the ISA who abuse it more than most from what I've seen ("Gee, you brought Gaim/Narn emines again? I would never have guessed... :roll: "). IMO that's a lot more unlikely than the League ever was and frankly, was *never* seen in the show since the White Stars always took care of themselves.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Juzza]

And I don't have the zip programe so I am unable to download the rules. So I am unable to comment or test new rules myself. (but i reserve the right to complain )

doesn't windows handle .zip on its own now a days?

i dunno, but they didn't 8 years ago :lol:

 

[silashand]

You can just download the trial version of WinZip (www.winzip.com) and use it. It's fully functional, just won't be registered.

Cheers, Gary

 

[AdrianH]

Or download 7-Zip, which is completely free.
http://www.7zip.com/