New Traits for Vorlons & Shadows...

[emperorpenguin]

both sets of fighters are a real pain to ships with their AP, and beam or double damage guns
the vorlons though are slow and vulnerable to other fighters

 

[Chernobyl]

I don't think fighter disperal tube is useless...in the right circumstance you can be dogfighting fighters from 30" away. its does put them out there withought much support though. I think there was a question I raised a while back about launching fighters as a shooting action though. (can they attack the same turn? if not then yeah, its useless :lol: )

Chern

 

[B5freak]

Chern,

Yes, it was my impression that they couldn't do anything the turn they launched, just like a normal fighter launch. This is also a problem with the Drazi catapult since it just leaves the fighter sitting way out in front with nothing to do but get shot at for a turn.

I've always looked at is from a range standpoint. If my Cruiser can move 12" before shooting off the fighers, that gives them an effective range of 42". When was the last time you either started or wound up 42" from the enemy? By contrast, if I combine my 12" move with my 18" slicer, I've got an effective range of 30", which is much more along the lines of standard fleet distances. If I can't fire in the same turn I launch my fighters, but I'm within 30" of the enemy, I'd much rather take the shot.

 

[Chernobyl]

Agreed. But if you can place your fighters so they're dogfighting it might be worth it since they don't run the risk of getting shot at then. but yeah with 30 inches, I'd rather start taking it to the enemy and launch 1 fighter as normal than use the tube.
Given that shadow fighters can use hyperspace, they potentially can come out anywhere if the match allows.
And, given that shadow fighters must be purchased separately, you can start with them fully deployed anyway.
So - I suppose it depends on the scenario and fleet comp. if the other player has lots of fighter wings initially deployed, it might be worth to use the launcher. if you can use hyperspace, then perhaps its better to jump in. absent either of those, it might be better to just leave them initially deployed.

Chern

 

[lastbesthope]

This is kinda silly though. Some new players will attempt to learn a rule that isnt used. No rules should be unnecessary. At best, its just clutter. At worst its confusing (not to flog a dead horse, but didnt you get confused when a player was referring to Accurate and you thought he meant Precise not so long ago?)

I can see how you might think it silly, but it would be even sillier to take it out now, and then need to put it back in later on. In my experience of new players learning rules, you learn what you need, and at a push what you think you might come up against, besides Accurate is hardly one of the more complicated rules. And yes I did get confused, in part because I've never faced a fleet that ever had the Accurate trait in my games, so I never 'needed' to know the rule. That and nobody is perfect, but I'm so close it's scary :lol:

LBH

 

[oreso]

This is kinda silly though. Some new players will attempt to learn a rule that isnt used. No rules should be unnecessary. At best, its just clutter. At worst its confusing (not to flog a dead horse, but didnt you get confused when a player was referring to Accurate and you thought he meant Precise not so long ago?)

I can see how you might think it silly, but it would be even sillier to take it out now, and then need to put it back in later on. In my experience of new players learning rules, you learn what you need, and at a push what you think you might come up against, besides Accurate is hardly one of the more complicated rules. And yes I did get confused, in part because I've never faced a fleet that ever had the Accurate trait in my games, so I never 'needed' to know the rule. That and nobody is perfect, but I'm so close it's scary :lol:

LBH

I agree. My problem is just aesthetic, its just not as polished. Besides, the accurate rule would be a big thing for whatever fleet that eventually uses it, so (re)introducing it then wouldnt be a bad thing if nothing else but to draw attention to it.

I obviously wasnt questioning your fallibility, er, it was just a case of... how shall i put it... the universe, through us, disagrees with?

 

[B5freak]

Oreso wrote:

I obviously wasnt questioning your fallibility, er, it was just a case of... how shall i put it... the universe, through us, disagrees with?

Woooow, great quote. And I have to agree about leaving in rules that are no longer applicable to anyone. It's kind of like leaving in segments of code that no longer do anything, "just in case". Sure you know it doesn't do anything, but the poor slob who's stuck reviewing or updating the code down the road is left scratching his head.

 

[friendlyfire]

I don't understand how reintroducing a rule is a bad thing? Isn't it the same as introducing a new rule? Won't that also be just as confusing to the new player?

I like the idea of bringing back the Accurate trait for the Vorlons and the Shadows. Will it be enough? I guess thats where playtesting comes in.

I still don't like the Shadow fighters. I'm ok that they are mediocre fighters but weakening them further by having them cost extra when they're in Hunters and Cruisers? I'd get rid of that and make them 4 flights/wing. Additionally, Cruisers would get 8 flights and Hunters 6

 

[B5freak]

friendlyfire,

I've no problem with giving Accurate back to the First Ones. It's more a matter of principle over including rules that aren't used anymore in the rule book.

Obviously, if we re-instate Accurate, the whole arguement is moot, but which arguements on the forum aren't ultimately moot? :lol:

 

[lastbesthope]

but which arguements on the forum aren't ultimately moot? :lol:

The ones the Mongoose bods take notice of, like increasing the number of WS in an ISA fleet box from 8 to 9 (and then on to 10).

LBH

 

[Chernobyl]

I think it would be ok to reintroduce different levels of accurate..."Accurate 3", "Accurate 4", etc.

CHern

 

[Kadorak]

And the Accurate trait is still in the Revised ACTA book, it's not in SFOS because SFOS only includes additions and changes. Accurate is still in as was so no need to go in SFOS.

Eh, I'm looking at my ACTA Revised Edition rulebook, and I don't see the Accurate trait in there anywhere. What exactly did it do?

 

[Howarth]

Eh, I'm looking at my ACTA Revised Edition rulebook, and I don't see the Accurate trait in there anywhere. What exactly did it do?

What size shoe are you?

 

[Pauly_D]

And the Accurate trait is still in the Revised ACTA book, it's not in SFOS because SFOS only includes additions and changes. Accurate is still in as was so no need to go in SFOS.

Eh, I'm looking at my ACTA Revised Edition rulebook, and I don't see the Accurate trait in there anywhere. What exactly did it do?

first shot automatically hit then needed 3+ (similar to beam but always stayed at 3+ instead of going down)

 

[philogara]

Woooow, great quote. And I have to agree about leaving in rules that are no longer applicable to anyone. It's kind of like leaving in segments of code that no longer do anything, "just in case". Sure you know it doesn't do anything, but the poor slob who's stuck reviewing or updating the code down the road is left scratching his head.

Works for Microsoft and look where they are!

 

[B5freak]

Chern wrote:

I think it would be ok to reintroduce different levels of accurate..."Accurate 3", "Accurate 4", etc.

Not sure if I'd want to go so far as to create an Accurate X trait since it could open the door to, "why don't we give it to the Minbari" or some such thing. Best to keep it as a First Ones Only trait, and as straight-forward as possible.

If a First One chooses to shoot at you, it's gonna hit you. (unless you're cheesy Minbari in which case the First Ones, masters of arcane, all-powerful technologies, can't see you)

 

[Khamul]

Chern wrote:

I think it would be ok to reintroduce different levels of accurate..."Accurate 3", "Accurate 4", etc.

Not sure if I'd want to go so far as to create an Accurate X trait since it could open the door to, "why don't we give it to the Minbari" or some such thing. Best to keep it as a First Ones Only trait, and as straight-forward as possible.

If a First One chooses to shoot at you, it's gonna hit you. (unless you're cheesy Minbari in which case the First Ones, masters of arcane, all-powerful technologies, can't see you)

First Ones should ignore Minbari stealth. Reason is simple. Stealth does not prevent the ship from being seen. Shadow and Vorlon ships physically see the target, then the weapons (Telepathically and/or neurally linked) are told "aim here". No real electronic systems to jam, which is one of the big advantages of the organic ships.

For that matter, simple televisual guided missiles should be able to target Minbari ships quite nicely.

 

[lastbesthope]

And the Accurate trait is still in the Revised ACTA book, it's not in SFOS because SFOS only includes additions and changes. Accurate is still in as was so no need to go in SFOS.

Eh, I'm looking at my ACTA Revised Edition rulebook, and I don't see the Accurate trait in there anywhere. What exactly did it do?

My apologies sir, I have just examine dthe soft copy of Revised Rulebook 1 that I was supplied with by MGT HQ and it has it in, but you are correct, the actual Revised rule book 1 does not contain it. I can oonly assume I have a late preproduction soft copy pdf, as all the other changes that are in Revised are in it.

My apologies to all in the thread for my mistake, I mainly use the soft one as it lies next to my PC which is nearer than my ACTa shelf :lol:

Here is the text of the Accurate Quality:

Accurate: These weapons do not roll their AD to hit as other weapons must do. The incredibly advanced targeting computers onboard will automatically hit any ship that is attacked with this weapon system. As such, every Attack Die of the weapon is rolled as a hit on the targeted ship. Accurate Beam weapons automatically hit once; subsequent rolls to hit only need a 3+ roll of the AD to hit again. As long as these secondary hits roll 3+, they may be re-rolled to to inflict further hits on a 3+.

Again my apologies. I now move on to a firmer grounding in my next debate.

First Ones should ignore Minbari stealth. Reason is simple. Stealth does not prevent the ship from being seen. Shadow and Vorlon ships physically see the target, then the weapons (Telepathically and/or neurally linked) are told "aim here". No real electronic systems to jam, which is one of the big advantages of the organic ships.

For that matter, simple televisual guided missiles should be able to target Minbari ships quite nicely.

There is no reason to assume that Minbari Stealth would be completely ineffectual against the First Ones. Ignoring the old arguement about whether Minbari stealth is Active or Passive, it is reasonabnle to assume that it affects sensors at various wavelengths of the EM spectrum, but not visible, as we can see the ships. Unless it's really clever and we're seeing them other than where they are, unlikely and I digress.

We do not know how First One ships 'see', it may be in the visible spectrum or at other wavelengths. If at other wavelengths then there is no reason to assume that the Minbari stealth tech won;t have some effect. I mean they fought the Shadows 1000 years ago and knew they would return, it stands to reason they would tweak their stealth to have an effect on Shadow vessels at least.

As for visually targetting something in space, barring artistic license, in space there is not a great deal of light , half of everything is usually in shadow, and there is a hell of a lot of black to hide in. Think of how hard it is to spot a plane flying overhead on a clear day, and there you have the sound to help you, no such lucjk in space, again barring artistic licence. At distance even large spaceships are pretty dinky small.

LBH

 

[emperorpenguin]

actually fighting in the depths of space would be much like night fighting on earth, where muzzle flash gives away positions.
In space the energy release of engine firing or weapons fire would light up a ship like a christmas tree against the blackness of space saying "shoot me!", that's why some of the really "hard" sci-fi games such as Traveller and 2300 used stealth and missile systems for their space combat

 

[lastbesthope]

actually fighting in the depths of space would be much like night fighting on earth, where muzzle flash gives away positions.
In space the energy release of engine firing or weapons fire would light up a ship like a christmas tree against the blackness of space saying "shoot me!", that's why some of the really "hard" sci-fi games such as Traveller and 2300 used stealth and missile systems for their space combat

True, but that's still a lot os black to spot flashes in, and they give you no idea of how fast or what direction your target is moving in, unless you can get a couple from the same target in a sequence, or is that multiple stationary targets :twisted:

LBH