New Traits for Vorlons & Shadows...

[Khamul]

You make a valid point, but I am not sure if I agree 100%. While it has never been stated what the nature of First One sensors are, it is a fairly good chance that they include whatever natural senses the pilot/processor core has. Now obviously things like sound or smell would be irrelevant, but vision would not.

Now one can assume that the bonus First Ones get to penetrate Minbari Stealth is based in part on what I suggest (Neural controlled visual targetting, telepathy, etc). And this works quite well. The main point I am trying to make is that the way the rules are written now the Minbari seem a bit cracked to me.

When you combine the loss of adaptive armor and Accurate with the minbari's "4+ save versus any damage" (Counting the +1 Shadow Bonus), it makes the Shadows (and Vorlons) horribly weakened when facing Minbari ships.

 

[lastbesthope]

You make a valid point, but I am not sure if I agree 100%. While it has never been stated what the nature of First One sensors are, it is a fairly good chance that they include whatever natural senses the pilot/processor core has. Now obviously things like sound or smell would be irrelevant, but vision would not.

I'd say that's a pretty big assumption, I accept that for the interface with the 'processor' the sensor readings of the vessel would be analogous to then original senses, but what the 'core' 'saw' and 'heard' may be based on information gathered on other wavelengths and presented in that form for ease of interface. I mean the visible spectrum is one of the least useful for detecting objects in space at great distance.

LBH

 

[Khamul]

You make a valid point, but I am not sure if I agree 100%. While it has never been stated what the nature of First One sensors are, it is a fairly good chance that they include whatever natural senses the pilot/processor core has. Now obviously things like sound or smell would be irrelevant, but vision would not.

I'd say that's a pretty big assumption, I accept that for the interface with the 'processor' the sensor readings of the vessel would be analogous to then original senses, but what the 'core' 'saw' and 'heard' may be based on information gathered on other wavelengths and presented in that form for ease of interface. I mean the visible spectrum is one of the least useful for detecting objects in space at great distance.

LBH

If you are talking ranges in AU, then yes, would be almost pointless. But then again at that level of range speed of light limits on weaponry make fighting academic anyways.

On the other hand, at ranges measured in doxens of miles/km, visual sighting does become somewhat more useful. All depends on your image intensification. (Which would be internal and not really effected by stealth or EW) Now agreed the average Shadow Ship would not likely have that good II capability, but when faced by Minbari, could they not grow newer ships with said capability? Whole point is evolution through conflict, that applies to ships as well.

On a side note, notice the Shadow Telepath Rig in the Psi Corps book? Apparently the thing drives most Teeps nuts. (As if they want to be part of a Shadow Ship anyways). But think of what a volunteer who stayed sane would be like....

Like a Military/frontline pilot version of Mr Morden, a willing Shadow Ally as opposed to a slaphead stuck in a pod,

 

[friendlyfire]

Ok, ok can we have a timeout, please? I think the geek factor here is maxed out . When we start talking about Astronomical Units and Shadow brains I think we need to take a step back and take a deep breath... :shock: ... and exhale.

Can someone start and come up with an idea and let's all just brainstorm? :lol: Here, I'll start. How about this:

Use current SFOS rules for the Shadows minus the damage table and add the following:
1) Fighters no longer cost extra for ships that carry them.
2) Scouts: adaptive armor
3) Hunter: accurate, adaptive armor, 4 fighter flights, slicer beam: DD, T, precise
4) Cruiser: accurate, adaptive armor, 8 fighter flights

 

[B5freak]

friendlyfire,

Instead of adaptive armour, why not just say that double and triple damage weapons don't get their standard multiplier? It would certainly save some time in game.

For the Hunter, I agree with giving it precise, but why not take away the fighters and dispersal tube and give it a decent secondary weapon? That would alleviate the need to make its slicer turreted, which is probably overkill anyway.

Not sure about the impact of bringing Accurate back into it with the Shadows. I frankly think that if we boost the Hunter into something more battle-like and give the Shadows a tad more survivability, we'll be at 100%.

Also agree that fighters should come standard. It's not like the ship is so scary that giving it fighters for free would be a big hassle.

 

[friendlyfire]

B5freak,

Instead of adaptive armour, why not just say that double and triple damage weapons don't get their standard multiplier? It would certainly save some time in game.

Hmm, good point. I really don't have a good reason for it only that the rule exists and thought it would be a quick fix for the current damage table. But the special rule (trait?) you propose is also a good idea.

For the Hunter, I agree with giving it precise, but why not take away the fighters and dispersal tube and give it a decent secondary weapon? That would alleviate the need to make its slicer turreted, which is probably overkill anyway.

I'm cool with that too. I thought getting rid of the fighters entirely was too drastic. But if everyone else thinks its a good idea...

Not sure about the impact of bringing Accurate back into it with the Shadows. I frankly think that if we boost the Hunter into something more battle-like and give the Shadows a tad more survivability, we'll be at 100%.

True dat. I just wanted to jump start the thread with more ideas So on that note... anyone else care to revise the list or make a suggestion?

 

[Khamul]

What about removing the fighters from the Hunter and adding one or two Phasing Pulse Cannon?

Definately give the Hunter's slicer beam precise, and make firing arc F.

As far as adaptive armor: Yes for Cruiser and Hunter, likely for scout as well. Accurate should be reserved for the cruiser only.

 

[B5freak]

One thing I posted earlier on this thread was giving the Hunter a copy of the Scout's Phasing Pulse Cannon, but with a Turret instead of Fore fire arc, instead of the dispersal tube. By also giving it Hull 6, Precise on the slicer, and the equivalent of Self-Repairing 10, it suddently looked a lot more like a Battle choice in our test game. Haven't picked it up since though, been busy.

 

[friendlyfire]

Ok, let's update:

Use current SFOS rules for the Shadows minus the damage table and add the following:
1) Fighters no longer cost extra for ships that carry them.
2) Scouts: adaptive armor
3) Hunter: hull 6, adaptive armor, slicer beam: DD, precise, phasing pulse cannon: T, no fighters and dispersal tubes
4) Cruiser: accurate, adaptive armor, 8 fighter flights

B5freak, you brought up another good idea- fixed self-repairing values. This would also be another way to fix the damage table. So which one makes more sense? Adaptive armor or self repairing X? If self-repairing X, which ships get it and what values? Personally, self-repairing 10 is a bit much. Regaining a guaranteed 10 damage every turn might have some people cry cheese. Maybe add some randomness to it like 4+d6? That's probably getting too complicated...

 

[B5freak]

In our test game we left the damage as is (i.e. same amount of damage and no adaptive armour), but gave the Cruiser the equivalent of Self-Repair 15, the Hunter 10, and the Scout 5. I say 'equivalent' because we were trying out the diffusor rules, which work about the same as self repair except that the damage is pulled out as it comes in rather than being taken away in the end phase. We also got rid of the Precise modifier to First One damage.

The self-repair 10 may sound like a lot, but given the lack of adaptive armour it was necessary. If you pull adaptive armour out of the equation, it becomes a decision between getting rid of double/triple damage, increasing their damage points, or increasing their ability to self repair/dissipate damage.

 

[Shadowfax]

When you did your test games how did they hold up? It would seem that that the adaptive armour trait is still more affective if a Cruiser was to take more than 30 damage, Hunter 20, or Scout 10. With double and triple damage tables it can easily top these numbers. Not only that but we are sacrifising the self repair roll at the end of phase. I'm not saying that it is not a good idea, because it is. I just wonder if it is still less affective that adaptive armour.

The other question is how to fix the Vorlons also? It would still seem that they are under gunned and not tough enough. My suggestion is this.

1) Fighters are free
2) All ships have an accurate trait, or + 3AD, or Quadrupal damage with increased range (Vorlons and Shadows are still under gunned compared to all their counter parts)
3) Heavy Cruiser and Light Cruiser have Hull 6
4) Heavy Cruiser Gets 6 Flights but must be deployed at start of game and are unable to be carried (this would be on cannnon evidence I don't believe I had ever seen fighters launched)

 

[lastbesthope]

1) Fighters are free

The stated number of flights for each Borlon ship are free, only Shadows must buy fighters seperately.

LBH

 

[emperorpenguin]

1) Fighters are free

The stated number of flights for each Borlon ship are free, only Shadows must buy fighters seperately.

LBH

yes but that would only be because there are no vorlon ships which carry fighters!

 

[B5freak]

They held up quite well during the test game. Removing the precise modifier on damage, giving them the Dissipators, upping the Cruiser's slicer dice to 6AD, and giving the Hunter Hull 6 with Precise on the slicer and a turreted pulse cannon rounded the fleet out real well.

I can't stress enough, however, that I believe much of the staying power improvements were gained through the use of the Dissipators. Because the enemy had to get past both the hull and the dissipators before any damage was done to the ship itself, the Shadows were able to absorb a lot more damage without having to touch the rest of their stats. To illustrate, the Shadows went toe to toe with a Narn fleet at close range for 6 turns. Yes, a lot of the Shadows died, but the changes to the Hunter's and Cruiser's firepower ensured that they gave as good as they got. By the end of turn 6, the Narn had two Raid and one Skirmish left on the board to the Shadows' one remaining Battle (a Hunter). We called it at 6 turns due to time, but agreed that the rest of the battle was going to be a matter of maneuver. Overall, a very balanced game.

 

[lastbesthope]

1) Fighters are free

The stated number of flights for each Borlon ship are free, only Shadows must buy fighters seperately.

LBH

yes but that would only be because there are no vorlon ships which carry fighters!

Vorlon Observation post gets them.

Whereas the Shadow CLoud has to pay for them.

LBH

 

[Shadowfax]

Yes I could see how 6 hull and precise being nulified could do that. And yes LBH the fighters are free but no ship can carrie fighters. That is why I say a Heavy Cruiser would get six free flights and brings them on the board with them, not in them. I guess if the Shadows went toe to toe with the Minbari in close combat and survived you could say they were over fixed . How does the Vorlon Fix sound. I have play tested them against Narns, Minbari, and Centari with good balance. I still got creamed by the minbari with the acception of one game when he had three ships too close togetheer and he went BOOOOOOMMMM! I love it when ships explode. Damn ugly. Hard not to laugh when I kept rolling 6's and took out three ships with one lucky round of shooting. I almost felt bad. NOT!!!

 

[lastbesthope]

Yes I could see how 6 hull and precise being nulified could do that. And yes LBH the fighters are free but no ship can carrie fighters.

Well as I said to EP, the Observation post does. I merely intended to point out that this need not be a change to the rules, as the rules are that way already.

LBH
Semi pro rules lawyer.

 

[Shadowfax]

True. I see your point. I was just thinking in reference to Heavy Cruisers getting fighters and Mongoose changing the free rule. As I see it it is better to assume nothing and cover all bases.

 

[friendlyfire]

If there's no other possible way to fix the ancients with the current rules then I'm all for the Dissapators.

This is a bit silly but it's still part of game design. From a record keeping standpoint adaptive armor is better. You change your damage values once. With a self repair you have to erase/change your values twice- when you receive damage and at the end of your turn.

I have another idea in beefing up power to the ancients. Instead of the obvious and increasing the AD, how about increasing the Precise values to +2 or maybe +3. The AD would of course be decreased... but then they would be deceptively powerful :twisted: .

 

[Shadowfax]

I would never decrease the AD no matter how good the shot. They are hurting enough on AD compared to the fleets enough the way it is.