Number of fighters per base

[TGT]

How many flights can directly contact and thereby breach or suicide attack a ship?
"Rule of ten"
rule of ten explained- each line of full 10 damage allows 1 flight of fighters to attack
each line of 6-10 damage allows a flight to attack
a line of 1-5 damage is rounded down and doesn't allow a flight to contact

Base contact
Each Flight that can physically touch the stand of a ship without stacking
can contact.

2 + 1/priority level of ship
each priority level adds one flight to the base amount 2
thereby
patrol level = 2+1 =3
skirmish 2 +1+1 =4
raid 2+1+1+1=5
battle 2+1+1+1+1=6
War 2+1+1+1+1+1=7
Arma War 2+1+1+1+1+1+1 =8

 

[Green_Knight]

like the priority rule most.

Thought that suicide flights immediatly attack, so
that the number of flights didn't matter.

 

[katadder]

well as I suggested the rule of 10 I had to go with that

priority level just doesnt work for me as some ships are so much bigger at the same priority level. look at a whitestar compared to a t'loth or explorer for example.

 

[Burger]

The rules say base contact, sure it is a bit inconsistent with no official base sizes, but it keeps it simple.

 

[Na-Po]

+1 for base contact as it's so easy to use.

Plus we all (my players and I) use "standards" stem/minis so we all have the same referential.

 

[jimmor]

I don't like the solution based on priority - priority describes potential of the ship more then it's size.

With 'rule of ten' there is one problem - against 150+ ships you'll have more fighters in base contact then in range of their weapons.

Base contact will make people reduce their markers...

No good solution it seems, but rule of ten seems best. With adnotation, that every ship in base contact is in range. How to calculate the Drazi assault frigates?

 

[Ripple]

I voted base contact, as that is both the rule and penalizes ships least for a stat that is supposed to be a benefit, not a benefit with possible drawbacks.

I note you decided not to add a fixed number of flights in contact to your poll. Seems that was the easiest to administer and was at least consistent with the play test as far as Triggy's work.

Ripple

 

[TGT]

rememebr the flights are making contact with a ship
either attaching or impacting the target ship
hence attributing the base size which is quite maliable I.E OPEN TO ABUSE
in tourney play as a measure really doesn't stack up logic wise for me

the priority level +1 again as Kataddar says doesn't make a great deal of sense as its based upon relative power of the ship not the size

so The only logical link between ship size and actual physical contact is the rule of ten

a carte blanche x flights is probably the worst as its got no reflection at all on physical size of the target

 

[Triggy]

rememebr the flights are making contact with a ship
either attaching or impacting the target ship
hence attributing the base size which is quite maliable I.E OPEN TO ABUSE
in tourney play as a measure really doesn't stack up logic wise for me

the priority level +1 again as Kataddar says doesn't make a great deal of sense as its based upon relative power of the ship not the size

so The only logical link between ship size and actual physical contact is the rule of ten

a carte blanche x flights is probably the worst as its got no reflection at all on physical size of the target

I voted for the rule of ten but the based on PL/fixed number are easier to administer. I just feel that the rule of ten is more consistant with "real life" whilst being easy enough to work out (and gives a minor boost/weakness to certain ships such as the White Star vs Gaim...)

 

[ShopKeepJon]

Several ideas were put forward in another thread (the one that spawned this poll) that are not options in this poll. Without including those options, the usefulness of this poll is substantially reduced.

The one that I suggested was to use the "rule of ten" but to include a minimum number of flights that can make contact. This would prevent ships with low damage values (e.g. White Star) from having an unfair advantage not supported by the current rules. Similarly, now that I think about it, there should probably be a maximum value as well to prevent ships with very large damage values (e.g. Shadows) from having an unfair disadvantage.

Another solution put forward (and the one that I would prefer) is to have an official base size for each ship and a fixed number of flights that can contact each official base size. If a ship is supposed to use a medium size base and a medium size base can be contacted by six flights, then I know that the ship in question can be contacted by six flights. This is a very easy solution and seems most in keeping with the rules as written.

It wouldn't matter what size base a ship actually has. Nobody would have to actually use the official base sizes. The ships would simply have an additional stat, "official base size". I'd vote for this in an instant... if it were an option...

ShopKeepJon

 

[Ripple]

I find your assumption that damage points and size are directly linked to be just as unrealistic. Admittedly under second ed it does look more consistent, but look at the evidence from the previous edition and you see that ships like the Olypmus which was not large, but had high damage/low armor. The G'Vrahn does not appear to be substantially larger than the G'Quan but you would allow two to three more flights to impact it.

Pl is a representation of power

Damage is a representation of how much punishment a ship can take not necessarily it's size.

(Hull incidentally seems to indicate how tough it is to punish a ship in the first place, whether that is through good electronics, good physical armor, or what have you, with Stealth Adaptive etc. indicating extra ordinary levels.)

Least that is how it has traditionally been sold.

Ripple

 

[katadder]

actually the 2e olympus lost 10 damage so it more on par with a chronos so bad example as it would get same number of attacks under rule of 10 or PL rule.

 

[TGT]

"Several ideas were put forward in another thread ... Without including those options, the usefulness of this poll is substantially reduced. "

I'm not sure which other ones were excluded if they were then they probably weren't that good as they weren't remembered here.
The ones that are presented for interest here are those which would require no additional corrections i.e adding another trait to a ship indicating its "target size" . The three options require no book keeping nor erata's or FAQ's they are quite simple in their application in the game.

Another solution put forward (and the one that I would prefer) is to have an official base size for each ship and a fixed number of flights that can contact each official base size.

very unlikely to happen as there would be complaints that models are sent out with different bases and again its something that would need to be reviewed by MGP per ship adding time and effort that isn't going to easy nor very rewarding for MGP

If a ship is supposed to use a medium size base and a medium size base can be contacted by six flights, then I know that the ship in question can be contacted by six flights. This is a very easy solution and seems most in keeping with the rules as written.

SEE ABOVE

It wouldn't matter what size base a ship actually has. Nobody would have to actually use the official base sizes. The ships would simply have an additional stat, "official base size". I'd vote for this in an instant... if it were an option...

AGAIN an additional stat require more imput from MGP

Thanks for the discussion though
all of this would be solved if MGP had thought about this for us in the 2e release!

 

[Locutus9956]

I vote base contact. Thats BASE CONTACT not STEM CONTACT. I do however think there should be some official base sizes and be done with it. This would also allow for a much simpler borsight rule (line up with the base rather than the ship).

And before anyone pipes in the usual 'no thats silly when a a big ship is close you could boresight it without being pointed even close to the stem' line I should point out that its not THAT easy and frankly at that sort of range I have no problem imagining a ship being easily targetable (just think of it as the boresight ship pivoting a bit or waiting for the target to drift forward a little or something) I would suggest that if that were the case boresights should not under any circumstances be allowed to split fire though.

 

[ShopKeepJon]

I'm not sure which other ones were excluded...

I've included two of them, one of which you quoted. Perhaps you should go back and read the original thread.

...if they were then they probably weren't that good as they weren't remembered here.

This statement is quite insulting. If you go back to the original thread, you will find that I am not the only one to comment on missing options.

The ones that are presented for interest here are those which would require no additional corrections i.e adding another trait to a ship indicating its "target size" . The three options require no book keeping nor erata's or FAQ's they are quite simple in their application in the game.

They do require errata or FAQ's. Otherwise we would not be discussing this.

...its something that would need to be reviewed by MGP per ship adding time and effort that isn't going to easy nor very rewarding for MGP

Most of the game companies that I have dealt with find it very rewarding to correct oversights in their games. The designers usually care deeply for their games and want them to be the best that they can be. Having a rule that calls for ships to be in base contact and then not having standard base sizes is a serious oversight. They probably want to fix this.

As for it being difficult for them, I don't think that it really would be. They already have a large and dedicated group of playtesters. All it would take is sending the problem out to them for a few weeks and then entering the results into the FAQ. This would be very little work for actual Mongoose employees. And as I said before, any solution we come up with will need to go into the FAQ...

ShopKeepJon

 

[Ripple]

Just because you don't remember something is not an indication of it's worth, its an indication of its worth to YOU.

Two ideas that did not make you list were..

Fixed bases sizes for all ships, flights limited to those that can contact the base.

A fixed number of flights may contact any ship.

The absolute easiest to implement is a fixed number may contact any ship. It not only requires one line (inserted twice, once for each instance of contact weapons) but it requires no math. (and no special rules for odd sized ships such as bases, Arm. ships and Whitestars.)

Ripple

 

[Dwar]

We use standard bases for all ships (large Evil Empire flying bases) and allow 3 fighters per arc, so 12 can get one ship. Has never caused any problems, but we don't have a Gaim fleet and the Dilgar have only just been painted, and played one game.

 

[TGT]

Just because you don't remember something is not an indication of it's worth, its an indication of its worth to YOU.

Fixed bases sizes for all ships, flights limited to those that can contact the base.

Ahh i remember the reason for its ommision is that MGP would have to state official base sizes for each ship something they'd probably not do, and base sizes might have to be what you see etc meaning re-basing...again something not likely to happen.

It not only requires one line (inserted twice, once for each instance of contact weapons) but it requires no math. (and no special rules for odd sized ships such as bases, Arm. ships and Whitestars.)

again your looking to add more lines of info to the stats does that inc a new revision in your eyes...how is that easy?

The way i have played before being effected by contacting flights be they breaching pods or suicide flights was 3 flights per arc
now if you are actually contacting a ship I will argue against anything that
can't contact the stem of my ship that incs distance to contact the stem.