Oracle Priority Level.
- Thread starter kinsha
- Start date
Wish list;
- increase of damage points for Omegas, and damage and crew for Chronii, Novas and Hyperions to bring them into line with other races equivalent ships
- increase in the range of the beam component of Nova and Warlock LPA's to remain consistent with the backgrond fluff, say 15" for the Nova and 20" for the Warlock
-Balancing fore and aft beam AD on the Omega and Hyperion to 4 each
- Reduction of the Oracle to Skirmish PL
-Increase the laser AD on the G'Quan to 4
-Add Stealth +4 and scout capability to the Dargan, together with rules for the rather funky Chamaeleon Sensor Suite (disguises the ship as a different class)
-Fighters returned to their old stats, but with limits on how many independent wings can be used (say no more than one FA point?)
Dreaming of the Second Edition....
- increase of damage points for Omegas, and damage and crew for Chronii, Novas and Hyperions to bring them into line with other races equivalent ships
- increase in the range of the beam component of Nova and Warlock LPA's to remain consistent with the backgrond fluff, say 15" for the Nova and 20" for the Warlock
-Balancing fore and aft beam AD on the Omega and Hyperion to 4 each
- Reduction of the Oracle to Skirmish PL
-Increase the laser AD on the G'Quan to 4
-Add Stealth +4 and scout capability to the Dargan, together with rules for the rather funky Chamaeleon Sensor Suite (disguises the ship as a different class)
-Fighters returned to their old stats, but with limits on how many independent wings can be used (say no more than one FA point?)
Dreaming of the Second Edition....
I would if I could fool the enemy into thinking it's a Vorchan and I've got something nasty in lurking in hyperspace.
Or it's an Octurion, and I don't.....
Right now, the Dargan is just A. N. Other Centauri cruiser; this is aimed at giving it back some of the flavour and individuality it used to have in B5W.
Battle level would be fine by me.
Matt said:
I think you've got a good point there. Some ships need limits, e.g. 1 ship/pt per 5pts. Independent fighter wings would be one of these. Other ships that might be limited are command vessels, after all you would not have that many flagships in a fleet, and those supported by the fluff e.g. Solarhawk (10 in existance) and Victory.
I would not advocate a complete list in the GW sense of a 0-x number of ships, but perhaps a rare or common rating?
A common would require the expenditure of at least 1pt per x amount on a specific ship (again Drazi example might be Sunhawk or Warbird). Alternatively 1 ship per x pts (to allow for variation in PL).
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Lagavulin said:
IF it came with two flights of rutarians embarked instead of sentris maybe (as it did in B5 wars)
how about instead of stealth it cannot be fired at until it fires first (it appears to be one of your ships) or cannot be fired on until turn 2?
philogara said:
True but I have always seen non-ISA ships in an ISA fleet die horribly...
"Hmm I can shoot at the self-repairng, damage halving, super dodge ships, or the one I might actually be able to hurt, tough choice"
Whilst they do add flexibilty to the ISA an ISA commander needs to realise they will not be with him for long as everyship that can bring a weaon to bear hammers them.
B5freak said:
Twin-Linking I think works in a very different way to AP/Super AP. What I see it as, Twin-Linking is meant to represent a massive barrage of shots against a target, relying on weight of firepower to hit some of the less well armoured bits and score damage.
AP/Super AP seems to represent two things rolled together, but they are the same type of effect, Accuracy and Power. It relies on either; the fact that the energy in the shot will compromise the armour to a degree and score damage, or that the gunnerers can place the shots more accurately to hit the weaker protected areas (Precise in my opinion amplifies this particular aspect).
As to the fighters, I think it 'feels' better if you represent the fact that the pilots are not blazing away wildly hoping (as the energy requirements for this will be huge), but be able to guide thier fire more accurately to those places the fighters targeting computers are highlighting on the cockpit HUD. Think of it like having a very maneouverable boresight weapon - the fighter agility turns a boresight into a turret.
Also Twin-Linking every fighter in sight will detract from those fighters that are already Twin-Linked (e.g. Starfury).
LBH said:
Thats not quite what I meant. Basically in a capaign it is massively cheaper to buy the fighters on a Morshin (cost breakdown 8xNial @ 40RR + 1xFlyer @ 2.5RR from a Battle choice of 20RR) than to buy them individually, which seems really daft. But you generally need about 3 flights to a wing or more to make the vessel cost more then the fighters.
Which gives me further thoughts - See the Optional Extra's thread for more details.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Silvereye said:
true but when you think about it, logically most fighters are twin-linked so why should the starfury get this bonus alone?
In fact there seems few fighters which shouldn't be twin-linked only really first ones, maybe the abbai and vree
Another logic thing, shouldn't Nials/Flyers/Tishats have mini-beam?
emperorpenguin said:
The Minbari playing part of me says HELL YEAH!, the other bits say no they are scary enough thanks, without giving them Anti-Fighter, un-interceptable weaponry.
emperorpenguin said:
Why do they have to be twin linked? OK, most of the fighters are armed with weapons that fire as a pair (or triple in the case of Nials), but they are probably optimised to strike a target at the same time at a certain range. Or fire in a sequence, if there is a slight re-charge delay. All this is wrapped up in the flights AD. The individual fighters may not be able to rapid fire (the Thunderbolt has a single rapid-firing gatling cannon in the nose) enough for the flight to get the 'Twin-Linking' trait.
Also the Vree Tzymm, Raider Double-V, Drazi Sky Serpent have Twin-Linked weaponry already.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
fair enough but why then does the starfury get twin-linked? :?
Agree on most but I don't agree with making the laser ranges more its good enough that it would be made the same range as the regular pulse.
They are lasers but need not necessarily be similar to range and power as medium lasers.
I think there would be balance questions on this. If you must move them I would recoomend 18 inche sfor the Warlock then you will have a weapon that is a lot like fusion cannon.
I would like to see the Dargan remodeled I disagree it should be battle. I think it actually has way more guns than it should. In AOG it was more of a hit and fade advanced ship. I wouldn't mind having some kind of relflection of chameleon. Give it stealth or the chameleon ability and scout and defang its guns a bit. That would probbly be make up for it.
They are lasers but need not necessarily be similar to range and power as medium lasers.
I think there would be balance questions on this. If you must move them I would recoomend 18 inche sfor the Warlock then you will have a weapon that is a lot like fusion cannon.
I would like to see the Dargan remodeled I disagree it should be battle. I think it actually has way more guns than it should. In AOG it was more of a hit and fade advanced ship. I wouldn't mind having some kind of relflection of chameleon. Give it stealth or the chameleon ability and scout and defang its guns a bit. That would probbly be make up for it.
Nomad said:
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Silvereye said:
I may be misundertanding you here, but you're saying it's cheaper to buy a Mosrsin and get it's fighters with it, than it is to but a Morshin's load of fighters seperately. I agree on that.
My point is, and I apologise if you already understood it, that if you buy a Morshin instead of seperate fighters, that the only way to deploy the fighters you got with the Morshin is to deploy the Morshin, prohibitive at lower PLs. As yet we have no rule that says you can detach flights of fighters from their mothership, to be deployed as seperate wings for other engagements.
LBH
Yeah. I think we are agreeing. It is quite silly to buy a ship when you get more than its weight in auxillary craft free. Say you deploy a Morshin in a campaign, and you opponent smokes 5 of its 8 Nial flights. With the current rules it is actually cheaper to buy a new Morshin than replace the 5 Nials you lost. Which seems daft to me. Hence suggesting the post in the Extras thread.
Potentially though a detached duty could be a good thing though. It might make taking Nials/Tishats and Sky Seprents actually worth it in a campaign.
Potentially though a detached duty could be a good thing though. It might make taking Nials/Tishats and Sky Seprents actually worth it in a campaign.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
'Detahced duty' that's a good name for what I mean.
It would certainly help the ISA if they could detach the fighters from a VCD for lower PL engagements.
LBH
It would certainly help the ISA if they could detach the fighters from a VCD for lower PL engagements.
LBH
lastbesthope said:
I don't have the rulebook to hand but I am positive there is a line in the campaign section about all fighters in a campaign fleet being a pool.
So if you buy a Morshin and a single Nial (1 battle 1 patrol point) as part of your inital 10 pt force you can use the Morshin's fighters to replace the Nial in the patrol point wing should it ever get killed - or the singles on the Tigaras. Then when you start to run out just buy another Morshin.
If you really want to use the Morshin at any stage just load any spare fighters on it. Alternatively if you get a scenario you really think you will lose - say an ambush and don't want to risk anything valuable then transfer all the Morshins fighters to other ships and let your opponent blow up an empty Morshin hull. Ok you lose the battle but take no real damage.
Similar threads
