Lone Gunman
Mongoose
Keep that rubbish! That's was my opinion concering P&P. If you think that it'll be ok, fine. But old problems like ship/fleet balance and redicilous crits don't go away if you just add some things that are "cool".
P&P Playtest Pack v 1.1
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Keep that rubbish! That's was my opinion concering P&P. If you think that it'll be ok, fine. But old problems like ship/fleet balance and redicilous crits don't go away if you just add some things that are "cool".
Lone Gunman
Mongoose
'Cause I invested money in this game an thought that 2nd Ed would be an improvement. Then miniature production was terminated. And now I come back, read about a playtest pack and all I see are new things for all fleets instead of fixing existing problems. I want to play this game and want really like it, but there are issues that should be addressed.
LG - I see what you mean - I too have said it would be best to address problems before generating new problems with new rules...........
some have already been addressed in 2nd Ed - on the whole IMHO a big improvement on previous.
however there re things to be sorted
Skindancing rules,
lack of fleet choice for certain fleets for instance
its unfortunate that some of the new fixes for problems are not IMHO very good - the new unasked for version of TTT - the original was better. The wolf pack, EA emines - the new Vree extractor beams (partly my fault I admit)
the Space Station rules in total.............
It is to be hoped that time is to be spent on this and better solutions achieved in these areas (and others) - but I guess P+P is now a New Year thing. - perhaps in conjunction with new minis?
some have already been addressed in 2nd Ed - on the whole IMHO a big improvement on previous.
however there re things to be sorted
Skindancing rules,
lack of fleet choice for certain fleets for instance
its unfortunate that some of the new fixes for problems are not IMHO very good - the new unasked for version of TTT - the original was better. The wolf pack, EA emines - the new Vree extractor beams (partly my fault I admit)
the Space Station rules in total.............
It is to be hoped that time is to be spent on this and better solutions achieved in these areas (and others) - but I guess P+P is now a New Year thing. - perhaps in conjunction with new minis?
katadder said:
Any news on this topics :wink:
Indeed some of the rules from the Playtestpack seem to encourage a certain Playstile.
Regreatyably you see here how well ACTA's reputation has become since the end of miniature production and support in Germany. But that's another story and does not fit in here :wink:
Back to topic: Anything new on possible new campaign rules (beside those for the Campaign of Terror)
Stonehorse
Mongoose
katadder said:
I also hope that the critical damage system is being addressed, that to my mind has been the biggest cause of problems.
On a personal note, I've never had an issue with Whitestars, so can't complain about them, and I don't think they need addressing as they are fine as they are.
Hopefully P&P will inject some life into the system and I'll be able to bring my Shadow Fleet out of their retirement :wink:
Harry Lonsdale
Mongoose
I just downloaded and read through the playtest pack and while I haven't had a chance to try any of the new rules, I have a couple of comments.
Gaim:
refit 6, Long Bomb: Similar refits for other races that grant +50% range also halve AD when using the extra range. It seems that would be appropriate here as well.
I thought that speed 8 breaching pods was a big complaint about the Gaim? They went to 6 in S&P, now going back to 8?
Campaign of Terror:
Need to remove the -1 initiative for each strategic point under control, else the defeding player will have little to no chance to find the base as the game goes on (they'll find it in the first few turns or, quite likely, not at all-espeically if they have a low initiative to begin with).
Does it matter which strategic target the Raiders attack? It doesn't look like it, but that would make things a little more interesting.
Do defenders get RR or special abilites for the SPs that they control? I think this should be spelled out (it sounds to me that they do not, but an arguement could be made...)
Drazi:
Like the Start Attack Run! SA! Don't know how much use it will get, but it seems very Drazi-ish without being overpowered.
Vree:
Initiate Extraction seems overly nasty as an automatic success. CQ 8 (maybe 9, given the Vree bonus) would seem to not be out of line.
Pak'ma'ra: no luv?
Gaim:
refit 6, Long Bomb: Similar refits for other races that grant +50% range also halve AD when using the extra range. It seems that would be appropriate here as well.
I thought that speed 8 breaching pods was a big complaint about the Gaim? They went to 6 in S&P, now going back to 8?
Campaign of Terror:
Need to remove the -1 initiative for each strategic point under control, else the defeding player will have little to no chance to find the base as the game goes on (they'll find it in the first few turns or, quite likely, not at all-espeically if they have a low initiative to begin with).
Does it matter which strategic target the Raiders attack? It doesn't look like it, but that would make things a little more interesting.
Do defenders get RR or special abilites for the SPs that they control? I think this should be spelled out (it sounds to me that they do not, but an arguement could be made...)
Drazi:
Like the Start Attack Run! SA! Don't know how much use it will get, but it seems very Drazi-ish without being overpowered.
Vree:
Initiate Extraction seems overly nasty as an automatic success. CQ 8 (maybe 9, given the Vree bonus) would seem to not be out of line.
Pak'ma'ra: no luv?
its coming up with stuff for the pak. theres always the old model ships that I am sure mongoose must have molds of.
as a special rule which i currently gave to a unique admiral you may or may not be seeing I have:
They’re Actually Attacking?!?!?: Most other races are used to the Pak’ma’ra responding slowly to attacks on convoys if at all but to actually have them turn and attack often throws the enemy into confusion at the start of the battle. During setup and in the 1st turn of any game the Pak’ma’ra fleet counts as having +3 initiative (before any modifiers) instead of -3.
like i said this is for an admiral of mine but could be a generic pak rule.
as a special rule which i currently gave to a unique admiral you may or may not be seeing I have:
They’re Actually Attacking?!?!?: Most other races are used to the Pak’ma’ra responding slowly to attacks on convoys if at all but to actually have them turn and attack often throws the enemy into confusion at the start of the battle. During setup and in the 1st turn of any game the Pak’ma’ra fleet counts as having +3 initiative (before any modifiers) instead of -3.
like i said this is for an admiral of mine but could be a generic pak rule.
katadder said:
interesting, perhaps only when they are the defender in a scenario - unexpected ferocity in defense?
I Still say any race that spends most of its time rumerging around the universe looking for "stuff" needs a Scout ................... not neccesarly a great war one but a pak scout......... :wink:
Dur’shi Explorer (Avioki Variant) Raid The pak’ma’ra can be found across the galaxy and travel there in various ways, including their own unique equivalent of the Earth Explorer vessels. Having purchased massive, and most importantly jump capable, Batrado transports, they transformed them in their own indomitable fashion and set off to discover the places that others would not bother to investigate.
Speed: 4 Turns: 1/45 Hull: 5
Damage: 64 / 10
Crew: 68/10 Troops: 1 Craft: 1 Porfatis Flight,
Special Rules: Anti-fighter 2, Jump Engine, Lumbering, Scout, Shuttle 1, In Service: 2240+
.
Weapon..............Range....Arc.... AD........... Special
Plasma Torpedo.....25 ......F........ 2.......AP, Slow-Loading, Triple Damage
Plasma Cannon.....10.......F........4........AP
Plasma Cannon......10......P.........6.......AP
Plasma Cannon......10......S........6.........AP
Played a 3 pt Battle vs AdrianH on tuesday evening. My Narn vs his Shadows. We decided to use the P&P rules to see how they played out.
Narn Fleet:
1 G'lan
1 Var'nic, 1 Ka'tan, 1 Thentus
1 Dag'kar, 1 Ka'tan, 1 Sho'kar
All fighters were Frazis.
Shadows
5 Shadow Scouts
3 Wings of Shadow fighters (6 flights)
We played on a 4'x4' table, the only opposed roll I managed to win was for table edge.
Shadows
--D-
--A-
-A--
----
Narn
D=Dust Cloud; A=Asteroid fields.
The upper asteroid field was density 7, the lower field was density 8. W didn't have any handy asteroids, so a bunch of minbari ships were pressed into action as ship graveyards. Clearly the Shadows had been here before and the Narn were trying to get an edge in looted technology.
Basically the narn trundled forward slowly, with fighters in support, and began to hold position behind the two asteroid fields. The shadows split into 2 groups and scuttled behind the asteroids and lurked there for a turn before the smaller group of 2 came in to attack (1 scout in the upper asteroid field and 1 between the two fields) and the larger group of 3 scouts circling behind the schoaling narn at the back of the table.
The only shooting in the first two turns was a exploratory nuking by the Dag'Kar - it could see the centre of the blast, but not the two scouts hiding behind the asteroids. Some minor damage was scored.
Turn two saw the dog fights start. A furball erupted in the lower asteroid field between 2 frazis and three shadow fighters (narn lost).
Turn three saw the the dog fights end (well, except for 1 frazi that managed to draw). and the shadows begin attacking. The Narn began pivoting to bring their weapons to bear. The G'lan was sent adrift toward the top asteroids (it failed a stealth roll) and the Dag'kar lost its forward weapons to shadow fighters. The Var'nic failed a stealth roll and the Thentus was also destroyed.
Turn four saw the G'lan drift to the edge of the asteroids on all hands on deck. The last frazi died miserably in the dogfight. The remaining shadows pounced on a well scouted Ka'tan (it did manage to pin one of the scouts with its Mag Gun (5 hits) before being gutted and the shadow fighters managed to survive the weapons fire directed at them. The Var'nic failed a stealth roll against the previously pinned Scout. The G'lan suffered the No Special Actions vital after failing a Stealth roll. And failed to repair the adrift critical.
We called the game there as time ran out. I'd killed a patrol point of fighters and inflicted some minor damage on a couple of Scouts. The shadows were happily blasting anything that moved into tiny pieces. And the G'lan was about to try and navigate through an asteroid field without any engines....
Thoughts on the game.
Narn: I actually hit something with a Mag Gun
Though I failed loads of Stealth rolls instead. Taking Goriths would not have helped me win any dogfights. No chance to test Close Blast Doors, the ships on it were not shot at. All stop and pivot was a better option than track that target, I could then fire with something. Never managed fired the 5 AD boresight (damn stealth). The damage bonus to the G'lan meant that it might have survived crashing through the asteroid field and still been above its thresholds.
Shadows: Fighters are now probably worth taking and using, the shields made a significant difference in survivability when attacking ships (though it's not that Narn have much anti-fighter). We were considering using a Stalker at one point as well, but the fighters were thought to be a more interesting use of the points, despite the presence of the Dag'kar.
Thinking on the game, with shields now working in dogfights, it raises the following question:
Since a fighter can only destroy one enemy 'flight' in a dogfight each turn, does removing a shield count as destroying a flight?
For example. Starfury Vs Shadow (shadows have initiative): Shadow player's turn - Starfury wins dogfight and Shadow fighter looses a shield. EA players turn - Starfury wins dogfight. Is the shadow fighter then destroyed?
Narn Fleet:
1 G'lan
1 Var'nic, 1 Ka'tan, 1 Thentus
1 Dag'kar, 1 Ka'tan, 1 Sho'kar
All fighters were Frazis.
Shadows
5 Shadow Scouts
3 Wings of Shadow fighters (6 flights)
We played on a 4'x4' table, the only opposed roll I managed to win was for table edge.
Shadows
--D-
--A-
-A--
----
Narn
D=Dust Cloud; A=Asteroid fields.
The upper asteroid field was density 7, the lower field was density 8. W didn't have any handy asteroids, so a bunch of minbari ships were pressed into action as ship graveyards. Clearly the Shadows had been here before and the Narn were trying to get an edge in looted technology.
Basically the narn trundled forward slowly, with fighters in support, and began to hold position behind the two asteroid fields. The shadows split into 2 groups and scuttled behind the asteroids and lurked there for a turn before the smaller group of 2 came in to attack (1 scout in the upper asteroid field and 1 between the two fields) and the larger group of 3 scouts circling behind the schoaling narn at the back of the table.
The only shooting in the first two turns was a exploratory nuking by the Dag'Kar - it could see the centre of the blast, but not the two scouts hiding behind the asteroids. Some minor damage was scored.
Turn two saw the dog fights start. A furball erupted in the lower asteroid field between 2 frazis and three shadow fighters (narn lost).
Turn three saw the the dog fights end (well, except for 1 frazi that managed to draw). and the shadows begin attacking. The Narn began pivoting to bring their weapons to bear. The G'lan was sent adrift toward the top asteroids (it failed a stealth roll) and the Dag'kar lost its forward weapons to shadow fighters. The Var'nic failed a stealth roll and the Thentus was also destroyed.
Turn four saw the G'lan drift to the edge of the asteroids on all hands on deck. The last frazi died miserably in the dogfight. The remaining shadows pounced on a well scouted Ka'tan (it did manage to pin one of the scouts with its Mag Gun (5 hits) before being gutted and the shadow fighters managed to survive the weapons fire directed at them. The Var'nic failed a stealth roll against the previously pinned Scout. The G'lan suffered the No Special Actions vital after failing a Stealth roll. And failed to repair the adrift critical.
We called the game there as time ran out. I'd killed a patrol point of fighters and inflicted some minor damage on a couple of Scouts. The shadows were happily blasting anything that moved into tiny pieces. And the G'lan was about to try and navigate through an asteroid field without any engines....
Thoughts on the game.
Narn: I actually hit something with a Mag Gun
Though I failed loads of Stealth rolls instead. Taking Goriths would not have helped me win any dogfights. No chance to test Close Blast Doors, the ships on it were not shot at. All stop and pivot was a better option than track that target, I could then fire with something. Never managed fired the 5 AD boresight (damn stealth). The damage bonus to the G'lan meant that it might have survived crashing through the asteroid field and still been above its thresholds.Shadows: Fighters are now probably worth taking and using, the shields made a significant difference in survivability when attacking ships (though it's not that Narn have much anti-fighter). We were considering using a Stalker at one point as well, but the fighters were thought to be a more interesting use of the points, despite the presence of the Dag'kar.
Thinking on the game, with shields now working in dogfights, it raises the following question:
Since a fighter can only destroy one enemy 'flight' in a dogfight each turn, does removing a shield count as destroying a flight?
For example. Starfury Vs Shadow (shadows have initiative): Shadow player's turn - Starfury wins dogfight and Shadow fighter looses a shield. EA players turn - Starfury wins dogfight. Is the shadow fighter then destroyed?
Your memory of the battle is certainly better and more detailed than mine!
Track That Target is primarily intended for a boresight weapon whose target has yet to move. All Stop & Pivot will allow the ship to turn further and attack something, just not the target it really wanted. This is not significant when all the enemy ships are the same, but might have been significant if I'd left the fighters out and taken a Stalker instead of one Scout. You might have had the choice of trying to Track That Stalker or All Stop & Pivot to fire at a random Scout.
Thinks: if a ship is adrift and goes into an asteroid field, should it even get a CQ check? It's not going to have much chance to avoid any asteroid which happens to be in front of it.
The shields did help once the dogfights were over and the fighters started going after the big targets. Anti-fighter 1 can't do more than knock out a shield, which means it's up to the ship's bigger guns to finish off the job - and the fighter can try to dodge those.
"This effectively means that each Shadow Fighter flight now has to be defeated twice in a dogfight for it to be destroyed"
In other words, yes.
CBD does not work when the enemy aren't in range to shoot.Silvereye said:Narn: I actually hit something with a Mag Gun
Additionally, if you'd done CBD, I suspect that even fewer Scouts would have weapons pointing at them. Basically, the Narn had the choice of CBD or All Stop & Pivot.
Track That Target is primarily intended for a boresight weapon whose target has yet to move. All Stop & Pivot will allow the ship to turn further and attack something, just not the target it really wanted. This is not significant when all the enemy ships are the same, but might have been significant if I'd left the fighters out and taken a Stalker instead of one Scout. You might have had the choice of trying to Track That Stalker or All Stop & Pivot to fire at a random Scout.
It was adrift, so wasn't going very fast. Assuming it failed its CQ check, it would have taken at most 3AD triple damage; more likely, only 1 or 2, as even SAP has a 50/50 chance of hitting hull 6.
Thinks: if a ship is adrift and goes into an asteroid field, should it even get a CQ check? It's not going to have much chance to avoid any asteroid which happens to be in front of it.
I'm still not convinced that the shields would help much against something with a significant Dogfight bonus. It just means the dogfight will take longer. There was one duel in which we rolled a draw in both turns; a Gorith, with its +1 bonus, would have won that fight.
The shields did help once the dogfights were over and the fighters started going after the big targets. Anti-fighter 1 can't do more than knock out a shield, which means it's up to the ship's bigger guns to finish off the job - and the fighter can try to dodge those.
I don't see how. The flight is still there, it hasn't been destroyed.
From P&P:
"This effectively means that each Shadow Fighter flight now has to be defeated twice in a dogfight for it to be destroyed"
In other words, yes.
G Quan
Mongoose
How?
One Fighter = one Dogfight each turn. An supporting Fighter Wing may involved in serveral dogfigths and make at each +1 to DF Score.
Result - one D6 vs one D6 each Dogfight!?
We played this rule that the attacker must roll an difference of 2+ to win vs shadowfighter. 1 for the shields, 1 to destroy.
One Fighter = one Dogfight each turn. An supporting Fighter Wing may involved in serveral dogfigths and make at each +1 to DF Score.
Result - one D6 vs one D6 each Dogfight!?
We played this rule that the attacker must roll an difference of 2+ to win vs shadowfighter. 1 for the shields, 1 to destroy.
That was more or less the question I asked here. Your answer:Burger said:
Burger said:
So, to clarify: if 8 Starfuries are facing 4 Shadow fighters, can two of the Starfuries declare separate attacks on one Shadow fighter during their turn, or must those two declare one fighter attacking and the other supporting? If the former then the Shadow fighter will be involved in two dogfights in the same round.
They would have been if you'd gone through that asteroid field.AdrianH said:CBD does not work when the enemy aren't in range to shoot.
When the Shadows finally attacked there was never really any option of CBD. I needed the turn multiplier ASAP gave me to swing the Narns main arcs in.AdrianH said:
The stalker would have cost you two Scouts. Given the way the terrain ended up, I think it might have been worth it. Even with taking the Fighters. (Fleet of 1x Stalker, 3x Scout, 3x Fighter Wings)AdrianH said:
AdrianH said:It was adrift, so wasn't going very fast. Assuming it failed its CQ check, it would have taken at most 3AD triple damage; more likely, only 1 or 2, as even SAP has a 50/50 chance of hitting hull 6.
Thinks: if a ship is adrift and goes into an asteroid field, should it even get a CQ check? It's not going to have much chance to avoid any asteroid which happens to be in front of it.
The rules say the Adrift ship eats asteriods each time it moves. No CQ check allowed. That means it would probably end up taking around 9 to 12 AD SAP TD. Unless I managed to actually repair that Adrift crit.
AdrianH said:
Thats why I asked for clarification on the 1 on 1 question. 1 on many or many on many is not an issue as you can likely dictate the fight to ensure the possibility of getting the 2 hits required.
Even when I opened up with the Narn secondaries I was struggling to get the second hit in. Admittedly those races with AP/SAP/T-L would likely have landed a few more hits, but the fighters did soak up a lot of AD. If you also stick the fighters in the same arc as a scout, then they have to choose between fighters or scouts which eats the AD. Even with energy mines weapons you also need to score two hits to bring down the flight (one hit just wipes out the shield). You need to be firing a 6+AD (vanilla) system to have any chance of statistically guaranteeing the kill. The 4AD vanilla from a G'karith is needing an above average roll to catch one. That's an lot of dedicated firepower just for fighter clearance.AdrianH said:
Yes, but if the fighter did not have a shield it would have been destroyed. It is the shield stops it from actually being destroyed rather than the other fighter not making a kill.AdrianH said:
I personally do not think so. Certainly the shadow fighter must be 'killed' twice. Once to remove the shield. And once more to kill the fighter. Reading the dogfight rules, a fighter can only kill a flight once per turn. I actually think you need to outnumber the shadow fighter 2-1 in a dogfight or find a way to get some Anti Fighter into play as the fighters engage.AdrianH said:In other words, yes.From P&P: said:
Straight into the boresight and forward arcs of half the Narn fleet, and one or two Scouts probably minus their shields after failing to avoid asteroids? I suppose that's one way to end the game a bit more quickly. :lol:Silvereye said:They would have been if you'd gone through that asteroid field.AdrianH said:CBD does not work when the enemy aren't in range to shoot.
The Stalker would have cost me one Scout plus the fighters; I definitely wasn't going to have just 4 capital ships! Even with the P&P upgrades, one Stalker is generally not preferable to two Scouts, unless perhaps the opposition has a lot of interceptors.
Nevertheless, the fighter has not been destroyed. Knocking down shields doesn't count as a kill in any other circumstances; why would it do so here?
I don't know if outnumbering the Shadow fighter 2-1 will help, hence my question about Starfuries vs. Shadows. Are you allowed to have two fighters make separate attacks against the same target? If no, outnumbering won't help; the second fighter can only support the first. If yes, the Starfuries might kill the Shadow fighter immediately during their turn; or if the Shadow gets really lucky, it could defeat both Starfuries and kill two fighters in one turn. In any case, if the Starfuries defeat the Shadow fighter once during their turn and once during the Shadows' turn, that Shadow fighter is dead.I personally do not think so. Certainly the shadow fighter must be 'killed' twice. Once to remove the shield. And once more to kill the fighter. Reading the dogfight rules, a fighter can only kill a flight once per turn. I actually think you need to outnumber the shadow fighter 2-1 in a dogfight or find a way to get some Anti Fighter into play as the fighters engage.AdrianH said:From P&P:"This effectively means that each Shadow Fighter flight now has to be defeated twice in a dogfight for it to be destroyed"
In other words, yes.
