Pak questions

[MustEatBrains]

Going over the Pak fleet list (again and again and again), I have come up with some questions:

1 - Redundancy: "Close Blast doors" normally only ignores damage loss, not crew. The redundancy rule seems to indicate that the Paks get the 5+ save for both damage and crew - is that correct?

2 - Duties: The "Watching while unseen" duty gives the Pak player +2 Initiative in the next campaign turn. is that cumulative with their normal Initiative of -3 (for a total of -1), or does it replace it (giving them +2 in the next turn)

3 - mixed League fleets: Am I correct that, in a campaign, a mixed League fleet containing Paks uses the following rules:

a) The overall Initiative drops to -3

b) "redundant systems" ans "gentle beings" apply to all Pak ships (and only them)

c) "simple traders" is ignored

d) What about "Scavengers"? Does it apply when Pak ships are part of the winning fleet, or is it also ignored?

 

[locarno24]

So....much...plasma....

Triple damage torpedoes on a patrol ship? Help!!! I can see a barrage of torpdoes from plasmahawks being a very nice opening gambit, and probably a game-ender in low point games or against weaker hulled ships. Although since they're not precise, so will probably just tickle a maximus class or anything better armoured

Really quite scared by the amount of kick the porfatis' torpedoes get.
Of course at dodge 6+ dogfight -1 you're gonna lose a lot of them if anyone bothers to shoot at them!

I like the rules for the P'shui.. do NOT let yourself get hit by that thing's cannon batteries.


People will be amused to see that as a duty you can pick up what's essentially the trait Redundancy 1 as has been discussed....


I can imagine the ships done up with slightly rusted hulls. I'd imagine they'd look great in amongst raider ships..

Wellcome to the Pak'Ma. You will be ueful...one way or another....

 

[Morgoth]

What I would like to know is are we going to see :
Resh'kas'u carrier :I reckon it would be raid level ship and carrying some of theose nasty torp fighters which seem to more fighter/bombers
Thar'not'ak Cruiser : looks like a nasty ship - no doubt more of those nasty plasma torpedoes!!

So Matt/Mongoose any plans for either of these ships? after all the other Pak ships for B5W made it.......

 

[locarno24]

Know anywhere I could find a picture of either?

Resh'kas'u could do with being Battle-priority; after all those are small gunships it's carrying, not fighters....besides, it's currently a blank gap.


EDIT:

Hmmm....I like the plasma cruiser model
But not so wild about the carrier


Thing is, with the salvaged plasma-armed league ships, do you really need a cruiser unless it's armament is distinctly different to the other Pak vessels? You could, I suppose, make that one the carrier....Fleet carrier would be an interesting trait because the porfatis won't be getting too close to the enemy - hence fleet carrier save should work fine...


Dogfight bonus is a bit irrelevant, though.

 

[Morgoth]

here are the two ships:


The Resh'Kas'U Carrier at the top and the Thar'Not'Ak Plasma Cruiser below

The Plasma Cruiser could definitely be a Battle level ship and the Carrier either Raid or battle

 

[locarno24]

Just noticed the vulnerability to breaching pods - which I suppose makes sense....

But 1 troop on a war priority ship could mean trouble...

 

[MustEatBrains]

I still have two of the carriers; and one blister of FA-scale plasma cruisers (might use them as patrol cutters or something like that)

Still, anything on my rules questions?

 

[Davesaint]

From what I have read:

1 - Yes, damage and crew
2 - Yes, their campaign init. would be -1
3a - Yes, their initiatve would be -3
3b - Yes
3c - Yes
3d - not sure, likely only for all Pak fleets, but don't hold me to that.


Dave

Going over the Pak fleet list (again and again and again), I have come up with some questions:

1 - Redundancy: "Close Blast doors" normally only ignores damage loss, not crew. The redundancy rule seems to indicate that the Paks get the 5+ save for both damage and crew - is that correct?

2 - Duties: The "Watching while unseen" duty gives the Pak player +2 Initiative in the next campaign turn. is that cumulative with their normal Initiative of -3 (for a total of -1), or does it replace it (giving them +2 in the next turn)

3 - mixed League fleets: Am I correct that, in a campaign, a mixed League fleet containing Paks uses the following rules:

a) The overall Initiative drops to -3

b) "redundant systems" ans "gentle beings" apply to all Pak ships (and only them)

c) "simple traders" is ignored

d) What about "Scavengers"? Does it apply when Pak ships are part of the winning fleet, or is it also ignored?

 

[Nomad]

They look interesting, and in the 3rd age, quite powerful.

But the ISDs are a little harsh for our upcoming Dilgar campaign.

 

[MongooseMatt]

So Matt/Mongoose any plans for either of these ships? after all the other Pak ships for B5W made it.......

Not for those ships, no - at least, not for the pak'ma'ra. They may appear elsewhere.

The pak'ma'ra _will_ be getting another ship for 2e, but it comes from another race. . .

Incidentally, we very much want to hear what you think of these rules - all comments will be fed into the 2e churning machine, allowing us to refine the fleet list. This is the whole reason we brought them out early!

 

[Morgoth]

thanks Matt , would be nice to see them though, even if they are not for the pak, especially would like to see the cruiser turn up somewhere

 

[animus]

I think they look too powerful. The only downside I see is their low initiative.

 

[MustEatBrains]

I think they look too powerful. The only downside I see is their low initiative.

Add to the drawbacks the lack of carriers, and the problems with special orders which require CQ checks.

And the low initiative is surely a major factor in campaigns... well, let´s have a few games with them before a more detailed analysis; myself I´ll give them a test run as part of my League fleet in an upcoming campaign.

 

[emperorpenguin]

They have a complete lack of rear facing weaponry too, that can be exploited

 

[MustEatBrains]

Although the Porfatis should make a great rearguard...

 

[CZuschlag]

I saw nowhere in the rules that they are part of the League. Where are we getting this assumption?

I know they were bundled that way into the Babylon-5 Wars books, but I can't see any such justification in the submitted rules. I can't see any rule suggesting that this is allowed. In truth, any synthesis with other league races would require a reassessment of the League, and not just the Pak'ma'ra. Sunhawks with Fuser Torpedoes on turn one supported by Vree scouts sounds downright busted.

Other comments are in the Countdown thread.

 

[captainsmirk]

The fact that they were part of the League in the series perhaps?


Nick

 

[H]

I saw nowhere in the rules that they are part of the League. Where are we getting this assumption?

I know they were bundled that way into the Babylon-5 Wars books, but I can't see any such justification in the submitted rules. I can't see any rule suggesting that this is allowed. In truth, any synthesis with other league races would require a reassessment of the League, and not just the Pak'ma'ra. Sunhawks with Fuser Torpedoes on turn one supported by Vree scouts sounds downright busted.

Other comments are in the Countdown thread.

um yeah, what captainsmirk said. They ARE part of the LNOW, and I believe JMS kinda wrote the show making it pretty cannon

 

[tneva82]

um yeah, what captainsmirk said. They ARE part of the LNOW, and I believe JMS kinda wrote the show making it pretty cannon

However for sake of rules lawyers maybe there should be mention of it somewhere...

...Otherwise you are bound to have somebody eventually try to claim your fleet illegal due to this in tournament :roll:

 

[H]

I suppose, damned rules getting on the way of a good fight!