Phaser-G Kill Zone discussion

[Da Boss]

Phaser Gs *are* offensive weapons when you are a Hydran player. You cannot ignore that.

If escorts are the problem, address that while leaving the phaser G rules intact. Require them to only appear in carrier groups. Done.

Are Phaser G's an issue in SFB - the post on here suggest they are so that there has to be rules to only allow escorts to be fielded alongside carriers - is this the case with Hydran warships - is it intentional and is it carried through to FC which is the primary source for ACTA?

 

[dix]

The real problem here, as I see it, is one of differing game mechanics. In SFB/FC, movement is governed by the impulse movement system. Ships move a little bit, have an opportunity to fire, move a little bit, have an opportunity to fire, etc. Thus, any ship with powerful, but short range, weapons has to endure the enemy's fire before it can do so. In a fleet situation, this means that any "berserking" ship is going to be crippled, or worse, before it gets a chance to fire.

ACTA is completely different because a ship can effectively "jump" from medium-long range to point-blank range. And then fire before anyone can respond.

Is there an easy answer for this? Probably not. However, I do like the idea of representing weapons as they are "supposed to be." I like the idea of removing the kill zone trait. It still leaves the Ph-G with the ability to produce 4 pts damage per turn, which is nothing to laugh at.

 

[SneakyPete]

As it was mentioned earlier, even with Killzone removed a Phaser-G is TWICE as powerful as a Phaser 3 in Killzone, I feel even more strongly that ALL traits be removed from Phaser-G's, no Killzone, Accurate +1, or Precise.

I really would not like to see a forced squadron linking rule either, the captain of each ship should be able to use his ship's ability to maximum effectiveness as gaps in an enemies defenses happen. We just need to make sure the game is balanced to keep it fun for all.

Compared to the Kzinti or Romulan small escorts the Feds got a battlewagon for an escort vs a bathtub.

I play all fleets but Kzinti as well so I don't think I am biased here.

 

[Talonz]

Captain Jonah

Speaking as one of the Plasma races who have sod all defence against massive drone salvos. NO

Where are you seeing these massive drone salvos? Short of carrier groups, kzinti fleets or drone variant heavy fleets, you shouldnt be seeing them. And if you are, you carry an advantage against all but the kzinti in heavy weapons then. Against kzinti, you should have a phaser advantage. Also historically the plasma races never fought extensively with heavy drone users with the possible exception of the late arrival ISC, and they brought all kinds of defensive options to the table.

Assuming you are a gorn player by your sig, you should have a significant phaser suite to bring to the table to get through the drones, and then heavy plasma to bring the pain. If this is not working for you either you are fighting the wrong race or something is wrong with the game, all of which has nothing to do with phaser Gs.

Hydran close range ships have Fusion beams which are the nasty short range heavy weapon. These should be what you fear NOT the Phasers.

True on the former, not on the latter. Every captain should fear the combined might of heavy weapons and phasers, *especially* when facing a hydran.

This is ACTA not SFB or FC.

All of which need to take the SFU into account.

If the intent of the Phaser G is a Defensive weapon then it needs toning down.

But that's just it...it is a multirole weapon, both offensive and defensive.

Defensive ships in pairs should not be able to take down battle cruisers in one turn. A Fed escort should defend its fleet against seeking weapons by shooting them NOT by flying out and killing the ships firing the seekers.

So how is this happening? Why arent you stuffing seekers down their throats at every opportunity, or savaging them with weapons fire outside their effective range before they jump on you? Ergo, is the problem really the phg, or does the fault lie with the way the game operates (jumps in movement without ability to interupt) or even player tactics and choices?

The Fusion as the Hydran’s primary close range heavy weapon should cover the close range damage.

That completely ignores the ships that dont carry fusions as well as stinger fighters who have spent their fusion charges or fighters who lack fusions altogether, all of which still carry gatlings and thus can bring a credible close range threat.


Da Boss

Are Phaser G's an issue in SFB - the post on here suggest they are so that there has to be rules to only allow escorts to be fielded alongside carriers - is this the case with Hydran warships - is it intentional and is it carried through to FC which is the primary source for ACTA?

Im not sure what you mean by 'issue'. Gatlings are one of the best weapon systems in the game but are hampered by their range limitation, deployment limitation, and inability to protect them from damage once internals roll in.

All hydran ships and fighters carry them. Escorts carry more, but only hydrans and feds have those (orions have limited access to them but never fielded dedicated escorts iirc).

 

[scoutdad]

I don't see a need to "assign" the escort a target to escort. This is going to change on a minute by minute basis.

someone mentioned, "this is not SFB / Fed Comm". I agree. Trying to model the wepons / systems directly is only goig to produce SFB / Fed Comm. i think as long as the effects are similar and game play is similar, we should be happy.

In both SFB/FC, ships do move incrementally and you have multiple opportuities to fire at tehm as they close. This is not the case in ACTASF, where they can effective close from 24-inches last turn to point blank this turn.

What I'd like to see happen is Kill zone removed from Phaser-Gs. [And yes, this still makes a single phaser-G mount more powerful than a single Phaser-3 mount inside the Kill Zone, but that's the way they are in SFB, too.]
And then possbily a limit to the number of escorts that can be taken in a battle. Their numbers are limited in SFB, so why not ACTASF?

I personally would liek to see another trait added - Limited: X
Where x is the full point value required to field a single limited unit of this type in your battle force.

This could work for all of the SFU limited-production ships:
Escorts - limited: 1000
For every full 1,000 points - you can add 1 escort. So a 2,000 point battle would allow for 2 escort.
Scouts - Limited 1,000
Battleships: Limited 2,000
Carriers... when released, are limited ships
Maulers - when released,are limited ships
and so on.

 

[storeylf]

Phaser Gs *are* offensive weapons when you are a Hydran player. You cannot ignore that.

Removing killzone doesn't ignore that fact, the Phaser G is still quite a potent short range weapon, far better than a Ph3 or Ph1 even with out it.

Between 2-6 the Gatling would still remain 4 times better than the Ph3 (like it is in SFB), and if you consider that in SFB/FC the gatling loses all its punch after range 3, unlike the Ph1, then the gatling is vastly superior to the Ph1 as well at range 2-6. It's worth remembering that for damage purposes ACTA does not have any difference between phaser types, and you need to bear that in mind.

the post on here suggest they are so that there has to be rules to only allow escorts to be fielded alongside carriers - is this the case with Hydran warships - is it intentional and is it carried through to FC which is the primary source for ACTA?

No, FedCom has very few ship limits. That is why a number of people are concerned about the Fed/Hydran escorts just being ported straight over. The hydran escort with 5 PhGs was published not long ago, it is simply gross. The main problem in FedCom is the pointing, it tends to use the same points as the SFB ships, which don't always translate over very well given the differences in the game.

LDR are the other serious PhG issue in FedCom. Many of their standard ships come with 4 gatlings, plus ESGs (they really don't need escorts!). In a simple ship vs similiar category ship comparison (e.g. DD vs DD) they are amongst the best there is, by a large margin, and that largely comes down to mass PhGs. They are also serioulsy underpointed. As noted earlier, an early FC newsletter reported that an origins FedCom tourney had the majority of entrants play LDR, which isn't surprising as they slaughter pretty much anyone else. Locally we house rule LDR to have a 25% extra cost for the 4 gatling ships in an attempt to make them a bit more balanced.

The real problem here, as I see it, is one of differing game mechanics. In SFB/FC, movement is governed by the impulse movement system. Ships move a little bit, have an opportunity to fire, move a little bit, have an opportunity to fire, etc. Thus, any ship with powerful, but short range, weapons has to endure the enemy's fire before it can do so.

FedCom is more in between ACTA and SFB, its impulse system is coarser than SFB, so it is still possible to jump a good bit of range between firing chances. That makes things like Gatlings quite nasty, you don't really get to shoot at the range just before they kick in, as the gatling ships will hop across that range, and Evasive manouvers allows you to minimise that sligtly longer range shooting. This is especially tricky for ships with mainly FA arcs for their hitting power who can't fight well with out heading at the enemy.

 

[Nerroth]

I should note that even in FC, there are fleet limits on Aegis-equipped escorts according to (3F2); a squadron (of five or less ships) can have no more than one, and a fleet (of six or more) no more than two.

The idea of removing Killzone does sound like it might be worth considering (and playtesting), but any of the fleets with ADD-equipped escorts would have a built-in need to stay close to their charges (as opposed to enemy ships) so long as the offensive mode for anti-drones is set at an appropriately short range.

I do think that the idea of a Limited X Trait might be a good one; it's not that far from the Unique Trait we now have already, and could help rein in some of the "mission variants" before they risk taking over as the main line ships in a given fleet.

 

[Talonz]

Phaser Gs *are* offensive weapons when you are a Hydran player. You cannot ignore that.

Removing killzone doesn't ignore that fact, the Phaser G is still quite a potent short range weapon, far better than a Ph3 or Ph1 even with out it.

As you seem to be a self avowed 'gatlings are defensive' advocater, you'll pardon me for not being very receptive to this idea.

Take away the killzone and you have basically 2 ph3's in damage output versus anything but drones. That is not a gatling phaser then. As there are many ships with 2ph3's on each side but the hydrans rely on single gatlings, that's some cause for concern. Are you advocating an increase in other phaser mounts for hydrans, or just in favor of reducing their already anemic phaser suite further? Because I am not.

 

[Da Boss]

Where are you seeing these massive drone salvos? Short of carrier groups, kzinti fleets or drone variant heavy fleets, you shouldnt be seeing them. And if you are, you carry an advantage against all but the kzinti in heavy weapons then. Against kzinti, you should have a phaser advantage. Also historically the plasma races never fought extensively with heavy drone users with the possible exception of the late arrival ISC, and they brought all kinds of defensive options to the table.

Pretty much every game - in reality the Federation and the Klingons are the heaviest users by far, with the Kzinti some way behind. we have just had a whole slew of new ships with loads of the things - and they are the escorts (!) and the battleship with 9AD :shock: drones. Of course we all know the Federation gets to use everyone elses weapons for whatever reason........ I am waiting for the Disruptor variant cruisers to appear........

This is ACTA not SFB or FC.

All of which need to take the SFU into account.

Don't worry we have that hammered into us at every opportunity....................the ACTA system has had massive changes to try and accomodate every tiny nuance of the SFU - even when their own games differ in interpretations and rules. Its especially fun when the answer to any perceived problem with SFU material is change the game to make it the same as SFB.

Are Phaser G's an issue in SFB - the post on here suggest they are so that there has to be rules to only allow escorts to be fielded alongside carriers - is this the case with Hydran warships - is it intentional and is it carried through to FC which is the primary source for ACTA?

Im not sure what you mean by 'issue'. Gatlings are one of the best weapon systems in the game but are hampered by their range limitation, deployment limitation, and inability to protect them from damage once internals roll in. All hydran ships and fighters carry them. Escorts carry more, but only hydrans and feds have those (orions have limited access to them but never fielded dedicated escorts iirc).

Well considering that many SFB players posting on this thread and others say there is already an issue in SFB/FC with galting phasers, SVC has apparently effectively vetoed some porting of ships into FC due to the perceived issues. I think people are legitimate in apparently trying to forstall simply importing problems that are are known about.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I personally would liek to see another trait added - Limited: X
Where x is the full point value required to field a single limited unit of this type in your battle force.

It is not our place to tell players what models (that they have personally bought and own) they can and cannot use in their games.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Let me first say that I am not sure there are currently any issues with Phasers-G.

However.

If you want to stop the 'rush' tactics (which I am not certain work well in CTA - being a fleet game - and which will likely put you in explosion range of your target) we _could_ just say that Phasers-G are not subject to the 'phasers only' exception on Power Drain. If you want to use them with All Power to Engines, that will be your only weapon.

Currently talking to Steve about this but, as things stand, I am not certain there is a balance issue. We need to see more games played first.

That said, I thought I would throw that rule into the discussion

 

[Talonz]

Well considering that many SFB players posting on this thread and others say there is already an issue in SFB/FC with galting phasers, SVC has apparently effectively vetoed some porting of ships into FC due to the perceived issues. I think people are legitimate in apparently trying to forstall simply importing problems that are are known about.

I put forth that this issue is overblown by some...that the issue doesnt exist in sfb.

 

[Da Boss]

I don't know the game - I just know alot of those who play (or have played both systems) have said its an issue on this forum?

Is it correct that SVC has vetoed some Phaser-G heavy ships moving into FC due to balance problems?

 

[Talonz]

I personally would liek to see another trait added - Limited: X
Where x is the full point value required to field a single limited unit of this type in your battle force.

It is not our place to tell players what models (that they have personally bought and own) they can and cannot use in their games.

A rather bizarre statement. Unit deployment is a rule like any other, rules are written with limitations to better the game in mind. Although related, this is not the same as what models are on the table.

Can I put an all DN fleet on the table? Or all escorts, or all maulers when they come out? The silliness that will result will do the game no favours.


daboss; i cant speak to FC, but in SFB I believe they had the same problem early on but only with fed escorts with their 4 gatlings. Escorts then became restricted to carrier group deployment only.

 

[Da Boss]

I was a bit surpised by this when the Unique trait has just been put into the game

@ Talon - yes at present you can build your fleet from any / all ships you own - so you can have a fleet of several Dreadnoughts and couple of frigates as In sinks - it can work well in tournaments depending on the scenario / opponent.

Whilst we have had Unique ships we have not had Rare/Limited before - although it has been debated at some length.

As I said I don't know the SFB /FC scene to know what issues have or have not arisen, I might do a post over on the ADB board to get some more thoughts.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Captain Jonah

Speaking as one of the Plasma races who have sod all defence against massive drone salvos. NO

Assuming you are a gorn player by your sig, you should have a significant phaser suite to bring to the table to get through the drones, and then heavy plasma to bring the pain. If this is not working for you either you are fighting the wrong race or something is wrong with the game, all of which has nothing to do with phaser Gs.

Sigh. OK I'll bite.

This is ACTA. This is not SFB or FC. Even in those games you are not forced to fight against your historic enemies. Players fight against every other race, if you are in a competition or tournament or campaign you don't stop and say "No the Gorn never fought the Kzinti historically so I am not allowing you to attack me"

Phaser Gs need to be balanced against everyone because they can be used against everyone. Your statement that as a Plasma race I should not be fighting the Feds, LDR or Hydrans makes no sense, this is a freewheeling game where any race could be fighting any other race, not Fed and Empire.

So how is this happening? Why arent you stuffing seekers down their throats at every opportunity, or savaging them with weapons fire outside their effective range before they jump on you? Ergo, is the problem really the phg, or does the fault lie with the way the game operates (jumps in movement without ability to interupt) or even player tactics and choices? .

The Phaser G MUST work in a way that is compatible with the game mechanics. I Keep saying this but it doesn’t seem to reach people. This is NOT SFB/FC. The game is ACTA based on the setting of SFB. Slavishly following every rule from SFB will make this game as broken as SFB is. Consider how much work goes into the tournament cruisers. How many years of work to try and match them against each other. When even the people most familiar with SFB don’t want to port over some of the more broken ships you have to admit there are problems.

The Phaser G is a very powerful weapon with the Impulse movement system of SFB/FC. In an instant move system like ACTA it is murder. It remains a Phaser G, it fires four times with the range of a Phaser 3 but it cannot be ported across as is without being overpowered.

That completely ignores the ships that dont carry fusions as well as stinger fighters who have spent their fusion charges or fighters who lack fusions altogether, all of which still carry gatlings and thus can bring a credible close range threat.

The Hydran fleet operates a mix of lethal close rnage ships and powerful long range ships. We know this, it isn’t a problem though the close range killers are going to be nasty in ACTA since the game mechanics allow them to teleport right next to you. However while Phasers are a main weapon they are NOT a heavy weapon. The Fusion beams should be lethal at short range, the Hellbores lethal at long range. Arguing that a Hydran long range ship with Hellbores should also be able to crush you at short range because it has Phaser Gs just indicates how unbalanced the Phaser G is. A stinger or ship that has fired its close range heavy weapon should not be able to blow you away on its reload turn.

Da Boss

Im not sure what you mean by 'issue'. Gatlings are one of the best weapon systems in the game but are hampered by their range limitation, deployment limitation, and inability to protect them from damage once internals roll in.

All hydran ships and fighters carry them. Escorts carry more, but only hydrans and feds have those (orions have limited access to them but never fielded dedicated escorts iirc).

Yes Gatling’s are one of the best weapons in SFB. In a game where you can see your enemy coming and shoot him on the way in before he closes to point blank range. Deployment limitation doesn’t apply in ACTA. Range doesn’t apply in an instant move game where the ship goes from 12” away to base to base contact in one go. Internal damage charts are irrelevant, this is ACTA.

Your comment about ALL Hydran ships and fighters carry them and only fed escorts and some Orion’s carry them is the point. Hydran fighters with a single Phaser G and two fusions are out damaging plasma frigates at point blanks range, they can teleport back to the carrier to escape revenge due to the instant move mechanic. A pair of Phaser Gs being roughly the same as 6 other Phasers at close range in ACTA means any ships with two is packing the equivalent of most cruisers. All Phasers do ONE damage, TWO in kill zone, Phaser ones do NOT out damage Phaser 3s. A Phaser G is roughly the same as THREE Phaser 1s at point blank and getting to point blank range isn’t hard due to the ACTA move mechanic.

Hands up all Orion Players who would fit a couple of Phaser Gs in the optional mounts given the choice?

 

[Captain Jonah]

Update to cover the posts while I was typing.

Well considering that many SFB players posting on this thread and others say there is already an issue in SFB/FC with galting phasers, SVC has apparently effectively vetoed some porting of ships into FC due to the perceived issues. I think people are legitimate in apparently trying to forstall simply importing problems that are are known about.

I put forth that this issue is overblown by some...that the issue doesnt exist in sfb.

Again I’ll repeat myself. THIS IS NOT SFB (or SPARTA). :wink:

The fact that a weapon is not a problem in SFB has NO bearing on ACTA-SF. They are different systems with different mechanics. We are talking and arguing over how weapons work in ACTA :roll:

It is not our place to tell players what models (that they have personally bought and own) they can and cannot use in their games.

A rather bizarre statement.

You are entitled to your opinion but please consider. Mathew is writing the rules based on ACTA. A successful fast play game of space combat. It is his choice not to have unit limits. It is our choice as players to support him or not. If you feel that not limiting ship types in a game is bizarre you are free to not play the game. For what seems to be the rest of us here, we like the fact that we are not playing a recreation of carrier wars in space with rules regarding what can and cannot be used under what circumstances.

 

[Da Boss]

To be fair on the last point re ship restrictions - the Unique Trait - which is a ship restriciton rule has just been put in which would sort of make people think that (rightly or worngly) limited/rare would be a possible next step?

 

[billclo]

Okay, now that Matt has given us some direction; that of no limits on escort type ships, let's carry on.

I'll put my 2 cents (pence) out there. If my opponent whips out a fleet that is mainly comprised of escorts, or is all specialty ships, I'm packing up my stuff and leaving while staying "frack this". I won't play vs a guy who is min-maxing a fleet of all escorts/all maulers/all DNs. It takes the fun out of the game and makes it an exercise in who can roll the best dice. Which won't be me.

Similarly, I won't play against the guy who whips out an Orion fleet armed with all gatling phasers. Sucks the fun right out of the game.

Being as we can't get rules limiting how many of the specialty units are in a fleet, I guess we have to go the route of "neutering" them so they aren't too tempting to abuse.

 

[Da Boss]

Hmm problem is the tournaments - you can complain before, during and after, you can say its cheese and you can auto forfit the game but that's about it.....game is still lost.

"Competative" fleets/Army lists versus other fleets is a debate in itself - often rages on Dakka Dakka.

You might still be able to change Matts mind - but would need evidence including actual games etc I should think