Phaser-G Kill Zone discussion

[SneakyPete]

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.

Another benefit of Phaser-G is that when they are used at point blank range it is very easy to calculate how many phasers you need to use to kill an enemy (or at least cripple down to a point or two) without worrying about the ship exploding in your face due to the high hit probability of accurate +11 or +2 phasers. When playing Plasma ships at close range this is always a big risk due to the randomness of MultiHit and being sure you have enough Plasma to overwhelm defenses you need to overload to be sure.

While your suggestion could help it is still possible without APTE to have two ships up to 26" apart end up in Killzone together, although it is only likely to happen in the 12-14" movement range unless the targeted ship made a really poor move straight towards the Escort ship.

I have yet to see anyone give a good reason why they SHOULD have killzone other than it is a standard phaser trait. It is a defensive weapon, it does not need ANY traits as traits only boost its offensive capability. The other races escort ships don't get a weapon that is powerful in defense and offense. Add the 4 Drones as well on each FED escort and the balance is gone.

A Klingon E5E has 2Ph1/2Ph3 and 4 drones for 115 points while the CLE has 2Ph1/8PhG with 4 drones for 5 points less. Sure the Klingon has boosted forward shields but the CLE has TWICE the damage which is better to have, and more than twice the Phasers. Even compared to the other FED escort, the DWE, which is also uber with dual Phaser-G, the CLE is a massively better point buy. The ugly duckling has become a raptor.

 

[Talonz]

This is ACTA. This is not SFB or FC. Even in those games you are not forced to fight against your historic enemies.

Different games, same source material; material that in their fiction, history and scenarios reinforces historical opponents. If you choose to fight ahistorically, there maybe unintended consequences as a result and balance is not guaranteed.

Large amounts of gatlings are and should be a problem for plasma users. Bolts became an option. Stingers are a deadly threat and make cloaking extremely problematic. Que the plasma shotgun. Both options dont really exist in acta unfortunately. Not that those arent the only options against gatlings and stingers but to demand changes in the gatling simply because they do their job is...well, problematic to say the least.

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.

Put forth a concrete example please, one that does not involve fed escorts with 4 gatlings.

Hydran ships with 2 gatlings arent going to be instant murder only with those, especially as they have to centreline the target.

How are you dealing with kzinti cruisers that chuck drones, lob disruptors and phaser 1s, and then have the equivalent of a gatling on each side (albeit with some limited arcs)? If they end their move just past your ship, can you handle thier rear fire of drones, 2 phaser 1s and 2 gatlings? (using kzin TCC for example here)

Why should gatlings be penalized when these ships are not?

I would hazard a guess that the fed escorts (and some later ldr ships if they ever appear) with the 4 gatlings are the real problem. So address those ships specefically.

If clouds of stingers are a problem (and I would anticipate they would be) allow defensive fire to hit them before they reach optimal firing range, so ships can reduce the impact of their combat 'runs' before they get to fire, just as would happen in sfb, and much like seeking weapons are automatically paused before impact currently in acta.

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.

Please, no strawman arguments. I never said any of that.

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.

Proving my point...if the game doesn take these factors into account, you are asking for trouble. A deployment limitation would go a long ways towards addressing this. But I was also referring to the fact that you dont see ships loaded to the gills with multiple gatlings unless they are escorts or certain ldr ships.

Range does apply if you can setup a sabre dance using speed, arcs, terrain etc. Focus fire on those escorts outside their range and slow them down or damage them or remove them entirely. Range still matters, it just doesnt have the fine granularity that sfb has.

Hydran fighters with a single Phaser G and two fusions are out damaging plasma frigates at point blanks range... 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.

Something was seriouslly lost in translation then. Phaser 1s should be doing double a phaser 3's damage at almost any range, and with longer range. A gatling should be about double a phaser 1, but only at close range. And a single stinger should never eclipse a plasma frigate, its plasmas alone should do more than the stinger. Perhaps killzone should be removed from both phaser 3s and phaser gs? Would that even be on the table?

Keep in mind I am an sfb veteran but my exposure to acta is as a demo player. I havent dipped further into the game yet specefically because I have reservations about it.

sneakpete;

I have yet to see anyone give a good reason why they SHOULD have killzone other than it is a standard phaser trait. It is a defensive weapon, it does not need ANY traits as traits only boost its offensive capability.

Incorrect. The gatling is a multirole offensive/defensive weapon.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

The general feel I'm getting here isn't so much that people are upset about PhGs being used offensively, and more about Escorts being used offensively. PhGs are just getting the flack because they make the scariest example.

If this does become an issue, one option I would look at is counting Escorts as always being on IDF without it using a special action, but making them require an equivalent special action to fire offensively.

 

[Da Boss]

Different games, same source material; material that in their fiction, history and scenarios reinforces historical opponents. If you choose to fight ahistorically, there maybe unintended consequences as a result and balance is not guaranteed.

This is a bit of a strawman - nowhere in any of the ACTA rules is there anything about which fleets you should or should not fight - Does SFGB/FC have standard rules limitations on who you can fight for causual games and tournaments? What happens when you have people with incompatable fleets? I am not aware of an tabletop games where this is the case - certianly not in the ones I play: 40K, WFB, Uncharted Seas, Judge Dredd, other ACTA games etc?

Proving my point...if the game doesn take these factors into account, you are asking for trouble. A deployment limitation would go a long ways towards addressing this.

yes and no - you can achieve the same results by different methods. In general the SFB/FC familiar playesters seems to be on the whole happy with the results, although they can be unhappy with how it gets there in certain cases.

Something was seriouslly lost in translation then. Phaser 1s should be doing double a phaser 3's damage at almost any range, and with longer range. A gatling should be about double a phaser 1, but only at close range. And a single stinger should never eclipse a plasma frigate, its plasmas alone should do more than the stinger. Perhaps killzone should be removed from both phaser 3s and phaser gs? Would that even be on the table? Keep in mind I am an sfb veteran but my exposure to acta is as a demo player. I havent dipped further into the game yet specefically because I have reservations about it

.

Phasers all do the same damage, range and chance to hit is the differene between them, again that was agreed by the SFB side of playtesting - everything has to go back to them to be checked before it appears in ACTA.

If its a multirole weapon than its probably right as is -however that does not mean that the escorts can not have a large points boost if it is dsicovered that the Phaser-G is an abusable system.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

TalonZ (and i'm not having a go, just pointing things out)

In relation to Gorn ships and extensive phaser suites, have you actually looked at the gorn ships in any of the systems. They tend to have EXCELLENT arcs of fire, but fewer phasers than other empires ships. Until you reach Cruiser level, it's usually banks of one phaser (the BDD has 4 banks of 1 PH-1 +2 PH-3, not really massive (actually the heavy cruiser isn't much better armed), though it can get 4 phasers into any arc).

Also, look at the interaction between phasers - especially PH-G - and plasma - a PH-G can kill (flat out) a torp of upto strength S with the current rules (and i addmit that this is more a problem with the plasma rules than Ph-G), and generally phasers in this settle are far more effective against plasma. So the immense firepower of the Gorn (and Romulan/ISC) in not that high (if storyelf's options are used, that may change). And yes, 'historical opponents' only - so your only going to use Hydrans against Lyran and Klingon fleets (or ISC when released) ?

 

[billclo]

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

Well at this juncture, I have no plans to play in tournaments. Just not my thing.

But if one player thinks that the other fleet is min-maxed, grossly unbalanced, and that he doesn't have a competitive chance to win, why waste several hours playing the game? Just roll 2d6 each, and one player "wins", without all the bad feelings that one guy "cheated". :?

I plan to play actual games with escorts, but I am busy playtesting my convention scenarios (mostly solitaire due to lack of opponents) right now. There simply aren't enough players locally to get together a decent-sized game.

 

[Tinfish]

The Ph-G ship kills the first plasma torpedo, so the second plasma ship targets the now defencless escort and cripples/destroys it.

I get the feeling that too many people with SFB backgrounds are either playing 1 ship v 1 ship or are just not playing the game and are just theorying it to death.

 

[Captain Jonah]

]Hydran fighters with a single Phaser G and two fusions are out damaging plasma frigates at point blanks range... 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.

Something was seriouslly lost in translation then. Phaser 1s should be doing double a phaser 3's damage at almost any range, and with longer range. A gatling should be about double a phaser 1, but only at close range. And a single stinger should never eclipse a plasma frigate, its plasmas alone should do more than the stinger. Perhaps killzone should be removed from both phaser 3s and phaser gs? Would that even be on the table?

I have to ask here because some of your comments are puzzling. Have you read the rules?

In ACTA all Phasers do 1 point of damage, two in the kill zone. Phaser 1s have a much longer range and longer kill zone but at 1-2” range have exactly the same firepower as a Phaser 3 with only a better chance to hit. A Phaser 1 does 2 damage at point blank and hits on a 2+, A Phaser 3 does 2 damage at point blank and hits on a 3+. A Phaser G has 4 3+ shots for two damage making it roughly as nasty as 3 Phaser 1s at close range.

These are the rules we are arguing over. NOT SFB.

We are talking about removing the kill zone from Phaser Gs to try to balance them. I'm pleased to see you agree with us :wink:

This is ACTA. This is not SFB or FC. Even in those games you are not forced to fight against your historic enemies.

Different games, same source material; material that in their fiction, history and scenarios reinforces historical opponents. If you choose to fight ahistorically, there maybe unintended consequences as a result and balance is not guaranteed.

People fight non historic enemies because this is a game played by people looking to have fun not a hyper realistic sci fi simulation of a make believe universe derived from an old TV series.

The game needs to be balanced for everyone to fight who they want to, when they want to. SFB does not force you to fight historic enemies, why should this game.

We are talking about balance, fleets overall should be able to fight any other fleet. We don’t want the situation where the answer is “well of course you have no chance, those fleets never fought in history”. I cannot see anyone here being happy with rules which limit the enemy fleets they are allowed to fight against in what are, after all, the players games.

I would hazard a guess that the fed escorts (and some later ldr ships if they ever appear) with the 4 Gatling’s are the real problem. So address those ships specifically.

As you are perhaps not aware of this I’ll explain.

The games mechanics are ACTA. The ships themselves are required to be direct ports from FC. The number of weapons and types must exactly match. Arcs are adjusted but otherwise a ship with 6 Phaser 1s, 2 Phaser 3s and two Plasma Ss must have exactly the same weapons in ACTA-SF.
It is the way in which the weapons work that is changed. The problem is not that an escort has 2,4 or 6 Phaser Gs. It is that the disadvantages of a Phaser G are not applicable within the game mechanics of ACTA-SF. Escorts as such are not broken, Phaser Gs seem to be overpowered.

Yes Kzinti big ships can reverse centreline you with lots of Phaser 3s. Getting centreline by a big warship is supposed to hurt. But if you are behind it those disruptors are firing at someone else not you.

The Phaser G is the equivalent of three other Phasers at close range, that is the problem. It fires four times and chews up Plasmas and Drones, its very good defensively. What we are saying is that Offensively is needs toning down. We cannot change the number of Phaser Gs on ships, what we have to do is balance the Phaser G so that any race or ship using them is not overpowered.

The escorts of every race that does not use Phaser Gs are not overpowered, some are distinctly underpowered (ADDs need a range on escorts). The only escorts that look to be a problem have Phaser Gs. Its not an escort problem we are talking about.

 

[MongooseMatt]

[

But if one player thinks that the other fleet is min-maxed, grossly unbalanced, and that he doesn't have a competitive chance to win, why waste several hours playing the game?

Because 'thinks' isn't enough (and any tourney player going into a game thinking he is going to lose is going to get smashed anyway).

Prove to me there is a balance issue. Play some games. Prove it.

Otherwise, we are kinda just talking about it

 

[billclo]

[

But if one player thinks that the other fleet is min-maxed, grossly unbalanced, and that he doesn't have a competitive chance to win, why waste several hours playing the game?

Because 'thinks' isn't enough (and any tourney player going into a game thinking he is going to lose is going to get smashed anyway).

Prove to me there is a balance issue. Play some games. Prove it.

Otherwise, we are kinda just talking about it

I shall, and will report back when I can. Probably not for some time though.

 

[adm]

Posted a slightly different version of this on the SFB boards;

Perhaps you could limit ph-Gs <on Escorts> to one shot per turn at ships? You can say this the Aegis effect in ACTA.

The reason for this being the instant close effect of ACTA, since you have no opportunity to do the SFB kill them at range 4-5 in order to avoid the nasty ph-Gs. This would emphasize their defensive fire intent, while not eliminating them entirely from ship to ship use.

 

[storeylf]

Phaser Gs *are* offensive weapons when you are a H ydran 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.

How does my view on Y affect the truth or otherwise of X?

Irrespectve of whether we do nor do not think Gatlings are supposed to be offensive/defensive/hybrid weapons has no bearing whether they would or wouldn't be decent offensive weapons even without killzone. Photons don't have killzone, and they are offensive weapons. Such a PhG is still more powerful than any other ship mounted phaser in the game once in range. It's still equates to 4 ph3s at range 2-6 and potentially twice as powerful as a ph1 at its max range even though the ph1 is in kill range. It is the equal to 4 ph2s at range 4-6 which is where you will be if you are actually worried about explosions.

If you are into modelling based on SFB then try comparing a ph3 to a ph1. At range 1 the ph3 can do a potential 4 damage, the Phaser 1 can do 8. The Ph1 averages 50% more damage. In this game they are very very similar. They both have the same potential, and the Ph1 averages just 25% more damage.

The 2 games are simply very different in how they handle weapons. Photons are very different to SFB. Seekers are utterly unrecognisable.

If you take the centerline forward phaser suites of a Ranger and Fed CA across ranges 0"-6" and assume that is roughly ranges 0-6 in FedCom (near enough, though there isn't a clear ratio to use) then having kill zone makes the Ranger overall somewhat more powerful than it should be, and no killzone makes it overall somewhat weaker than it should be, by about the same margin either side.

Given that the hydran benefits greatly from the vastly different move system in ACTA, and that also he doesn't lose phasers like he does in FedCom (Hydrans are notorious for losing phasers rapidly, but ACTA doesn't really have very much losing weapons going on) then going the somewhat weaker version of gatlings seems not unreasonable. The weaker close range bang on the hydran can be remedied by the fusion implementation as well.

Prove to me there is a balance issue. Play some games. Prove it.

Well if you are really advocating no ship limits, and want tourney balance I'd like to see someone who likes Gorn (I do) win against the extreme escort fleet. You can get 11 Fed CLEs in about 1250 points.

Depending on ships mix the Gorn will probably max out at a possible 80AD of plasma to range 8 and 55AD to range 12. Phaser wise they probably max out at 40 bearing Ph1s and 20 ph3s (if they go big ships). They are likely to be outmanouvered and struggle to actually keep those phasers all in arc, though the plasma ought to be ok, at least for the first volley.

The escorts have upwards 110 phaser shots, all on free Aegis. Allowing for hit rate that equates to 60-80AD of plasma shot down with no special action. The Gorn cannot really hope to plasma them to win, maybe 1 dead CLE if the are lucky. Gorns are roughly balanced around fleets having about a bit more than half as many phasers as they have plasma AD from what I have seen, more than that and they struggle. The escorts have 44AD of drones, that the Gorn will struggle to handle even if they go IDF (bad IDF rolling will really put them in trouble). If the escorts wish to spend a turn attacking (whilst gorn reload?) then they can dish out upwards of 159 damage average with their phasers alone, that is 2 and half dead Gorn cruisers, 2 BCHs or 5 DDs. The Gorns with their phasers can kill short of 2 CLEs, but if they do that then they are probably dying to drones badly.

You get the same sort of issue with Roms. But all fleets are going to struggle against the Fed escorts.

That is extreme, but it highlights the issues. They are two fold. There are currently 2 fleets that are heavily dependent on being able to land a large number of seekers, these are not like drone users who have other heavy weapons to fall back upon. Contrary to what others have said, neither Gorns or Roms have excellent phaser suites, they are 'ok' but nothing that is going to win games when plasma is KO'd. The ability to pile on seeker defense without limit utterly destroys them, as I've said before this game is heavily based around some thresholds that need to be kept in check to ensure balance.

The other issue is the sheer direct firpower of the gatling escorts. An average 159 plus precise damage per turn (no relying a reloading crunch weapons, or overload actions) not including drones etc at ~1250 points is pretty much top of the line, plus it is all useable on a power drain without speed limit. Only a Klingon fleet can really compete with that, and they can have a harder time with their arcs all over the place, can't power drain without serious drawbacks and probably get out droned as well.

The Fed CLE is not even the worst, it's relatively tame, on a par with hydrans having 2 side gatlings. Though they are not around yet, the hydran escorts, or LDR ships in general are going to be nigthmarish without something to keep them in check.

The hydran escort with 5! gatlings, 2 Ph1s and 2 ph2s is actually cheaper than the Fed CLE in FedCom. One hopes that not be the case if it ever turned up in ACTA, but if it was anywhere near the same value you'd be looking at a fleet that dumped out 264 phaser shots in a ~1250 point game. That fleet is utterly immune to anything seekerish, and can cream anything at close range, averaging 350!! damage in 1 turn if you have gatling killzones (that's close to what a 1250 point fleet would take to kill off entirely), it even has easy to use arcs on those gatlings, no problem getting all those shots off (they can all fire forward). It has nothing that is affected by power drain (not even drones). All on a decent sturdy ship as well. LDR are in the same league, 4 gatling ships with good numbers of forward firing Ph1s, disrupters and ESGs.


If the gatling must retain the killzone, though I see no reason why it should, then some limit needs to be put on such ships. I'd put some limit in them anyway. 'Limited' trait is one, not only to stop the gatling escorts, but also to help stop plasma empires being badly skewed by to many escorts in general. The other is to put a noticeble points premium on gatlings. The CLE could be ramped up to 150 points and still be darn good ship for the cost (20 pts per gatling).

 

[McKinstry]

Assuming the killzone remains as is for Phaser-G's and no limits exist for escorts, the next couple of tournaments are going to be very interesting if someone is willing to go for maximum cheese. :twisted:

 

[SneakyPete]

Plasma users MUST get close for their weapons to be effective, which puts them in a terrible position when they have to reload against a more maneuverable escort with Phaser-G. Trying to take out the escort first is easier said than done when there are more than one to deal with.

Reading some of these posts there seems to be resistance from the "historical" based players who try to play the game withinthe spirit of the game's history, but many of us play a lot of pickup games against players who could care less about who was whose enemies. Min/maxers now have a powerful tool to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to complain about the game, I took satisfaction in showing other players that Fed's were indeed a good fleet at my LGS if you played them right and made them popular there. I like the idea of escorts, I pretty much stopped playing Orion drone salvagers when I found no one could stop 18 drones a turn so no one wanted to play against them, now with escorts there is a defense against that. I just don't see any way around stopping a Phaser-G heavy fleet with the rules as currently released when playing a Plasma fleet unless offensive traits or ship limits are put in place. I have not had a chance to play a Klingon or Kzinti against Phaser-G yet so I will not comment on that matchup yet other than their escorts are a terrible value compared to the Feds ones as I compared in an earlier post.

 

[billclo]

I suspect that there will be some cheeze player who takes all escorts. I hope that such an example shows that ship limits are needed. It'll have to be hammered home the hard way, I think.

This whole situation reminds me of a kids movie I have seen. "Babe the Pig", wherein his owner is a farmer who competes in Border Collie herding competitions. When his prize dog becomes unable to compete, he in desperation, turns to his pet Pig who seems to have a way with the sheep. He enters the pig into the competition, to the massive dismay of the judges running the event. But they have to allow him to compete, despite the utter ridiculousness of entering a pig, simply because the rules don't specify that all animals entering must be Border Collies... So even though it's massively against the spirit of the rules, the pig is allowed to enter, and actually wins. So YES, someone is going to go all cheezy and mess it up for the rest of the players simply because the rules don't say they can't, and they are a jerk.

I believe that the situation with escorts (and all specialty ships really) will become readily apparent when some players start to take forces with nearly all ships being specialty ships in a tournament setting, and really screw up the event for everyone else. So either everyone will take specialty ships, or the one cheeze player will win most of the time not because of skill but because of ship selection. Only then will the outcry of the players convince TPTB to do "something" to keep this from happening again. :?

At a private game table, hey if you want to go all specialty ships, knock yourself out, but I can tell you that at the games I run at home and at conventions will NOT have many specialty ships in them. I'm not playing that game, and won't play with those who do. I don't play with min-max players who put out Munchkin fleets.

 

[storeylf]

So YES, someone is going to go all cheezy and mess it up for the rest of the players simply because they are a jerk and they can.

I believe that the situation with escorts (and all specialty ships really) will become readily apparent when some players start to take forces with nearly all ships being specialty ships in a tournament setting, and really screw up the event for everyone else.

Personally I'd disgree with the statements that a player has been a jerk and screwed it up for others. It is the game designer or the tourney organiser who has been a jerk and screwed it up for everyone. I don't mean any offense to anyone in particular with that either (it's a generic statement for any game system).

If you are playing in a tourney then you are playing in a competitive environment where you should expect to play others who are there with the intent to win overall. Everyone knows that and should be able to look at the rules (game or tourney specific) and work out what they might come up against. Claiming someone screwed it up up for you because they came with a legal fleet and wiped you is being somewhat disingenous.

Sure if it wasn't really a 'tourney' but was more an 'event', where the emphasis was not on competition then you might have more of a point. But that would have been described as such presumably.

Then there is the question of degrees, at what point is escorts (for sake of argument) cheesy and jerk like. Is it 2? or 3? or 4? Is it cheesy if he has a carrier and 5 escorts? Gorn might find 2 or 3 escorts cheesy, Lyran or hydran, with no seekers, might think they have an easy win.

A group of friends can easily agree what to use or not to use, but in a tourney you just have to accept you are playing by the rules as they are written against others who you may never have met before, and what you might think is cheese others may see as the standard competition list with no malice intended.

It would certainly be interesting to see the all Fed CLE fleet in a tourney, see how it fares, who auto loses to it, who can actually hold their own etc. Going as extreme as the rules allow is good start in working out balance, if it breaks the game then clearly there is a balance issue, it is then just a case of working out what point balance becomes an issue. A tourney is a good place to test that sort of thing, relying on a couple of friends isn't always a good playtest environment.

 

[firekite]

so as i see it either you leave the ph-g's alone so they can be the nasty weapon that they are which means you either:

1) kill escorts on sight (which is always a good policy).
or
2) Limit how many escorts per fleet.
or
3)limit the firing arc to P/S so that they cannot strike with all of them at once (which would change how the Hydran ships operate).
or
4) eliminate the "killzone 2" or change it to "killzone 1" (since this is basicly 4 ph3 in a single mount they should have the same "killzone" rating).

I would chose #1 & #2 since any other choice would effect the way the Hydrans play.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

So... viewpoint from someone who may well be accused of being borderline cheesy:
If I see a potential problem with the game balance, I'll raise it on here first. 99% of the time such things do tend to be blown out of proportion, and Matt will say that he doesn't think that it's the problem people are making it out to be.

With that in mind, when a tourney comes up, I do build my fleets to be as effective as possible. If I see an issue with the tourney rules, once again I raise them (I was against v1 of the latest tourney rules due to them giving those with the largest collections (me) a massive advantage for example).

If after that a given fleet is still considered to be not a concern, I'll feel free to give it a shot. Either Matt will be right, and it will prove to be less effective than feared, or it will give a first hand demonstration that the concern was warranted, in which case the rules will be tweaked accordingly. Either way, it does the hobby good in the longer term in that either a myth is dispelled or a flaw is fixed. What is bad in my eyes is being afraid to try anything out of the box, no matter how legal, all because some people on the internet disapprove.

 

[MarkDawg]

Jeez Pete Ya loose one game and you want to take all the traits off my phaser G's. Pete I think we should take the more measured approach and first try Matt's power drain suggestion first and go from there. My feeling playing our game was they were OP but that was just Vs Gorn how good will they be Vs Other races.

Or how good or too good are Orions now?

 

[McKinstry]

Since there are no Hydrans in the game and we are only moderately likely to see them in 2014, I don't think how the current rules may affect them next year or the year after should really be a consideration.

Taking the killzone from the Fed Phaser-G's does not mean you couldn't allow it for Hydrans whenever they finally appear but for now, let's see how the Roms do against large numbers of DWE's and CLE's and if need be, make whatever fixes are needed to work in the here and now and sort out future races whenever they appear.