Playtest Rules 1.2 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[nekomata fuyu]

That's been suggested several times as one of the armour/redundancy proposals.

 

[H]

What if all ships had a save of some sort against crits? Similar to the proposed 6+ save the narn get if they use CBD, but all ships would get it. Granted, most ships under raid probably wouldnt see it but the larger ones would.

For example, while a sharlin and a warlock are both warlevel, the sharlin might only have a 6+ save( it already has stealth after all) while the warlock could have a 5+. Part of the save could just be based off the size of the ship, while part could also be based off, say, the armor of a ship. The warlock is supposed to have some pretty advanced armor after all. While it doesnt self repair or adapt or anything but it is more advanced then any regular type of passive armor. You cant give it an armor value of more then 6 so this would be another way to say this ship, and others, have badass armor. And a straight save is easier to keep track of then redundency or something like that.

And the narn rule, if they keep it, could just add a +1 to the save.

sinmilar things have been suggested many, many... many many many many times. . . .probably a few more many's are needed.

 

[silashand]

sinmilar things have been suggested many, many... many many many many times. . . .probably a few more many's are needed.

And so far have been ignored no matter how many people say they'd prefer it :-/

Cheers, Gary

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Part of me wonders if it's because noone has any real complaints that it doesn't generate much debate, and in turn then tends to be forgotten about.

 

[silashand]

No real complaints? You tend to see plenty of agreement that crits are an issue, but little response or willingness to change. Thus I think people just give up. I know for the most part I have anyway as I realize (esp. after seeing the P&P playtest updates) little of what I have to say will be considered, if any of it would be. Discussing it has become for myself at least a meaningless exercise to pass time. I certainly don't expect anything to come of it.

Cheers, Gary

 

[silashand]

Still doesn't fix the "first shot in the first turn eliminates firing arc against Vree basestar, thus making the entire ship a worthless hulk for most of the game" issue. Sorry, IMO it's still the frequency that is the main problem. The effects are secondary, though probably still need to be downgraded somewhat, perhaps as you suggest.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Tolwyn]

I'm still not satisfied with the beams. Triggy's system is quite good and meanwhile I would gladly take anyother rules as the actual one.

 

[Target]

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with beams, it's the crit chart & the doubling/trebling of damage that makes them horrible. More hit's more crits. The original damage is not that bad.

 

[Triggy]

Well I suggested a method of Redundancy that wasy low in number but the owning player got to choose exactly when he used it (after seeing the critical roll) and it converts the overall hit into simply a solid hit.

The main issue is playtesting time for such a fundamental change (as any of the armour/redundancy changes would be), not whether or not people want something.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

No real complaints? You tend to see plenty of agreement that crits are an issue, but little response or willingness to change. Thus I think people just give up. I know for the most part I have anyway as I realize (esp. after seeing the P&P playtest updates) little of what I have to say will be considered, if any of it would be. Discussing it has become for myself at least a meaningless exercise to pass time. I certainly don't expect anything to come of it.

Cheers, Gary

If you have any complaints against the save version of redundancy, by all means bring it up. It might actually trigger discussion...
Sure, you see loads of complaints about crits making large ships pointless. Funnily enough, that's why you keep seeing debates about them. I can't remember seeing any substantial complaints against the save version of redundancy, and it seems to get a lot less discussion as a result.

 

[sidewinder]

I wouldnt have a problem with it. Its simple. Theres no record keeping needed while still being scalable to the ship your putting it on.

 

[Tolwyn]

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with beams, it's the crit chart & the doubling/trebling of damage that makes them horrible. More hit's more crits. The original damage is not that bad.

The crits and doubling and trippling damage make it worse, that's right 8). My problem with the actual beam rule is that it is not rely or calculateable. Either you score few to no damage at all or you score a beam stream. I miss the time in 1st Edition where you one could at least appraise the amount of damage a beam could do. The secodn thing I dislike is the 4+ rule. This penalizes high hull (aka level) ships and favours lsmaller ones and swarms.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

For some reason people used to moan that hull 4 ships were just dead meat in a fight with an opponent that had SAP beams. Not sure why that was only true of SAP beams and not other weapons with the SAP trait...

 

[SylvrDragon]

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with beams, it's the crit chart & the doubling/trebling of damage that makes them horrible. More hit's more crits. The original damage is not that bad.

I disagree, to some degree at least. The crit chart is a problem. But I think beams need something as well. The beams as they are, are well...bipolar. One ships fires a beam and obliterates another ship. Then another fires a beam and does absolutely nothing. I know weapons will often do nothing, but with beams it seems to almost constantly be either a stupidly powerful attack, or a meaningless waste. Take tonight for instance. I fired the beams from my Tara'Lin and my White Star Gunship and did absolutely nothing with either. My Tata'Lin fired on an Omega, while my WSG fired on a Hyperion. Then my opponent fired his beam from an Omega and nearly ripped my WSG in half! Then he fired his Warlock and fried the poor WSG. v.v

I also see some problem with TTT as is. It seems very powerful, especially in a Campaign, where ships can frequently get CQ 5+, or when playing Psi-Corps. The boresight beams have been granted extra AD, because of their handicap, so if TTT goes of frequently then ships die really fast.

Edit: I forgot to mention that my WSG was also on CBD, due to me trying to get into range. So an Omega and a Warlock fire on a WSG that's on CBD and nearly obliterate it...and by nearly obliterate, I mean it had 4 damage left, it lost all it's traits save for dodge, and had been critted into near non-existence. And a Tara'Lin and that same WSG, before it had been torn asunder, fired at an Omega and a Hyperion, which is defenseless against beams and was NOT on CBD, and did a grand total of like 4 points between the 2; all of which was done to the Omega. : /

 

[Foxmeister]

The secodn thing I dislike is the 4+ rule. This penalizes high hull (aka level) ships and favours lsmaller ones and swarms.

I concur - against a beam, hull 6 is massively devalued compared to hull 4.

Regards,

Dave

 

[greenboy]

May be better if 4+ was used for rerolls and ap sap was used for hits as normal

 

[Dr Stubbsberg]

agreed, the beam system really needs reviewing. game i played last night with my Drakh vs EA i got about four beam hits all game that did more than one hit (three of those got two-three hits and one obliterated an undamaged Hyperion (last shot of the game by my one remaining crippled ship)).

 

[Da Boss]

As most beams would likely be SAP (as in 1st ed) how would that then help :?

 

[Burger]

For some reason people used to moan that hull 4 ships were just dead meat in a fight with an opponent that had SAP beams. Not sure why that was only true of SAP beams and not other weapons with the SAP trait...

It's the rerolls.

An SAP non-beam firing on hull 4 will get 25% more than hull 5, and 67% more than hull 6.
An SAP beam firing on hull 4 will get 57% more hits than hull 5, and 154% more than hull 6.

So SAP combined with beam has a massive effect against hull 4.

 

[Tolwyn]

IMO thats a reason why the new system was introduced. larger ships are penalized while smaller ones are bumped up :?