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

[mollari_uk]

Isn't this all going a bit far?

Next someone will want interceptors changing because they do nothing against beams.

No system will ever please everyone. I don't really have a problem with beams except the really high roll ups. TBS seems to work better for this.

 

[Dr Stubbsberg]

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

switching back wouldn't, however TBS would have helped considerably

 

[Lord David the Denied]

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

That was the complaint. Looking at Burger's numbers I see his point, but changing the beams was robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it just hasn't worked.

Once again I'd like to put my "duration" idea forward. Assign a duration to every beam weapon in the game, a numerical value, with any upper limit you desire. This is the maximum number of rerolls that can be made with that weapon's AD.

Example, a Primus battlecruiser has a Battle Laser, beam, precise, duration 4. It could fire the beam at a target and score X number of hits with its initial attack dice. It could then reroll each of those hits a maximum of four times, then the rolls would end. Thus an upper limit on possible damage is achieved.

That should help the number-crunchers among you to calculate probabilities and balance a bit easier.

 

[Tolwyn]

Would be a nice idea.

I hope somebody from P&P will listen

 

[Silvereye]

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.

Most certainly. It was also the fact that the 1e Beams usually came with the Double Damage trait as well. This massively amplified the damage output.

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

What it does mean, is that all the Hull 4 ships are much more survivable and the Hull 3 Space liner is not Beam fodder for the fist gunner that looks at it funny. Now you are better shooting at it with AP/Super AP as the Beam actually improves its hull. You can also now afford to consider taking the Hull 4 and 5 ships when your up against a Beam Team, rather than simply loading up on as much Hull 6 as you could.

Having used TBS a couple of times I find myself liking it more and more. The simple fact that it reduces the extremes of Hit/Miss makes it fairer. Whilst retaining enough variability to ensure that the shot can either go well or badly.

 

[SylvrDragon]

While I haven't tried TBS, it looks much better than the current system. I think if you combined that with the duration that David recommended, you'd be on the road towards a very much balanced beam system. More reliable, yet potentially very destructive, while not being stupidly destructive. Though I'd just limit all beams to a max of 3 rolls. So you roll your first results, then you get a max of 2 "re-rolls". No need for changing any of the ships that way, and larger beams, which would likely have larger durations, still have more dice which equates to more hits anyway.