Playtest Rules -- Drakh Updates (Amu and GEG Crit Defense)
- Thread starter CZuschlag
- Start date
I'm not trying to step on any toes here but so long as it's a good option only "some" of the time then surely that's how you want the GEG/Redundancy choice to be. This isn't meant to be a boost to the Drakh, more like another tactical option! Anyway, if playtesting says it's useless/too good we'll rethink it, if people like it then we'll keep it, simple as that 
Triggy said:Anyway, if playtesting says it's useless/too good we'll rethink it, if people like it then we'll keep it, simple as that
I will try it, but realistically I don't see many (if any at all) situations where it would be useful. There's a difference between being somewhat useful and just being there for the fluff. I don't disagree it should be a considered choice, but realistically I think the idea of an ability that's chosen at start of game and cannot be changed is too much of a liability. I'm not asking for a super upgrade, but I want the option to actually be useful on more than an occasional basis, otherwise I see no reason for it to be there.
Cheers, Gary
its not much use, as silashand says it throws away your defence against pretty much all secondaries and fighters.
yes its useful 1/6 of the time but only for the 1st 4 crits in a turn on the biggest ship. if you fire enough weapons you get through the crit protection for that turn then the ship is entirely defenceless.
this will become another interceptors thing where you fire small weapons 1st trying to get crits, only differance is those small weapons will generally be causing damage to mostly low damage hulls. then once the crit redundancy is gone the big guns come in not losing damage for GEGs or having crits stopped.
theres only one ship this may be useful and thats the mothership as it has high damage. but at hull 4 that damage wont count for much especially againts everyones secondaries - ok minbari dont care but then what would a minbari player rather have? minibeams/nials that can damage a mothership or ones that cant?
yes its useful 1/6 of the time but only for the 1st 4 crits in a turn on the biggest ship. if you fire enough weapons you get through the crit protection for that turn then the ship is entirely defenceless.
this will become another interceptors thing where you fire small weapons 1st trying to get crits, only differance is those small weapons will generally be causing damage to mostly low damage hulls. then once the crit redundancy is gone the big guns come in not losing damage for GEGs or having crits stopped.
theres only one ship this may be useful and thats the mothership as it has high damage. but at hull 4 that damage wont count for much especially againts everyones secondaries - ok minbari dont care but then what would a minbari player rather have? minibeams/nials that can damage a mothership or ones that cant?
Pawnographer
Mongoose
The Amu should be a Hull 5 for another reason: The Ma'cu is a Hull 4. There should be some interesting trade-offs & options between taking an Amu or taking 4 Ma'cu Carriers. Against certain fleets like the Vree (super AP; multiple AD), having a Hull 5 ship as an option is important.
The biggest reason that the Amu was taken down to Hull 4 (aside from that being the case in 1st ed.) was that as CZuschlag points out, as it is at Hull 5 it's too good a choice.
Hull 4 is partially a reflection of how well armoured it is but also how easy it is to hit, and how easy it is to get a significant hit. What Hull 4 would say is that the armour is weak but there's bloody loads of it that you have to get through to render the ship out of action. Other suggestions are welcome
Hull 4 is partially a reflection of how well armoured it is but also how easy it is to hit, and how easy it is to get a significant hit. What Hull 4 would say is that the armour is weak but there's bloody loads of it that you have to get through to render the ship out of action. Other suggestions are welcome
Triggy said:
FWIW, I disagree entirely with this assessment. As an Armageddon level ship it *should* be good, especially considering they are one of the most two most advanced non-Ancient races in the galaxy. I certainly don't feel that it is that much better than other good Arm level ships like the Victory. Using your logic then everything of that size, including the Victory, Adira, K'Bin'Tak, etc. should all be Hull 4. Besides, given the new FAP system, it's very good when playing high level PL games, but not a very good one when playing low level ones. IMO that's as it should be.
I realize I may be fighting against what Matt and the Powers That Be are already decided on, but I simply do not agree with this change for that and other reasons already stated.
Cheers, Gary
I'm a regular opponent of Chris's and I tend to find this ship (even at hull 4) a huge pain in the tail. I have only EVER seriously threatened it with numerous crits. At any other time it simply jumps away if I get a bead on it with heavy beams. Now mind, we haven't played it against a heavy non-beam DD race, so maybe that is why we aren't seeing what others are.
I tend to play abbai/drazi, narn or some mix of brakiri and other league. I own Psi Corp, but haven't fielded them... and haven't really done much with my Vorlons/Shadows either.
First point - the huge hanger definitely needs a re-balance. You cannot cut what your opponent is able to buy by a third and say it is still balanced.
Second point - this is not intended as an upgrade, but a new option that is equivalent to the current state of balance under the right circumstances. That sounds just about right, as shifting to Redundancy from GEG against a fighter poor Vorlon or Minbari sounds just fine... hell even against a lot of builds (beam heavy) by Narn, EA or Drazi this would be great. I know vs a solarhawk I'd rather stop a triple damage crit than stop a couple of damage points (he hits a 4 on either damage or crew and that's 12 off the track... much better than the 2 off the gun the raid hull would have).
Third point - stop thinking Arm means it is a front line battle ship. This a primarily a carrier/base ship... not intended as a primary combatant. To me that means it sacrifices some armor and internal integrity for the bays. It's also huge in comparison to other ships... ie easy to hit if your close enough to eye ball the big baby.
The basic concepts here seem great ideas vs precise beam fleets, the Amu itself is a great ship at hull 4 given it's secondary craft and I think folks are seriously underestimating the damage saved by stopping crits.
Ripple
I tend to play abbai/drazi, narn or some mix of brakiri and other league. I own Psi Corp, but haven't fielded them... and haven't really done much with my Vorlons/Shadows either.
First point - the huge hanger definitely needs a re-balance. You cannot cut what your opponent is able to buy by a third and say it is still balanced.
Second point - this is not intended as an upgrade, but a new option that is equivalent to the current state of balance under the right circumstances. That sounds just about right, as shifting to Redundancy from GEG against a fighter poor Vorlon or Minbari sounds just fine... hell even against a lot of builds (beam heavy) by Narn, EA or Drazi this would be great. I know vs a solarhawk I'd rather stop a triple damage crit than stop a couple of damage points (he hits a 4 on either damage or crew and that's 12 off the track... much better than the 2 off the gun the raid hull would have).
Third point - stop thinking Arm means it is a front line battle ship. This a primarily a carrier/base ship... not intended as a primary combatant. To me that means it sacrifices some armor and internal integrity for the bays. It's also huge in comparison to other ships... ie easy to hit if your close enough to eye ball the big baby.
The basic concepts here seem great ideas vs precise beam fleets, the Amu itself is a great ship at hull 4 given it's secondary craft and I think folks are seriously underestimating the damage saved by stopping crits.
Ripple
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Clanger said:
Errh - it does doesn't it? At least my fleet book says Command +2.
Regards,
Dave
Ripple said:
and theres your problem for dealing with it - single damage abbai precise beams, or the slow loading beams of the drazi (the other beams being single damage generally and having problems with GEGs).
huge hangars is fine also due to the fact at smaller games you get more swarm ships than it can launch. the higher the PL the more useful the big ship gets and the less useful the small ship gets which is how it should be. also my mothership only ever carries 3 ships anyway.
N
noobdelux
Guest
sorry if im breaking anny law`s or annything asking this.. can a huge hangar 1 take more than 1 light raider ? or havy or just 1 scout?!
sincerely
sincerely
So what your saying Katadder is that the Amu is broken, but only verse four or five fleets... so it's fine?!
- and for the record there is plenty of DD/TD beams among my Narn... not even slow loading... what was my issue again? We also have a regular who plays ISA, EA (3rd Age) and Pak... he has not done well against it either...
<Shakes head...> I never quite get you Kat... some days you like a vision of logic and reason... other days I'm in the fun house and trying to figure out where your coming from.
Ripple
- and for the record there is plenty of DD/TD beams among my Narn... not even slow loading... what was my issue again? We also have a regular who plays ISA, EA (3rd Age) and Pak... he has not done well against it either...
<Shakes head...> I never quite get you Kat... some days you like a vision of logic and reason... other days I'm in the fun house and trying to figure out where your coming from.
Ripple
not saying the amu is broken. missed you bit about Narns but they should do ok.
at the moment your single damage ships can cause crits and do the damage.
if the mothership takes the crit protection your single damage ships suddenly get all their firepower direct to the hull which will probably do more damage than the occasional crit, esepcially if it stays hull 4. a mothership would not like multiple bimith broadsides on either GEG function at hul 4 but i would prefer to deduct 4 from each damage and worry about the occasional crit.
most people think the mothership is broken because of the amount of ships it can bring but those also give up alot of VPs and can lose you a game even if you destroy the opposing fleet.
one thing to remember, motherships are slow and only range 20 so most races can and do outrange them. if they are going for standard GEG protection then a -4 speed crit effectively takes it out of action. if they are going for crit protection suddenly all your secondaries come into play.
at the moment your single damage ships can cause crits and do the damage.
if the mothership takes the crit protection your single damage ships suddenly get all their firepower direct to the hull which will probably do more damage than the occasional crit, esepcially if it stays hull 4. a mothership would not like multiple bimith broadsides on either GEG function at hul 4 but i would prefer to deduct 4 from each damage and worry about the occasional crit.
most people think the mothership is broken because of the amount of ships it can bring but those also give up alot of VPs and can lose you a game even if you destroy the opposing fleet.
one thing to remember, motherships are slow and only range 20 so most races can and do outrange them. if they are going for standard GEG protection then a -4 speed crit effectively takes it out of action. if they are going for crit protection suddenly all your secondaries come into play.
yeah, haven't yet found the VP thing to be the balance its supposed to be.
Maybe I've missed the idea, but crits to me do a lot of damage... and aren't that uncommon. With single damage ships, I've found 40 to 60 percent of my damage comes from crits. I hit six times with my drazi beam, netting one crit... if I get one that does4 damge (or crew) that's 66% of the total regular damage, that one crit going through the geg will do half of what I could do.
So I do 6 damage and crew plus crit effect against geg four... or 6 damage and crew due to stopped crit. Just saying with the potential to do four times the damage or more, stopping crits is not such an easy choice unless you know your going up against someone with lots of small AD weapon lines where you'll manage the GEG effect really well.
Ripple
Maybe I've missed the idea, but crits to me do a lot of damage... and aren't that uncommon. With single damage ships, I've found 40 to 60 percent of my damage comes from crits. I hit six times with my drazi beam, netting one crit... if I get one that does4 damge (or crew) that's 66% of the total regular damage, that one crit going through the geg will do half of what I could do.
So I do 6 damage and crew plus crit effect against geg four... or 6 damage and crew due to stopped crit. Just saying with the potential to do four times the damage or more, stopping crits is not such an easy choice unless you know your going up against someone with lots of small AD weapon lines where you'll manage the GEG effect really well.
Ripple
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Crits are usually approximately 24% of all damage (for Precise, it's more, for Emine, it's .... well .... zero.).
That means that if your opponents typical number of hits per weapon system is 2.7 times the GEG rating or more, take the crit protection. Otherwise, take the GEG.
Well, that's not entirely correct. I just found some flaws ... it depends on DD and TD vs the system, too. But I think this does hold.
That means that if your opponents typical number of hits per weapon system is 2.7 times the GEG rating or more, take the crit protection. Otherwise, take the GEG.
Well, that's not entirely correct. I just found some flaws ... it depends on DD and TD vs the system, too. But I think this does hold.
