Playtest Rules: Manoeuvre to Shield Them

Foxmeister

Mongoose
Thinking about this rule, I think there is an issue here in that suddenly the size of your miniatures/counters has a bearing on the game which is something we should try to avoid.

For example, a Fleet Action G'Quan is less likely to be able to shield a Ka'Bin'Tak than a Mongoose G'Quan and this just shouldn't be the case.

My proposal would be to have an 1" radius about the stem/centre of counter, and use this as the "shielding area".

Regards,

Dave
 
Just looked up the old rule --- it used to be that the stem had to be exactly in the way, so the stem of the firing ship, the target ship, and the shielding ship were colinear.

Was there a reason why this was changed?
 
I would guess it was changed because it's to dependent on initiative (ie the target ship and the shooter must both have moved before the shielding ship. But then again, it does make sense like that!!
 
Personally, I think that stem is too restrictive, but then again I never played 1st Ed so perhaps it worked fine there. However, with stem you'll only be able to shield against a single attacking ship whereas with some kind of area effect (e.g. 1" radius) you can protect against multiple threats.


Regards,

Dave
 
Ok. No. I completely agree with the above, I hadnt noticed the bit about the minaiture rather than the stem.

All of a sudden folks using full size minis have an advantage over guys using FA scale or counters. For my part I personally use Liandras as Nolotars and vice versa since the Nolotar minis is frickin huge and looks rediculous but under this rule I'd be hamstringing myself. Also all of a sudden anyone with the old model Olympus has an advantage etc etc etc. If theyve got to do something like this make it at very least something that crosses the BASE and do standard base sizes. At least you can make nice simple circular templates to use if you have non standard base sizes then rather than suddenly making mini size have an impact on the game itself!
 
I agree. There is the possibility of a full size maximus on a large base shielding a FA scale Octurion quite easily. (Particularly since IWM may be redoing FA minis).
 
CZuschlag said:
On the issue of base size needs to have zero effect on the rule:

Vote in Favor.

I'm for base size, rather some sort of standardized template size, regardless if it is the actual base, having an effect on it. By its sheer mass alone, a Ka'Bin'Tak would have an advantage in blocking at attack than a smaller ship. It would be nice to see standard base (or templete) sizes used for things such as bore sight targeting and Energy Mines. After all, when it comes to bore sighting, a Ka'Bin'Tak is also a much easier target :D
 
I too wish we had standard 'footprints' for the ships, whatever actual base you want to use. Little black circles with a bit of blue tack for you FA based folks would work fine, not spoil your work, and allow more flexible rules.

For ships that the base needs to be smaller... little ring you could hook around the base? I'm sure we could con Gale Force into making a few hundred.

In the case of this rule, I would like to be able to do what we see in the show... have a G'Quan shield a civilian freighter against three attacking Vorchans.

Ripple
 
CZuschlag said:
On the issue of base size needs to have zero effect on the rule:

Vote in Favor.

Base size matters for no other rule in ACtA so I fail to see why it should be a factor here either.

Cheers, Gary
 
Base size matters for no other rule in ACtA so I fail to see why it should be a factor here either.

Actually it does. Fighters need base contact to ignore stealth. Smaller base size means less fighters can get round.
 
mollari_uk said:
Base size matters for no other rule in ACtA so I fail to see why it should be a factor here either.

Actually it does. Fighters need base contact to ignore stealth. Smaller base size means less fighters can get round.

Doesn't the new "Flights and Ships" rule override that now?

Regards,

Dave
 
Foxmeister said:
mollari_uk said:
Base size matters for no other rule in ACtA so I fail to see why it should be a factor here either.

Actually it does. Fighters need base contact to ignore stealth. Smaller base size means less fighters can get round.

Doesn't the new "Flights and Ships" rule override that now?

Regards,

Dave
No, that rule only applies to stem contact (eg Gaim/Dilgar ramming)
 
And no offense, but the fact that bases cannot overlap is a big deal. Maybe it's cause I play with and against a lot of boresight races, but we've seen that the fleet action bases are a huge advantage in concentrating firepower, both at range and close up.

Being able to crowd ships up to two inches closer on both sides is a big big deal for those of us who work the edges of arcs and range brackets heavily.

Ripple
 
Also for races with very short ranges. Abbai, Dilgar, and Narn can fall into this description very easily. Narn get it worse with boresight weaponry as well; getting that pulse weapon to fire is a royal pain.
 
Back
Top