Playtest rules - Narn updates

[skavendan]

Interesting read but I would have said you would win against 3 ships anyway.

 

[Foxmeister]

Interesting read but I would have said you would win against 3 ships anyway.

I fully agree! It wasn't quite the test that I'd hoped for!

Regards,

Dave

 

[Tzarevitch]

I wonder if there is any chance of the Narn getting the low capablility command ship variant of the T'Loth that is mentioned in the fluff text. Drop the fighters and almost all of of the troops and replace them with command +1. Does this sound reasonable for a raid-level command ship?

Tzarevitch

 

[Tolwyn]

I hope for the T'Voth as well.

The Narc CBD variant is a bit too hard IMO. There could have been better solutions to the G'Vrahn then taking away some special rules and damage. It's still a worthier choice then a Bin'Tak

 

[Foxmeister]

The Narc CBD variant is a bit too hard IMO.

I don't think it works out too bad - after all, the Narn have just lost the only interceptors that they had. It is a relatively simple way to indicate the "hardiness" that the Narn are perceived to have, but does come with its own set of downsides if you use it - namely only being able to fire one weapon, and not being able to use another SA.

There could have been better solutions to the G'Vrahn then taking away some special rules and damage. It's still a worthier choice then a Bin'Tak

I wouldn't have minded if the G'Vrahn got a O/S e-mine and the Bin'Tak gained a S/L one.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Tzarevitch]

I hope for the T'Voth as well.

The Narc CBD variant is a bit too hard IMO. There could have been better solutions to the G'Vrahn then taking away some special rules and damage. It's still a worthier choice then a Bin'Tak

The Bin'Tak is a good ship, the G'Vrahn is just so stellar it mops the floor with it and pretty much all other war level ships. I don't think the Bin'Tak is ever going to trully catch up. The weapon range, speed difference and turning ability is almost always going to make the G'Vrahn a better choice unless playing a historical scenario.

I would increase the command bonus to +2 on the Bin'Tak and give it (and the Ka'Bin'Tak) interceptors 1 on the theory that the Narn will put their limited access technology on the fleet flagships of their respective eras. This should further separate the G'Vrahn and the Bin'Tak in role without increasing firepower on two ships which are already combat monsters.

Tzarevitch

 

[Tzarevitch]

By the way, what's the T'Voth? I am guessing it is a T'Loth version correct?

Tzarevitch

 

[Tolwyn]

No, in B5 Wars and an old ACTA Supplement the T'Voth was a predecessor to the today T'Loth hull. It was used as a heavy cruiser, just the role the G'Quan fills today, but it was based on much lower technology as the Narn had only recently broke free from the Centauri.

 

[Da Boss]

Morgrath and Hiffano produced a excellent 1st Ed supplement on the early years of the Narn Regime and included the T'Voth (presumably inspired by B5Wars ?)

Morgrath gave me permisison to use a 2nd version of his design in my supplement - its a Battle level command version of the T'Loth..........

 

[Target]

I was thinkin about the CBD SA
Maybe agile ships should get 6+ save, normal 5+ & Lumbering 4+.
I'd make 1/2 AD & no damage control, CQ 8.
Narn would get +1 to the roll.
Another way which cuts out the extra rolling of dice is make CBD 1-2 Bulkheads 3-5 Normal damage & 6 a crit. Maybe Narn get 1-3 Bulkhead 4-5 normal & 6 a crit. I
'd like to see no damage control attached to the SA as would hard for damage control crew rushin around with bulkheads closed everywhere. Think 1/2 AD is better than 1 weapon as give bigger ships a bit of a bonus.

 

[CZuschlag]

4+ saves get bad, in general, and 3+ are horrid. That's how you eventually get the brokenness that is Games Workshop's save of "Not a 1".

Not all saves are equal. Here's the proportional value of each of the save modifiers:

6+: 20%
5+: 50%
4+: 100%
3+: 200%
2+: 500%

So under CBD the Narn toughness went up from 50% to 100% magnification, a 50% improvement. Now, I haven't playtested with it, but I suggest some testing with Ka'Tan's, Ka'Toc, Dag'Kar, and Var'Nic. I strongly suspect that this is just a bit too much of an upgrade for these ships. For the G'Quan and T'Loth? We're probably fine.

 

[Hindsight]

You do have to PAY for 2+ saves in 40k =)

 

[tneva82]

Not all saves are equal. Here's the proportional value of each of the save modifiers:

6+: 20%
5+: 50%
4+: 100%
3+: 200%
2+: 500%

Hum how you came to these numbers? 5+ is twice as good as 6+, 4+ is 50% as good as 5+(three times as good as 6+) etc. 3+ isn't even close to twice as good as 4+.

 

[Triggy]

Not all saves are equal. Here's the proportional value of each of the save modifiers:

6+: 20%
5+: 50%
4+: 100%
3+: 200%
2+: 500%

Hum how you came to these numbers? 5+ is twice as good as 6+, 4+ is 50% as good as 5+(three times as good as 6+) etc. 3+ isn't even close to twice as good as 4+.

He's talking about the percentage improvement on not having a "save" rather than comparing each to the level below.

There are a lot of downsides with CBD, no matter how good though - firstly you only get to fire one weapon (therefore beam or e-mines on the way in but you stop using CBD once close) and secondly it doesn't do anything to mitigate the effects of criticals. This is why for the Narn (with the possible exception of the Torpedo Cutter) this SA is roughly balanced.

 

[Foxmeister]

This is why for the Narn (with the possible exception of the Torpedo Cutter) this SA is roughly balanced.

From my game on monday, I definitely think there is an issue with the Torpedo Cutter and CBD, but this doesn't apply to the Patrol Cutter. My solution would be to drop Dodge from the Torpedo Cutter.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Foxmeister]

Now, I haven't playtested with it, but I suggest some testing with Ka'Tan's, Ka'Toc, Dag'Kar, and Var'Nic.

I don't think there's an issue at all with the Var'Nic - it is likely to want to use both its beam and its ion torps whenever it can, so CBD isn't going to be used too often. The Dag'Kar (which I was worried about previously) is also only going to CBD'ing every other turn, so again it is less of an issue. The Ka'Tan with its O/S e-mine can probably CBD every turn after it has fired the e-mine, but I not certain if this ship will cause too many problems anyway.

Regards,

Dave

 

[CZuschlag]

Trust me on this --- you can safely ignore the Ion Torpedo function on Emine turns and just run the Dag'Kar that way --- you'll get dramatically improved survivability out of it. Never take it off CBD, ever.

I want to see what a squad of Var'Nic that ignore their Ion Torpedos until Range 12 can do. I think it's pretty hideous. This worries me a great deal.

 

[Foxmeister]

Trust me on this --- you can safely ignore the Ion Torpedo function on Emine turns and just run the Dag'Kar that way --- you'll get dramatically improved survivability out of it. Never take it off CBD, ever.

I want to see what a squad of Var'Nic that ignore their Ion Torpedos until Range 12 can do. I think it's pretty hideous. This worries me a great deal.

In a game where getting criticals is absolutely key, there is absolutely no chance that I'm not going to use the single precise weapon at my disposal at every opportunity I get. More often than not, I get better results from my ion torps than I do my e-mines.

Regards,

Dave

 

[CZuschlag]

I will have to, then. Keep in mind; fighting EA, or at long range --- fighters or interceptors are going to stop your only interceptable weapons far more often than not, anyways.

 

[No. 1 Bear]

the thing is that i feel that with CBD yes it makes it more survivable, it will just become more of a target.