Playtest Rules - Psi Corps

[Ministalker]

One thing I've found with Matt is that if there are more than one idea (and in this case about six) floating about at the same time, he'll change nothing until it's agreed what people want.

Secunded. My main purpose when I created this thread was to have Matt and the 5 good guys to include Psi Corps changes in the upcoming rules.
I had several ideas but the Shadow X seemed to be the most urgent to be updated. I'd really like that we find an agreement in order for change to be taken in account and not just a struggle on how powerfull this ship should be with no change at the end.
I've read all the latest comments about the ship and IMHO, I think that goal here is to turn the Shadow Omega into a decent War PL ship, not the best War PL ship!

24" Range for the beam weapon seems agreed by everyone
As both the Omega and Omega Command have B(a) Beams, why not try it on the Shadow Omega but 6Ad seems to much.
The majority wants to forget the Heavy Pulse Cannons (even if I'm not happy with it) to concentrate on Multi-phased Cutters. Then, so be it.
Shields 10/5 rather than 10/1D6 is OK for me as it tends to be a better defense than the one I proposed.

I'd propose these 2 versions to try to finalize a proposition:

Priority Level: War
Speed: 8
Turns: 1/45°
Hull: 6
Damage: 75/12
Crew: 84/18
Troops: 3
Craft: 4 Thunderbolt Flights (may upgrade to Shadowfury flights for 1 Patrol FAP)
In Service Date: 2261+

Traits: Advanced Jump Engine, Anti-Fighter 8, Flight Computer, Interceptors 6, Lumbering, Self-Repair 1d6, Shields 10/5

Weapons (Proposition 1):
Molecular Slicer: 24" B 6AD Beam, Triple Damage
Molecular Slicer: 24" B(a) 4AD Beam, Double Damage
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" F 4AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" A 4AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" P 12AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" S 12AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked

Weapons (Proposition 2):
Molecular Slicer: 24" B 6AD Beam, Triple Damage
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" F 8AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" A 8AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" P 12AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" S 12AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 15" T 6AD, Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked


If possible, we shouldn't discuss anymore the points that are already agreed and concentrate on the disputing ones such as (most weaponry):

B(a) Beam: needed or not? how much AD (potentialy too powerfull)
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: Range? 10", 12" or 15"
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: How many AD?
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: Keep the Turret or not (potentially too powerfull)
ISD: Can we consider that new ships have been built (and upgraded) after 2261 or is this ship definitly a one shot attempt? (I vote for the first possibility)
Shadowfuries: although I like the idea of exchanging Thunsderbolt for Shadowfury (they have ISD 2258+), I think that adding a Patrol PL point is not practical as it requires to split FAP from War PL to Patrol PL. I'd just leave it player's choice (4 TBolts OR 4 Shadowfuty flights)

Whatever our opinion on all my proposal, please make your comments, keeping in mind not to go back to already agreed points.
I guess it's the better way to propose Matt a complete version of this ship and so have a chance to get it fixed for the P&P extension.

Thanks to all for your help.

BR

 

[skavendan]

Priority Level: War
Speed: 8
Turns: 1/45°
Hull: 6
Damage: 75/12
Crew: 84/18
Troops: 3
Craft: 4 Thunderbolt Flights (may upgrade to Shadowfury flights for 1 Patrol FAP)
In Service Date: 2261+

Traits: Advanced Jump Engine, Anti-Fighter 8, Flight Computer, Interceptors 6, Lumbering, Self-Repair 1d6, Shields 10/5

Molecular Slicer: 24" B 6AD Beam, Triple Damage
Molecular Slicer: 24" B(a) 4AD Beam, Double Damage
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" F 8AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" A 4AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 15" P 5AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked*
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" P 12AD Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 15" S 5AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked*
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" S 12AD Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked

*Slow loading when crippled.

This is what I tried out last night with only a minor addition to Triggys stats and the Aft beam stats desided by him. It didn't do awesome damage mainly because it doesn't have precise but it was doing fairly well against the new narn. Nearly destroyed a G'Quan going head to head and took 35 damage off a G'Vrahn. When the game was done I actually managed to kill NO ships. Side fire was reasonable I thought. A crit took out the aft batteries before the Shadow Omega over shot the G'Quan and we grumbled as the show down was quiet fun and with no aft battery to fire at the G'Quan it managed to server just crippled.

I like this build but if people think it's abit too much I would happy to lose Twin linked and add a few more AD.

The thing of swapping out the fighters for a FAP is what the EA does with it's most advanced fighters so I can see the logic behind that but I wouldn't do it like TBolts.

If were going to look at a new Shadow Omega after the clark years I would make some different suggestions for a start no canon to go on so you can add what you want to make it more reasonable ship.

My only other suggestion would be perhapes knock the beams down an AD and add precise. I could understand the logic in the lowered beam range IF it was adding a new element the hunter is short range yes but its Precise.

Mothership + Nemisis + Standard Omega all 30"

Psi Corp needs abit more unity between it's ships. The speed of differing ships I already find an issue without every ship having custom ranges.

 

[Da Boss]

I think it may be a little tooo good - it has a vast quantity of TL minibeams which ignore armour and interceptors at reasonable ranges - the traits are extremely useful.

I would drop the aft beam, make all the mini-beams 12" range and loose a few AD of them. I would not mind the front beam going upto 30" in exchange.

 

[skavendan]

Lowering the number of AD would bring the average damage down too much. We worked out the average war class damage on side arc is around 12 damage. If we took twin linked off it would be 6+2.5 with 1 crit assuming 1 bulk heads here and aparantly the average crit damage is 1.95. Which would give you 9.45.

Twin linked it works out @ 12 hits 2 crits 2 bulk heads so 13.9

I would not support the range reduction it's not double or tripple damage infact the original issue was things just evaded getting that close to a lumbering target. And your just back to avoiding a B arc weapon yawn like we haven't seen that move a million times.

You'd have to offer something better than that to get my vote. Shes got no Precise and poor range side range if we do it your way. Brings me back to the = rubbish ship.

I'd lose twin linked quiet happily but I don't want to see the ranges reduced without something substancial.

 

[Da Boss]

I'd go to 15 or even 18" range on the mini-beams if they are not twin linked.

 

[skavendan]

I'd go to 18" range on the mini-beams if they are not twin linked.

I'll pay you later :wink:

 

[Ministalker]

Priority Level: War
Speed: 8
Turns: 1/45°
Hull: 6
Damage: 75/12
Crew: 84/18
Troops: 3
Craft: 4 Thunderbolt Flights (may upgrade to Shadowfury flights for 1 Patrol FAP)
In Service Date: 2261+

Traits: Advanced Jump Engine, Anti-Fighter 8, Flight Computer, Interceptors 6, Lumbering, Self-Repair 1d6, Shields 10/5

Molecular Slicer: 24" B 6AD Beam, Triple Damage
Molecular Slicer: 24" B(a) 4AD Beam, Double Damage
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 12" F 8AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" A 4AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 15" P 5AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked*
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" P 12AD Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 15" S 5AD Mini-Beam,Twin-Linked*
Light Multi-Phased Cutter: 10" S 12AD Mini-Beam, Twin-Linked

*Slow loading when crippled.

The weaponry you propose on this version is as powerfull as the one of the Nemesis (even better on most arcs). If you want to keep the rear beam, I think you'd have to cut down the number of weapons.

 

[Ministalker]

I'd go to 15 or even 18" range on the mini-beams if they are not twin linked.

18" Minibeam should be left to the Minbari. EA uses 10" or 12" Minibeam.
I think that 12" MB/TL should be the right weapon, going to 15" MB as an exception, but no more.

 

[skavendan]

The Nemisis is not lumbering. Nor does she compare canon with killing whitestars. And her front arc average damage is around 48 damage with the beam + missile rack and F arc weapons.

compared to the Shadow Omegas front arc of 27 average damage.

Even EA would realise that the Omega turns slow thus needs good P/S I mean the original Battleships always drew up and exchange port shots.

It might be slightly more on the sides but the Nemisis can easily turn and even use come about and turn twice it has far more options open to facing a side target.

 

[Jim?]

We worked out the average war class damage on side arc is around 12 damage.

Don't forget the "broken" G'Vrahn and it's massive 10 AD (8 aft) of non twin-linked pulse cannon at range 10", no shields, no interceptors and worse fighters.

The addition of shields alone will make the S.O. *much* more worthwhile, a beam at 24"-30" on top of them will make it one of the better War level ships in the game, probably at least as useful as a Warlock (similar beam, worse secondaries but much harder to kill).

Given that the 'lock is being named as the second most powerful War ship in the game (not sure about that, myself... I still think that the Sharlin and variants along with the Drakh Cruiser are right up there as far as War level ships go) I don't think that the Corps Omega needs much else above that.

(Otherwise I want an Octurian with two banks of 4 Ballistic Torps and a 24" range front beam, a Bin'Tak with range 12 secondaries, a 30" range laser cannon and a SL E-mine, and a Takata with AP added to it's gravitic mines and T/L secondaries)

 

[skavendan]

We worked out the average war class damage on side arc is around 12 damage.

Don't forget the "broken" G'Vrahn and it's massive 10 AD (8 aft) of non twin-linked pulse cannon at range 10", no shields, no interceptors and worse fighters.

I don't think they should have changed that ship but if you work it out the other 2 war class ships for the narn fall into the average war class damage. And they are forward arc heavy.

G’Quonth-class Attack Cruiser (G’Quan Variant) War average side damage = 12.9

Anyway am not debating narn make that comment in the narn topic and I will happily discuss it.

Maybe we should look at making the front arc average damage then it can be a platform like most of EA won't that be original.

 

[locarno24]

If possible, we shouldn't discuss anymore the points that are already agreed and concentrate on the disputing ones such as (most weaponry):

B(a) Beam: needed or not? how much AD (potentialy too powerfull)

Not seen in the show but given that an omega hull has one it seems illogical for an omega variant not to. I'd rather a rear boresight than a turreted cutter. 4 AD seems ok - compare to the 30" range, 6 AD heavy laser of the command omega. Swapping 6" range for a damage multiplier seems about ok.

Light Multi-Phased Cutter: Range? 10", 12" or 15"

I don't really mind but would prefer the Nemesis and Omega-X to match.
15" seems definitely too far, 10" or 12" is a matter of taste.

Light Multi-Phased Cutter: How many AD?

The Command variant Omega (which should be similar in power - granted it has a command trait, but Psi-Corps better fleet initiative and assorted special rules ) has 3 AD in the light lasers (ok, 6 slow loading....similar effect) and 16 TL normal AD.

Normal AD work out at about 9 hits against a hull 5 target without interceptors, 6 against hull 5 with interceptors, 5 against hull 6 and 2-3 against hull 6 with interceptors. Since the mini-beam is noted for averaging all of that out, the average (assuming you fire once at each sort of target) works out at five-and-a-bit hits. which translates to 7 TL AD, or 10 AD when you add the 3 AD from the light lasers back in.


Very crude and maths-hammer-ey, but that's my logic.
12", 10 AD, twin-linked mini-beam.

Light Multi-Phased Cutter: Keep the Turret or not (potentially too powerfull)

No. Doesn't fit, to my mind - what's it fitted to? There's no turret-mount weapon of any kind on the Omega chassis to replace.

I'm not convinced about dropping the phasing pulse - saying everone seemed to agree is more a case of 'one person made a comment and the suggested ones since then seem not to include them'. If you're going to have them on the nemesis I'd like to see them on the omega. Nevertheless, not worth arguing, I guess. It would seem odd why there were two completely different types of secondary.

Prow on cutters need to be pretty similar - in all honesty I'd just mirror the same firepower in all directions as it's quick and simple.

ISD: Can we consider that new ships have been built (and upgraded) after 2261 or is this ship definitly a one shot attempt? (I vote for the first possibility)

It's a relatively easy rebuild to do so I can see it being repeated. Whatever shipyard built the nemesis would be able to rebuild omegas into omega-x without much trouble, so 2261+ seems ok. This is the black ops fleet, after all.

Shadowfuries: although I like the idea of exchanging Thunsderbolt for Shadowfury (they have ISD 2258+), I think that adding a Patrol PL point is not practical as it requires to split FAP from War PL to Patrol PL. I'd just leave it player's choice (4 TBolts OR 4 Shadowfuty flights)

Personally I'd say no. The Hunter and Nemesis are purpose built by the black ops people and will be designed to handle shadowfuries. Omega-x are a re-jigging of the normal omega and I wouldn't expect to see shadowfuries on board.

Whatever our opinion on all my proposal, please make your comments, keeping in mind not to go back to already agreed points.
I guess it's the better way to propose Matt a complete version of this ship and so have a chance to get it fixed for the P&P extension.

Thanks to all for your help.

BR

 

[Ministalker]

The Nemisis is not lumbering. Nor does she compare canon with killing whitestars. And her front arc average damage is around 48 damage with the beam + missile rack and F arc weapons.

compared to the Shadow Omegas front arc of 27 average damage.

So what? The Nemesis is an Armageddon PL. You can have 2 Shadow X for it so 27x2=54

Even EA would realise that the Omega turns slow thus needs good P/S I mean the original Battleships always drew up and exchange port shots.

Once again, we are not talking here of building the best Warship ever. It is true that Omega are slow and lumbering but they shouldn't have an overpowered side weaponry just becuase of it.

It might be slightly more on the sides but the Nemisis can easily turn and even use come about and turn twice it has far more options open to facing a side target.

Being able to turn and face the ennemy with it's best weapons and being able to fire on every arc without having to turn is different.

Finally, you compare the average damage capacity of war PL ships, but have you considered the minibeam trait that is not subject to interception?

I really think your version has to much weapons/AD. You are trying to compensate the loss of the double damage Phasing Pulse Cannon (that could be intercepted) by more ranged MB/TL AD (that cannot). This is just my opinion, but please see the actual version of the Shadow X and compare it with yours: the increase in power (offense and defense) is just huge.

 

[skavendan]

So what? The Nemesis is an Armageddon PL. You can have 2 Shadow X for it so 27x2=54

Buying down always work out better everyone knows this.

Once again, we are not talking here of building the best Warship ever. It is true that Omega are slow and lumbering but they shouldn't have an overpowered side weaponry just becuase of it.

I don't intend for the Shadow Omega to be the best warship and frankly with my experience of playing this ship now. It has not out performed it's competitors at all.

Being able to turn and face the ennemy with it's best weapons and being able to fire on every arc without having to turn is different.

How is it different your saying the B arc weapon should it's main damage I think it should be more likely split. Movement becomes an issue.

Finally, you compare the average damage capacity of war PL ships, but have you considered the minibeam trait that is not subject to interception?

OK they can notbe intercepted. But what should we work it out as base damage or Vs the ISA:- AA dodge CBD interceptors, Not everyone has interceptors and I have already suggested dropping the Twin-Linked. It wasn't my suggestion they be twin-linked in the first place.

This all pushs towards fine use the command Omega beam 8AD 30" DD B arc. and all stop and pivot all game that'll make for a fun game.

My suggestion would be play it and then complain it sounds heavy on paper in reality I haven't blown anything up with it apart from a bluestar in the last 2 test games and that was with the main beam.

 

[katadder]

average damage from a warship is 12 in the flanks? for which race? centauri, dilgar, abbai and pak maybe due to lots of DD weapons all round but these guys tend to be slow and lack the 30" beams most other races have.
g'vrahn best warship in game manages as said 10 dice to a flank
bin'tak gets 10 TL and 8 standard, probably wont produce 12 especially against hull 6.
warlock manages 10TL dice to a flank
sharlin manages 8 mini-beam dice to a flank
WS carrier has 6 DD AP
drakh cruiser has 10 AP TL

and those above are probably the top 6 warships in the game, not one of them can make 12 damage in the flank without crits against a hull 6 opponent (well maybe the WS carrier if hit all but his average would be 2 hits)

 

[stepan.razin]

We worked out the average war class damage on side arc is around 12 damage.

Don't forget the "broken" G'Vrahn and it's massive 10 AD (8 aft) of non twin-linked pulse cannon at range 10", no shields, no interceptors and worse fighters.

The addition of shields alone will make the S.O. *much* more worthwhile, a beam at 24"-30" on top of them will make it one of the better War level ships in the game, probably at least as useful as a Warlock (similar beam, worse secondaries but much harder to kill).

Given that the 'lock is being named as the second most powerful War ship in the game (not sure about that, myself... I still think that the Sharlin and variants along with the Drakh Cruiser are right up there as far as War level ships go) I don't think that the Corps Omega needs much else above that.

(Otherwise I want an Octurian with two banks of 4 Ballistic Torps and a 24" range front beam, a Bin'Tak with range 12 secondaries, a 30" range laser cannon and a SL E-mine, and a Takata with AP added to it's gravitic mines and T/L secondaries)

Yep, the Worlock doesn't even crack the top 5. SO would probably fit somewhere below the Drakh but above the warlock. Just my opinion.

1. Vorlon LC/ Young battle crab

3. G'Varn / Sharlin

5. Drakh Cruiser

7. Warlock / WS Carrier (maybe)

 

[stepan.razin]

So what? The Nemesis is an Armageddon PL. You can have 2 Shadow X for it so 27x2=54

Putting together 2 SO ???? No reason to be that cruel to your mates on this forums.

 

[Ministalker]

Putting together 2 SO ???? No reason to be that cruel to your mates on this forums.

This is precisely why I initiate this thread. To try to give the Shadow X a better reputation than the one it has for the moment.

I'm affraid you are right with the actual version: the idea of putting 2 of these in the same fleet is dreadfull and gives an idea of the masochist tendancies of the player fielding it (or it may be a really nasty way of winning by making your opponent die in laught ??!!)

Anyway, in that particular post, I was refering to an improvement proposal for the Shadow X, not the actual version

 

[Triggy]

average damage from a warship is 12 in the flanks? for which race? centauri, dilgar, abbai and pak maybe due to lots of DD weapons all round but these guys tend to be slow and lack the 30" beams most other races have.
g'vrahn best warship in game manages as said 10 dice to a flank
bin'tak gets 10 TL and 8 standard, probably wont produce 12 especially against hull 6.
warlock manages 10TL dice to a flank
sharlin manages 8 mini-beam dice to a flank
WS carrier has 6 DD AP
drakh cruiser has 10 AP TL

and those above are probably the top 6 warships in the game, not one of them can make 12 damage in the flank without crits against a hull 6 opponent (well maybe the WS carrier if hit all but his average would be 2 hits)

Thank you katadder - in addition to this, being able be intercepted is a major consideration, as is the mini-beams ignoring hull 6 on other larger ships.

I still maintain my original weapons payload with shields 10/d6 or 10/5 would be fine as a good increase for the Shadow Omega without making it out of step with the rest of the fleet.

This would make the firepower slicer beam 24" 6/4AD B/B(a) and multiphased cutter 10" 6/6/12/12AD F/A/P/S.

 

[Ripple]

Yes, vote triggy for SO architect...

I just think it fits better with seen SO stuff and seen Omega stuff and the standard adaptions for shadow tech.

Ripple