Playtest - Whitestar

[Hindsight]

The ship at the Skirmish level was featured in the Rangers movie as a floating hulk barely supporting its story narrating passenger. Watch the Rangers movie, and then watch the White Stars destroy that Vorlon Outpost.

It just doesn't command any fear, its a glorified shuttle, not a warship, not even a fighter, it just doesn't belong as a combat craft. It is the equivilant of those big round civilian transports you see floating around, not a valid attack craft.

Just buff the Blue Star, bring it up to par with the Skirmish ships. Removed the Blue Star as a patrol choice, as we have the White Star fighter at that level, we have too many patrol options. That would be a Skirmish level ship.

Also, I take issue with you saying that the White Star I is different from the White Star II. Taking some fighters isn't a huge difference. Do I want to scout today, or do I want to have some interceptor fighters? Its still a White Star. Thats why I take Dag'kars =)

Variety is important. Two variants, that really aren't THAT different. *shrug* Its why we run so many, its all we've really got. The gunship is really just a pair of White Stars glued together, and I think the models for the Gunship and the Carrier are insulting to the legacy that the Excalibur created. ISA ships moved forward in design, to a hybrid Earth/Vorlon/Minbari scheme, and these ships that were released were done so AFTER the Excalibur was launched. A step backwards, not forwards.

SO yea, I run a lot of White Stars, and I do so at the Raid and Battle levels, trading down just one step if necessary. I do so with a Tara'lin as well, because that is a canonical show. Wouldn't mind a buff on the Tara'lin..... but thats another thread ;-)

 

[Da Boss]

hated that movie - its horrible?

What is wrong with White Star fleets - as you say -thats what they do in the show

Not against more variants but Shadows don't have a Patrol or Skirmish ship at all at present !

The ISA gets good ships at all but skirmish AND has access to ships across the fleet book as allies - biggest choice in the game and includes some of the best - Ashinta, Leshath, Delphi, Narn stuff

 

[Foxmeister]

In the end, the popularity of the White Star being from the show is why it takes so much grief, and the fact that we as ISA field so many of them are cause for anyone who loses to an ISA fleet to scream nerf, but that doesn't mean the ship needs to take the nerf stick, and especially not to our beam weapons.

No - the WS is right at the top of the curve for its priority level. That doesn't mean it is broken itself, but it is definitely getting close. And FWIW, I've a WS fleet too.

A large proportion of fleets can have real issues with WS when they can APtE and get behind them with impunity. They have perhaps a turn or two max to inflict serious hurt on the WS which can be very difficult due to dodge. Vree are one of the few fleets that don't have this issue because they have turret mounted weaponry and have their own variant of SM.

Personally, I'd be much happier if the nerf took the form of making the beam boresight, since *that is what it is in the show*. It's also got more than enough speed and manoeverablity to make full use of that boresight beam.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Hindsight]

A boresighted white star would be released on the day my forum account goes idle, and I spend my money and time on another game. I have stated my reasoning already, and I'm only one to repeat myself six or seven times.

Dispute what I have said, as you will, but making blanket statements that because the weapons are mounted on the nose, it must only be able to shoot forward... on a ship that can fly sideways... moving still, and firing all weapons... *sigh*.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The concept of Boresight on a White Star just doesn't fit the ship. Boresight represents ships with light maneuverability, that can only fire forward from a mounted cannon. The White Star, as seen in the show, can not only maneuver as well as a Fighter, but fly sideways while firing, do a complete 180 on a dime, and fire, and other similarly awesome feats of agility.

In point of fact, we see the White Star do these things, and anyone with any knowledge at all of Newtonian physics will realise that any ship in space can do exactly the same thing. The White Star is not exceptionally agile in its observed movement - every other vessel is behaving unrealistically.

The White Star's forward beam is never observed to fire off the boresight line, while at least two boresighted ships are. That's the argument for White Stars being boresighted, not the rediculous favouritism towards them exhibited by various commentators here.

 

[Foxmeister]

Dispute what I have said, as you will, but making blanket statements that because the weapons are mounted on the nose, it must only be able to shoot forward... on a ship that can fly sideways... moving still, and firing all weapons... *sigh*.

It is not a blanket statement - it is an absolute canon fact. You *only* ever see WS fire directly forward, so to simulate its ability to slide you should do so via movement SAs and abilities. Moreso, when you do see it "slide" it's almost invariably firing pulse cannons rather than beams.

The G'Quans fire off bore in more than one occasion the show, yet the are boresight in the game. On screen evidence should *always* take precedence over any other consideration.

You seem to forget that these issues have been debated time and time again on this boards, so despite you repeating yourself "six or seven times", you are not adding anything new to the debate that hasn't been discussed already - and neither am I for that matter!

Regards,

Dave

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Hindsight, a ship's exact facing is very important in ACtA. Saying that a White Star should have an F arc on its observed-boresight beam because it's agile is contrary to the core movement rules of the game. It can't change its heading in the firing phase and if you want to see it flying sideways you need to play a game with vector-based movement.

 

[Hindsight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dalydgg0p-4

Strafes the Earth Force vessels... firing all weapons.

Zips through the Vorlon Outpost... firing all weapons.

Makes a complete 180 in flight... fires all weapons.

You were saying?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dalydgg0p-4

Strafes the Earth Force vessels... firing all weapons.

Zips through the Vorlon Outpost... firing all weapons.

Makes a complete 180 in flight... fires all weapons.

You were saying?

I was saying, any object in space can do that. Vector-based movement represents it and isn't used in ACtA.

 

[Hindsight]

The video represents the ship firing all weapons, while doing crazy maneuvers, directed at Foxmeister primarily.

The game gives the ship a front arc, because otherwise, it would have to get a moves and shoots, before anyone else, special ability, or a four inch move and a pair of 90 degree turns in the shooting phase =)

I'm sorry, you're just wrong. The game makes up for the movement system, by giving it a front arc. Obviously the developers agree, as they have been through these arguments with ya'll before, as you say.

A front arc on a White Star, is the games way of making an allowance for the movement systems flaws in representing the sheer magic that is the White Star.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The video represents the ship firing all weapons, while doing crazy maneuvers, directed at Foxmeister primarily.

The game gives the ship a front arc, because otherwise, it would have to get a moves and shoots, before anyone else, special ability, or a four inch move and a pair of 90 degree turns in the shooting phase =)

I'm sorry, you're just wrong. The game makes up for the movement system, by giving it a front arc. Obviously the developers agree, as they have been through these arguments with ya'll before, as you say.

A front arc on a White Star, is the games way of making an allowance for the movement systems flaws in representing the sheer magic that is the White Star.

No, Hindsight, I'm not wrong. The game incorrectly represents movement in space, this is acknowledged by everyone. The White Star has a front-arc beam because too many people are obsessed with how good it "should" be for the observed canonical evidence to matter. The same stick-in-the-mud arguments have kept other, popular ships from having realistic weapons arcs.

 

[Foxmeister]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dalydgg0p-4

Strafes the Earth Force vessels... firing all weapons.

Zips through the Vorlon Outpost... firing all weapons.

Makes a complete 180 in flight... fires all weapons.

You were saying?

Not sure what your point is here? We also seem them firing the same weapon more than once (in fact ditto all the other ships), yet in any given turn each weapon system can only fire once. So what we are seeing in more than one turn of action.

Always remember, it's a game, not a simulation. Not everything on screen is reflected in the game, and much of what is doesn't necessarily fit what is shown either.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Foxmeister]

A front arc on a White Star, is the games way of making an allowance for the movement systems flaws in representing the sheer magic that is the White Star.

And there's the problem - you don't want to debate the White Star, you want to defend it.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Hindsight]

That is an insult, not an argument.

I showed you video proof of the White Star firing all weapons, while flying sideways. That was your argument, and I showed you video proof otherwise, took all of two seconds on YouTube to find that video.

So... am I not debating properly? I thought it went... I make a statement... you tell me I'm wrong, and support that with some evidence... and then I dispute your evidence, with my own?

Where in that is the "And then you just say I am a White Star fanboy, in an attempt to make my video evidence invalid" part?

Now visiting YouTube has me watching videos about the Victory class and making me wish the new minis were out so I could get one =)

I have all the respect in the world for you Foxmeister, I just think you are wrong. I think it, it doesn't make it so, but at least for the point that this has come up again and again... those in charge seemed to agree with me. I'm just not going to ignore attempts at changing my babies, as if no one disputes it out loud... it may go through for lack of debate. So I am here, to point out that it is wrong... as the pro-boresight people come out again... after a thousand years... er... wait.

I think Narn ships should lose boresight, drazi ships should lose boresight, or give boresighted ships a strafing ability that doesn't favor buying a bunch of Initiative Sinks.

Look at that, you've got me repeating myself again. My my.

 

[skavendan]

the problem is not just B arc "I think Narn ships should lose boresight, drazi ships should lose boresight, or give boresighted ships a strafing ability that doesn't favor buying a bunch of Initiative Sinks.
"

It's the combination B arc and lumbering. it limits what you can achieve alot.

 

[Hindsight]

I got involved with this game with the purchase of a single White Star. Playing just a few games and visiting these forums, I got great feedback about my painting and now play in the Battle priority ranges, starting my first campaign among friends, among who we have a Narn, a ESA, a Minbari, and a Vree player, each with some variants, and those pesky Vorlon lists no one wants to play.

Some are frustrated with these changes, and I guess that is the point of Play Testing. We won't always be happy with every change, but as a new person coming into this game, it is somewhat sad to run into people who are as frustrated with these new rules as some of my local group appear to be.

Some feel that their comments here will be ignored, that they have been ignored in the past, and so they decide not to comment, as they have been taught that contributing is futile. That makes me just sad.

If someone deleting a constructive post that I made, deleted something that did not outright condemn anyone, and tried to be constructive, wasn't overly critical of the company, etc. Avoided things that usually get posts deleted, things that classify you as a troll, etc. If that happened to me, I'd probably not come back. I'm happy to own the models I do, I'd like to buy and paint more, as you may have noticed in my words, the lore and the feel of the show, and how I can illustrate that visually on my army, is very important to me.

I'm not someone you'll see in a tournament. People who go all into a game, who focus on the win, and not the experience are not people I tend to enjoy playing against. You are more than welcome to be better than me, I am young, fit, happily married, employed and well treated by the universe. I do this for the fun of it, not to fill some empty place where I need reinforcement or confirmation of my quality. I am one of those "this is just a game" people. The visual appeal of the model is often more important to me than its ability in the game, so when my pretty models are at risk of becoming useless in the game, I take offense. The White Stars are fine, and I really don't see a bunch of cries for nerf, so I hope we can put this behind us and just test these changes, and respond to them, focus less on flaws of other races, as they impact the White Star.

The Narn and the Drazi and their application of boresight weapons are a separate issue, which I feel is equally important, but just not what we're addressing in this thread. I'll support those changes as they are presented, but not playing either fleet myself I do not feel qualified to comment, or propose anything, at this time myself.

A Boresight White Star would not represent the agile, deadly craft you see in the show. All someone would have to do, is use initiative sinks to force the White Stars to move first, and the whole fleet list falls apart. That is just a balance issue, and more than that, it represents the White Star as a slow, lumbering beam weapon, and not the ship with fighter like agility, as seen on TV.

I'd love to play a Narn fleet, but what keeps me from doing that is how much negative feedback I hear about the G'Quan. I just love ships from the show, while not a fan of the Centauri, I tend to prefer the ships as they appeared to me in my youth on the show. I'm twenty four, I was in my teens watching B5 on TNT, recording it on a programmed VCR and happily rushing home to watch each episode again and again.

Now as an adult, I watch the series again, I am reminded of the heroes that made me believe in chivalry, made me believe that the universe will not forsake us, if we believe, and we do the right thing, for the sake of doing the right thing. When playing this game, I want to play a Narn fleet, struggling for their independance, struggling for freedom. I'm just really attracted to that lore, and painting the Dag'Kars was a lot of fun.

So yes, I want the Narn players to feel balanced and fair, as empowered as any race should be. I want to know that the G'Quan is a useful ship as I want to buy one without it just being something fun to paint, but the start of a Narn fleet.

So I feel you, and as I said, I'll support any proposals as they arise, but I wish we could address the White Star changes, as they are presented, and not get hung up on old issues, long dead.

 

[Foxmeister]

That is an insult, not an argument.

And your comment ending in a *sigh*, wasn''t an insult? Let me tell you, that's how it comes over.

I showed you video proof of the White Star firing all weapons, while flying sideways. That was your argument, and I showed you video proof otherwise, took all of two seconds on YouTube to find that video.

And I've already said that the best way of representing this in the game is via movement SAs, not by changing the abilities of a weapon from its onscreen performance. When you do see the WS fire its beam and pulse cannons simultaneously, the beam isn't sustained it's also more of a pulse so the proposed new rule actually fits some onscreen evidence in my opinion.

Not that I would put too much stock in onscreen evidence though! (F arc G'Quan, *cough*)

Where in that is the "And then you just say I am a White Star fanboy, in an attempt to make my video evidence invalid" part?

Merely pointing out that you seem to have an emotional attachment to this ship. You've already stated that that if the WS went boresight you would stop playing. What you haven't considered is what the WS might gain if it did go boresight. You might see a 3AD boresight weapon, with an automatic TTT to 1AD F arc which might better represent the WS (I'm not saying it does, just that it might!).

I have all the respect in the world for you Foxmeister, I just think you are wrong. I think it, it doesn't make it so, but at least for the point that this has come up again and again... those in charge seemed to agree with me.

No they don't agree with you - you agree with with the way the WS has been represented by them in the 2e Fleet book. Now the powers that be are potentially looking at revisiting it (as witnessed by the P&P "nerf"), and you have already stated your opposition to this, so now you are actually in disagreement with them.

I think Narn ships should lose boresight, drazi ships should lose boresight, or give boresighted ships a strafing ability that doesn't favor buying a bunch of Initiative Sinks.

I fully agree - I would prefer to see boresight dropped in its entirety in favour of a more limited arc (45 degrees perhaps), but that isn't going to happen until a 3rd Edition at the earliest - if indeed at all.

I have a lot of respect for your passion for this game, and your opinion is just as valid as anyone elses. However, you do need to understand that quite a few people who've been playing this game longer than both you and I are of the opinion that the WS might need a minor nerf and that is reflected by the attention the WS has been given in the P&P playtest files.

Whether or not it's the right attention is the matter that needs debating!

Regards,

Dave

 

[Da Boss]

I think you maybe need to look back through the forum for the various and many debates about the White Star and boresight..........

Personally I was happy with it as is - I don't play with them myself given my Centauri / Shadow preferences...........however I also don't feel the present version is a "massive downgrade" - anything bu - they are still excellent ships - very powerful = as it should be.............

Remember you have started (?) in the middle of a period of change and a unprecidented relase of playtest material which is obviously in flux. As the Chinese say "Interesting Times"!

one point re tournaments - I went to my first as a player with a very limited number of games under my belt and was privaged to play two playtesters - Tank and Triggy (having previously played another Greg at our home games club)- all of whom (and the majority of those who attend tournaments) were / are friendly, helpful and extremely nice and whilst wanting to win, are perhaps less foccussed on that then you may think.
It was the first and only time I have beaten them ( 8) )- Tank in particluar giving me a hammering every susbequent game and they were constantly helpful and very tollerant of my less than stellar rules knowledge of the game - as it should be and I hope I am with especially new players.............

enjoy and continue to contribute

 

[Hindsight]

And your comment ending in a *sigh*, wasn''t an insult? Let me tell you, that's how it comes over.

I am frustrated, that you would take my appreciation for the art of the White Star, the design that I don't think has been beat yet in Science Fiction, as a sign that my understanding of the game is somehow slanted.

You can't take a quick stab at me, and then defend the statement by using my frustration at your own insult. As per the school yard rules, you started it =)

As you say, a movement SA is different than making the weapon boresighted. Show me the SA, and we'll talk, but Boresight, just to be boresighted, is not a complete recommendation to make. You talk about boresight, and the -1 AD change/nerf as if they are the same thing. I said the developers agree that the White Star should not be boresighted, I think the AD hurts us a bit, but I will survive the 1 AD, the boresight change makes playing ISA frustrating, and in saying that disagreeing with the -1 AD puts me at a disagreement with the developers also on the boresight issue... I think you're trying to combine issues.

Boresight has never been in the playtest document for this update, so while yes, we're losing an attack dice, if we fire other weapons, or take special actions, it may turn out that we also get a bit of extra range on our other guns, or something else to balance out the change.

Putting Boresight on the table, in an official capacity, is a whole nother issue.

I playtested the new rules this evening, and was unhappy with the performance. At a distance, I tend to Close Blast Doors, as only one of my weapons is in range, and now if I do that, it halves my fire power. I am fast, but against the Vree losing attack dice meant doing very little damage, and taking a ton in return. Rolling one dice to try and stack up beams gives me a 50/50 shot at even getting a second AD. We pay for the beam ability, in AD. If it wasn't a beam, we'd probably have a few more to roll. I just hate rolling a single beam dice, it isn't as thrilling.

Stacking up a lot of beam hits, having that run of luck, it makes for a lot of fun for both parties. It is always good for a laugh around the room as the dice just keep rolling fours.

When I am up against fleets with stealth, fleets with long range weapons, I just don't do enough damage during my run. Like a melee army in any other game, I take heavy loses before I can get into the fight at all. CBD is a great way to survive just a little longer, and since I can't fire both guns at 18" anyway... I might as well close em right? Now I am penalized for doing so.

So yes, I do not like having one of my AD removed if I plan to do anything else. That said, that has little to do with my dislike of the boresight rule in general, and I'd hope you can keep the two separate as we continue this discussion.

Unless Matt posted new docs and I missed em, its not on the table.

 

[Da Boss]

Stacking up a lot of beam hits, having that run of luck, it makes for a lot of fun for both parties. It is always good for a laugh around the room as the dice just keep rolling fours..

Actually again look through the forum - an awful lot of people don't find that too much fun when a Raid level ship cuts their battle level ship in half.On eof the reasons it gets "only" 2 AD is the sheer power of it - Triple Damage and Precise - few other ship IIRC can match it at that level if it crits and its more likely to do so - even 2 hits is 6 damage and 6 crew before the criticals if there are any.

Survability of the White Star is not usually a problem - again the debate has been the opposite - often people where trying to get through - dodge then fighters as interceptors and then AA and finally Close the blast doors - not easy . I have seen an entire Minbari fleet fire at White star and only just manage to kill it (including a Sharlin)

I am sure the Vree loved your Narn allied Emine ships - hull 4 ships love area effect wepaons with AP !

lastly bore sight - people are saying with the TTT special action the BS Whitestar is more viable - not sure I agree myself but it is an arguement.