Playtesting vorlons.

[Ripple]

My understanding of the rule is that you get your own (or loaned) AF before the first round of a dogfight. Who moved into who is not relevant.

The fluff text trying to describe what is happening causes a lot of confusion.

And the dogfight bonus I thought would be helpful when the enemy jumps you, given your slower than just about anything not abbai.

Ripple

 

[CZuschlag]

I'm fairly certain it's only when the opponent moves in contact. Of course, you never have reason to make contact -- you can, if you move second, park yourself 2" away and fire antifighter to your heart's content.

 

[Grunvald]

you never have reason to make contact -- you can, if you move second, park yourself 2" away and fire antifighter to your heart's content.

Rubbish!!!

if your facing an enemy with a load of accurat weaponry where is the best place to be so you cant get shot at???

In a dogfight!!!

Besides this is now off topic so lets get back on it shall we!

If we want to discuss Antifight and dogfight on vorlon we'll start another thread!

 

[Ripple]

Okay... let's go over this again...

"Anti-Fighter rolls may not be made against flights involved in dogfights. However, some special fighters may also have the Anti-Fighter trait, which may be used just before a dogfight is initiated, as enemy fighters move into contact (if opposing fighters have the trait, they are resolved simultaneously). Once the dogfight has started, the trait may not be used."

That's the whole relevant rule.

First, you CAN use AF in against another flight trying to dogfight you. Otherwise there would be no second line.

Second, 'the trait may be used' is not restricted to the flight being contacted. The timing clause is separate from the use, and doesn't talk about the moving fighter or the moved to fighter. It talks about enemy fighters, that's true for both involved in all cases. Then you add in the bit about opposing fighters resolving simultaneously... and it becomes obvious that there must be a circumstance where both the initiating fighter and the unmoved fighter must both be able to shoot.

Third bit is about Escort and lending... it specifically adds it's anti-fighter trait to any ship within range... before any AF firing takes place. Since flights are ships unless otherwise stated they are eligible, and since it is before any AF firing it can be lent to the fighter. There is no psuedo phase where AF takes place for flights about to dogfight. All AF fire takes place right after movement, before dogfights are resolved.

I know you don't like the way escort works, and you don't like that fighters can do this, but at this point they can.

Ripple

 

[Grunvald]

Besides this is now off topic so lets get back on it shall we!

If we want to discuss Antifight and dogfight on vorlon we'll start another thread!

And who says i dont like the way escort works???

Not me!!!

although 1 on 1 vorlon fighters have that nice anti-fighter to help them before any dogfights start.

Only in the first round of dog fight!!!

And if you move into an enemy fighter (you being vorlon) you don't get it!!!

Is that last bit true or not - without derailing the thread was it not the source of large amount of unresolved debate on the Rulesmasters thread - a bit like the recovery of Rutarians from Balvarins...............(and firebolts and .........)

As stated above lets get off this AF topic and back on vorlon discussion!

 

[Grunvald]

Vorlon Dreadnought, as quoted near the beginning of this topic, is definatley not worth taking in its current form, and would be better off taking 2 light cruisers when comparing firepower and general round about stat's.

When comparing it to the Heavy cruiser it is a variant of you get this:
3 more quad beam dice, 20 extra damage (40 if you count AA) -1 speed -1 AAF -10 AD beam double damage!

When comparing it to 2 Light cruiser you get this : (2 light cruiser being added together and then based upon basic stat's for most references)
3 Less quad beam dice, same amount of damage, a basic of +2 speed, -5AAF. (Turns and self repair not worth comparing on 2 to 1 basis)

In a past post i had surggested something along these lines and got told if that was to happen it would be Ancient level:

Speed: 5
Turn: 1/45o
Hull: 5
Damage: 125
Crew: -
Troops: -
Craft: None
Special Rules: Adaptive Armour, Advanced Anti-Fighter 6, Advanced Jump Engine, Flight Computer, Lumbering, Self-Repairing 3D6+3
In Service: Until 2261

Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Giant Lightning Cannon 36 F 9 Beam, Precise, Quad Damage
Discharge Gun 24 F 6 Beam, Precise, Double Damage
Discharge Gun 24 F 6 Beam, Precise, Double Damage

Well maybe it is, or maybe it isnt, it is only a modified Heavy Cruiser, with bit more AAF and bit of SR with 3 AD more on main gun and secondary split into 2 guns and 1AD added to each!

It is more along the lines of what a Vorlon Dreadnought is supposed to be than what has been currently suggested.

Are there any more ideas out there about what could be done to make the Dreadnought into what it is supposed to be, instead of what it is right now a Dreadzero!

 

[Ripple]

- for the record the not liking was targeted at Chris...

No discussion of the Vorlons can be had without knowing what their fighters are capable of. All discussions of them getting a carrier or escort are hamstrung by the poorly worded dogfight/AF rules.

If part of the discussion on the Vorlons is getting away from just more giant beams, that needs to be settled.

The problem with making another heavy ship for the Vorlons is that it will be very hard to make it significantly different but not just better. You've created a Vorlon heavy cruiser that just has more AD... ie just better. Can't do that at the same pl.

Ripple

 

[Grunvald]

- for the record the not liking was targeted at Chris...

No discussion of the Vorlons can be had without knowing what their fighters are capable of. All discussions of them getting a carrier or escort are hamstrung by the poorly worded dogfight/AF rules.

If part of the discussion on the Vorlons is getting away from just more giant beams, that needs to be settled.

The problem with making another heavy ship for the Vorlons is that it will be very hard to make it significantly different but not just better. You've created a Vorlon heavy cruiser that just has more AD... ie just better. Can't do that at the same pl.

Ripple

The vorlon Fighter AF discussion has been going on for yonks, do a couple of search's and see what i mean, and it looks like it wont be sorted out anytime soon unless something is put in the new supplement!

So if i made a heavy cruiser that is just got more AD what is thi8s then???

Vorlon Dreadnought (Heavy Cruiser variant) Armageddon

Speed: 5
Turn: 1/45o
Hull: 5
Damage: 110
Crew: -
Troops: -
Craft: None
Special Rules: Adaptive Armour, Advanced Anti-Fighter 3, Advanced Jump Engine, Flight Computer, Lumbering, Self-Repairing 3D6
In Service: Until 2261

Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Giant Lightning Cannon 36 F 9 Beam, Precise, Quad Damage

Ok no 10 Beam double damage but 9 beam quad damage, as stated in other posts it just not worth it, it is NOT what a vorlon dreadnought is supposed to be, if mongoose want to create a heavy cruiser variant ok fine by me but dont call it a dreadnought when it obvious that it not!

 

[Ripple]

I agree that the discussion has been going on for a while, but it is relevant to adding to the vorlon fleet (it is also relevant to pak fleets and anyone with an escort... but that IS outside this threads purpose).

I agree the Dreadnaught rules seem to exist simply to allow for more models to be used (the old FA scale one). I would like to see it have a different role...

I don't mind the three beams, but maybe they should all shorter ranged, maybe wider arced. This would give it a new role... fleet defender rather than artillery sniper. Basically allow each beam to have two arcs... F/P and F/S and F/B(a) maybe?

The old model had the six limbs up front... maybe no quad beam at all... but three dd beams at range 18 with 7 AD each, and uses the rules for the Triuviron if it targets one ship. 25 AD at shorter range vs 16 AD at longer range or three targets with 7 AD each.

Ripple

 

[Ripple]

I agree that the discussion has been going on for a while, but it is relevant to adding to the vorlon fleet (it is also relevant to pak fleets and anyone with an escort... but that IS outside this threads purpose).

I agree the Dreadnaught rules seem to exist simply to allow for more models to be used (the old FA scale one). I would like to see it have a different role...

I don't mind the three beams, but maybe they should all shorter ranged, maybe wider arced. This would give it a new role... fleet defender rather than artillery sniper. Basically allow each beam to have two arcs... F/P and F/S and F/B(a) maybe?

The old model had the six limbs up front... maybe no quad beam at all... but three dd beams at range 18 with 7 AD each, and uses the rules for the Triuviron if it targets one ship. 25 AD at shorter range vs 16 AD at longer range or three targets with 7 AD each.

But in all of these should have roughly the same damage numbers. Maybe slightly faster for the shorter range beams... or more AF but slightly less damage/speed?

Ripple

 

[Grunvald]

Thought i was starting to need glasses there with your double post

I'm not sure what role the old FA 6 limb vorlon ship played, but i thought we where using the Dreadnought model already as the heavy cruiser!

Not / pretty sure that you wouldn't see a vorlon ship with multiple arcs, but you might get a forward 180o arc suggestion in with those 6 limb guns!

Defiantly wouldn't see a aft gun from a vorlon ship!

Wouldn't mind seeing a ship with less damage slightly more guns, and a slightly higher repair rate, has a shorter range meaning it has to go in closer instead of sitting back an pounding the enemy from afar!

 

[captainsmirk]

The Heavy Cruiser has always been the Heavy Cruiser, in game terms anyway, that particular ship is often referred to as a Dreadnought or Star Dreadnought in fan circles but is never actually named in the series so either could be right.

The six-limbed Dreadnought simple had more guns than the four limbed one in B5 Wars (indeed it also had an aft firing discharge cannon) but since B5 Wars worked on a points system there was less need to fit it directly into a particular niche.


Nick

 

[l33tpenguin]

I wouldn't mind seeing an ancient level Vorlon Dreadnought. The Six armed thing, to include more guns, higher AD and a rear facing discharge gun

 

[Ripple]

The six armed one had arms that were clearly above and below the main hull... figured they could fire back over the main hull.

My mistake on the model used, given the name I thought they were bringing back the other ship.

Sorry about the double post... thought I was editing... not sure how that happened...

Ripple

 

[Grunvald]

The FA vorlon Dreadnought with the additional arms would be a nice addition to a vorlon fleet, but i still can not see how it would be able to fire back over the main body of the ship!

I dont believe that we see the "arms" on the vorlon ships move much if at all, and even if they do move i can not see them moving /bending like an octopus's limbs and firing back over themselves!

Still think that fitting more in the vorlon philosophy of things that an increase arc of 180o to the front would be more appropriate than having a front and rear arc!

 

[Ripple]

Okay picture this...

The arms don't have to move at all...

You have two arms that are already above the main hull... these two arms form the beam generating sphere of energy... instead of firing forward they fire directly between the arms back over the main hull.

Given that they form some kind of intersection point from the energy of the arms, and their beams emerge from that, I see no reason for the beam to travel in any particular direction. I see the restriction of firing to the sides/behind as mainly a safety thing... don't singe your ships arms and such. With the intersection point above or below the hull, you could fire in a narrow arc backwards over or under the hull on the big ship, if you only used two arms to form you beam.

With six arms to shoot with, that gives you three beams... two of which would have a rear possibility. You can also risk shooting between the arms to the sides... but that is a much narrower gap.

Could argue against it by saying that it takes at least four to make the beam... in which case why have six? Your right back to making an Ancient level ship with a bigger beam.

Ripple

 

[l33tpenguin]

Not terribly worried about HOW it works I would just like to see it on paper for use with a model!

And I think both the Shadows and the Vorlons should get Ancient level ships. They are, after all, ancients.

 

[Ripple]

True, I would love to see their ships go all the way up like their near cousins.

Just saying it would fix some of th eissue with really big Vorlon if it had at least a B(a) arc... so you could take it in a game less than Arm level.

Ripple

 

[Grunvald]

I think all of the Vorlon PLayers and peoples who made comments on this thread, where extremly disapointed that nothing has been mentioned, added to, or mentioned that for all the comments we made the "New" Vorlon ships where just something slapped together and a total waste of time really, true it filled a prioity lvl hole, but not a lot else.

And the Dread"ZERO" still totally not worth it!

So is it time to reserect this thread or start a new one with the same old descusion?

 

[Triggy]

Well I think that the biggest thing for Vorlon players is that they get a Raid PL ship that is actually balanced - this is absolutely massive for them.

As for the Dreadnought, maybe it could get a little something extra but we'll have to be careful not to make it too good - it shouldn't be any better than the Heavy Cruiser but it can be as good as it.