Poseidon rant

[animus]

Here's a new one....

So I'm putting together my new Poseidon and it occurs to me that this thing is freakin' huge! It's so big, I dare say, it's unplayable. I can't imagine seeing the firing arcs on the base unless the thing's four inches above the table.

While the great minds at Mongoose are shrinking the Olympus down a fraction, how about they consider making a manageable Poseidon.

(Fix what's broken before making new stuff!) :x

 

[MongooseMatt]

While the great minds at Mongoose are shrinking the Olympus down a fraction, how about they consider making a manageable Poseidon.

Well, we can't do that - it would be a shame to mess around with such a majestic model. However, I think I can guarantee you some stats in August that do every justice to the model. . .

 

[polemarch]

You could also use a larger base!

 

[angelus2000]

Neh, with beam changes I'm much more likely to use one as its stats are now. Give me the ability to spew out 24 or 30 flight stands, redo the interceptor rules, make fighter more worhtwhile in general, and give 12 AD of Lightning Cannon fun (errrr.... maybe not the last one. Got carried away with myself), and I highly doubt and I highly doubt I''d play any game bigger than 5pt Battle without one.

Special wish for 2ed. Make the 3rd Age Avenger the same as the Early Era Avenger. Fleet carrier isnt that special of a trait to justify bumping it up a PL. More reason/less alternative to use a posiedon as well.

 

[katadder]

carriers are getting far better. the posiedon is a real beast and it makes it difficult to choose between that and a warlock.
the avenger is also sorted as well, close to what you asked but with a differance.

 

[animus]

You could also use a larger base!

There's a whole new debate. Remember stacking isn't allowed - base size can have a big effect in games.

I finished assembly of my Poseidon last night with the base it came with, but I replaced the stem with 3+ inches of brass. It'll play, and as Matt said, provided I can paint it worth a damn, it'll be an impressive piece.

 

[Locutus9956]

Ok:

1) Cant see the firing arcs??!?!?! Oh come on, is it reallthat challenging to work out where the stand is when viewing from the top of the mini?!?! And its a CARRIER not a frikkin battleship, if its getting right in amongs the enemy your using it wrong.

2) The model is huge. That's the point. It's a SUPERcarrier. Note SUPER.

3) From what I've heard, the 2nd Ed one is going to be somewhat tougher (in terms of actual hull (that combined with beam changes should help alot). As for more fighters and increasing their quality, erm. No. One or the other, not both. The biggest problem in ACTA's develoment thusfar has been that everytime something needed a slight tweak with the lightest touch, instead Mongoose have gone in with a sledgehammer and broken the ship/rule in the opposite direction. Cases in point:

Minbari in the Original rules were SLIGHTLY too fragile, so in SFoS they became rediculously hard.

The original Whitestars 5+ dodge left it dead to quickly. Solution? 3+ Dodge rendering it staggering hard to kill, oh and while we're at it make all its weapons way more potent....

Saggitarius, original rules it was undergunned and died too easily for a raid ship. Solution? Drop it skirmish. Oh and upgun it and raise its toughness so it would be a goood raid ship while we're in the neighbourhood.

Fighters in the original rules, bit too dangerous and can crit like mad. If used as a massive swarm fleets they were seriously broken. So whats the answer? Limit fighter numbers to carrier capacity? Limit fleets to spend no more than 1 FAP on fighters in games over patrol level? No we'll make fighters utterly crap! Oh but now everyones complainign fighters suck, lets make them better again, oh and tripple the number you get too (at least thats what Im worried will happen....).

Ok point 3) was a bit of a rant, but I hope that conveys my point

4) Change how interceptors work? Why? What the hell is wrong with them as they are? Theyre already a fantastic defence against non beams and making them any better would be pushing it in terms of power if you ask me.

Overall the problem with the current posseidon was never about the ship itself (though it was a bit too weak with hull 4). It was the fact that fighters are simply not a serious attack force at the moment (certainly not for larger games where war level ships tend to feature). Fighters have their place but its just NOT worth using a whole war point to get lots of fighters with a slight boost when you could get a Warship or two Battleships (many of which carry (especially EA ones) reasonable fighter compliments anyway!)

 

[animus]

Ok:

1) Cant see the firing arcs??!?!?! Oh come on, is it reallthat challenging to work out where the stand is when viewing from the top of the mini?!?! And its a CARRIER not a frikkin battleship, if its getting right in amongs the enemy your using it wrong.

Yes, it's an issue. I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't think it was a problem.

Thanks for your deep insight into the nature of the Super Carrier and it's not needed to have defined arcs in our competitive games. I'll report back to my friends to just view the arcs from "the top the mini" and guess from there. Thanks again. Oh, I'll share with them also how we've been using our models wrong. Wow, good thing you were here.

 

[Locutus9956]

So mark the centerpoint with a running light or something! If the stand is not easy to get to make all your measurments from another point on the top of the model, I used Posseidons loads, despite their general suckiness at the moment and have NEVER had an issue with working out firing arcs with the thing.

It not rocket science to work out a 90 degree arc, and its not as though there arent loads of handy templates out there to make life easier irrespecitve of the posseidons size.

And I never said that its not needed to have defined firing arcs, just that it being a big models doesnt make it any harder to figure out where they are.

Frankly it sounds like you and your opponent are having the sort of games where you argue interminably about whether a ship is half a nanometer out of arc, most people I know would just when manuevering speak to their opponent and agree about the arcs one way or the other.

And if your REALLY finidn it that much trouble, mark the firing arcs on the actual base and then just line a tape measure up along the marks for the arc edges underneath the carrier when you use it.

 

[angelus2000]

Locutus

3) agree on somewhat. What I meant by increasing quality, I was referring to mechanics of their survivablity, not thier attack potential. I'm quite happy with the amount of damage fighters can do at the present; I just would like for them to not POOF so easily. If most of them didnt alreayd have only 2 or 3 AD at present, I'd be happy if they lost an AD or 2 in exchange for more survivability.

From what I've seen from the anti-fighter rules, I suspect fighters are going to die even faster than they do now without some sort of corresponding bump in toughness.

4) Referring to the arguement in which anything above interceptors 2, the more dice is added, the less effectiveness is obtained from each new dice. IIRC it was argued that interceptors 8 wasnt that much more effective than interceptors 2 in proportion to the actual amount of dice.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

While the great minds at Mongoose are shrinking the Olympus down a fraction, how about they consider making a manageable Poseidon.

Well, we can't do that - it would be a shame to mess around with such a majestic model. However, I think I can guarantee you some stats in August that do every justice to the model. . .

But I want it now

 

[Locutus9956]

Yes you get diminishing returns for your extra dice over 2 with interceptors but in all honesty if they got MUCH more effective thered be little point in even trying to hurt an interceptor protected ship with non beams. From what I know though the ships with massive amounts of interceptors (abbai) are switching to a different mechanic anyway (shields) as they were always supposed to be anyway.

The thing with higher interceptor counts in my book anyway, is that they still overheat pretty much as fast but the increased numbers makes it less likely a stray shot will get through early on.