potentially dumb B5 ACTA question...beams hits on hull 3?
- Thread starter Anbar
- Start date
Yep they both still hit on a 4+ 
on a related note - Many people feel that beams are better balanced by using the following:
1-2 Miss
3-4 1 hit
5-6 1 hit and re-roll.
Tends to be more around the balance point which was about 1 hit per AD - although you can still miss completely or have a big hit.............
but its only a suggestion
on a related note - Many people feel that beams are better balanced by using the following:
1-2 Miss
3-4 1 hit
5-6 1 hit and re-roll.
Tends to be more around the balance point which was about 1 hit per AD - although you can still miss completely or have a big hit.............
but its only a suggestion
Beams (and. for that matter, mini-beams) do not take account of the target ship's hull value.
I agree with Da Boss. That system for rolling beam hits (and a couple of other options) became official when it was published in S&P, and subequently in P&P as well. So you can even use it if your friends insist on playing by strict rules from the book. The average number of hits for all these systems is 1 hit per AD, so they don't unbalance beam weapons. They just make it more likely for you to score that average rather than a runaway expansion or a flat miss, so battles involving lots of beams are more likely to be decided by tactics and less likely to be decided by random lucky rolls.
I agree with Da Boss. That system for rolling beam hits (and a couple of other options) became official when it was published in S&P, and subequently in P&P as well. So you can even use it if your friends insist on playing by strict rules from the book. The average number of hits for all these systems is 1 hit per AD, so they don't unbalance beam weapons. They just make it more likely for you to score that average rather than a runaway expansion or a flat miss, so battles involving lots of beams are more likely to be decided by tactics and less likely to be decided by random lucky rolls.
Mean Mutton
Mongoose
AdrianH said:
Beam weapon rules in P&P are listed as optional rules so you can't insist on their inclusion.
still havent made a definitive decision on beams, some recent games ahve resulted in poor beam rolls throughout meaning they took a long time to play, then just as we're thinking we wont change... we rolled a 17-TD roll with 9 criticals from 4AD...ripping apart an armageddon Victory (almost dead in one round, it had to run away!).
now was that fun or stupid? depends what side you are on...
in "the long term", especially over campaigns, we've found that whacky beam roles tend to even out so the first method is "fine"... then you get 2 game sin a row with really whacky rolls, all by one player and you start thinking otherwise again.
I think the "fear" of somebody potentially rolling that 17-TD-9-crit roll, from a raid levle ship v an armageddon is part of the game and would be missed...so long as those rolls remain rare...which atm they are doing.
go back a year or so and we were getting them "all the time".
thats dice games for ya.
now was that fun or stupid? depends what side you are on...
in "the long term", especially over campaigns, we've found that whacky beam roles tend to even out so the first method is "fine"... then you get 2 game sin a row with really whacky rolls, all by one player and you start thinking otherwise again.
I think the "fear" of somebody potentially rolling that 17-TD-9-crit roll, from a raid levle ship v an armageddon is part of the game and would be missed...so long as those rolls remain rare...which atm they are doing.
go back a year or so and we were getting them "all the time".
thats dice games for ya.
Not really, I don't find it fun to utterly obliterate my opponent thanks to some lucky dice rolls.Anbar said:
I find it fun to utterly obliterate my opponent using superior tactics and strategy.
The optional beam rules are far superior IMO. You still get the chance of huge hits, or no hits, but it's much less common.
shiba-tenchi
Mongoose
We tried the options for a while and went back to the original version. They just felt more true to the way things worked on screen to us.
James Harrison
Mongoose
I like the sound of the Signs and Portents beam rules - two questions
1) Do they have any effect on mini-beams (will they always hit on a 3+ or 4+)
2) If not should a house rule be to allow mini-beams to hit hull 3 ships on a 3+?
1) Do they have any effect on mini-beams (will they always hit on a 3+ or 4+)
2) If not should a house rule be to allow mini-beams to hit hull 3 ships on a 3+?
Mini-beams, like beams, disregard the target's hull entirely. They hit on 4+ regardless.
The alternative beam rule for hit on 3+, re-roll on 5+ yields the same average number of hits as the original rule for hit and re-roll on 4+. A house rule which allows mini-beams to hit on 3+, even if only on certain hulls, unbalances them.
If you want mini-beams to allow for hull value then you could make them AP, which means they roll against all hull values with a +1 bonus - they become more effective against hull 3 (and hull 4 for that matter), but less effective against hull 6. (This was how earlier versions of B5:ACTA handled mini-beams.) They would then still be balanced. So do you want your mini-beams to be more effective against the occasional hull 3 ship or against hull 6 ships?
The alternative beam rule for hit on 3+, re-roll on 5+ yields the same average number of hits as the original rule for hit and re-roll on 4+. A house rule which allows mini-beams to hit on 3+, even if only on certain hulls, unbalances them.
If you want mini-beams to allow for hull value then you could make them AP, which means they roll against all hull values with a +1 bonus - they become more effective against hull 3 (and hull 4 for that matter), but less effective against hull 6. (This was how earlier versions of B5:ACTA handled mini-beams.) They would then still be balanced. So do you want your mini-beams to be more effective against the occasional hull 3 ship or against hull 6 ships?
James Harrison
Mongoose
AdrianH said:Mini-beams, like beams, disregard the target's hull entirely. They hit on 4+ regardless.
The alternative beam rule for hit on 3+, re-roll on 5+ yields the same average number of hits as the original rule for hit and re-roll on 4+. A house rule which allows mini-beams to hit on 3+, even if only on certain hulls, unbalances them.
If you want mini-beams to allow for hull value then you could make them AP, which means they roll against all hull values with a +1 bonus - they become more effective against hull 3 (and hull 4 for that matter), but less effective against hull 6. (This was how earlier versions of B5:ACTA handled mini-beams.) They would then still be balanced. So do you want your mini-beams to be more effective against the occasional hull 3 ship or against hull 6 ships?
I thought no would be the case
, hum I want mini-beams to be more effective against the hull 6 ships 
but it might seem more balanced for them to all have AP to make hull 6 worth more. But best not to house-rule to much, in case it under powers some races/ships and over-powers others. Thanks!
Mini beams (and beams) are already unbalanced against certain ships/races, due to the fact they ignore interceptors.
It's all part of the paper-rock-scissors that is ACTA. Sometimes you are the hammer, sometimes the nail. If you know what your opponent is playing then you can adjust your race/ship selection to counter. Mucking around with the rules too much, IMO, is pointless: "fix" one hole and another opens up. They are pretty balanced in their latest incarnation.
It's all part of the paper-rock-scissors that is ACTA. Sometimes you are the hammer, sometimes the nail. If you know what your opponent is playing then you can adjust your race/ship selection to counter. Mucking around with the rules too much, IMO, is pointless: "fix" one hole and another opens up. They are pretty balanced in their latest incarnation.
