Quick Rules Question: Aux Craft Deployment Restrictions

[CZuschlag]

Considering that they were boosted by the Hull 4 boost (beams not sustaining through anymore), I think it's safe to say that, unless they got other nerfs, the Mothership is fine. The Carrier will still be a dubious choice. I'm probably fine with that. It's a very specialized choice right now as it is!

Da Boss: Right ---- which suggests that Anti-fighter is only local, you have to be Escort to be nonlocal. I expect that Escort won't be particularly common. What's going to have it .... Artemis Escort (duh), Esharan, Maximus, Haven, Sho'Kos, ISA WSs, Blue Stars, all Vree and Abbai, Shadow Scout, Light Raider? Something like that? I don't currently envision in the fleet a Dilgar, Brakiri, Drazi, or pak'ma'ra escort; at least, not right now. Have I missed?

 

[Burger]

Hang on a sec, am I missing something here?

Turn 1: after firing phase, breaching pods launch (at an unescorted target).
Turn 2: movement, ship can try to outrun the pods?
Turn 2: fighter movement: pods make base contact and breach.
Turn 2: anti-fighter weapons fire... oops too late. The troops are already on board.

The anti-fighter/escort trait is useless against breaching pods if used like this.

 

[CZuschlag]

That's exactly my worry right now, Burger.

And, it used to be that the fleet could try to shoot down this assault at the last minute. Now, only the victim can try to defend himself, even if you DO get to fire your Antifighter weaponry.

Fun!

NOT.

 

[Sulfurdown]

Unless ship AntiFighter traits operate on a reflexive/proximity basis?

 

[Burger]

I guess this highlights the need for a second playtest group :?

Unless ship AntiFighter traits operate on a reflexive/proximity basis?

I guess that'd work, like the current Vorlons Charged Energy Pulse.

 

[katadder]

anti-fighter is before the troops get on board to attack. and you can still have fighters flying CAP to stop pods or other fighters.

and most people complain that breaching pods are currently useless anyway as you never get them there.

 

[Burger]

anti-fighter is before the troops get on board to attack.

Isn't anti-fighter fire at the end of the movement phase? But the troops board from a breaching pod as soon as it makes base contact with its target, which is before the end of the movement phase?

 

[katadder]

as you dont know the full rules you cannot say that with any certainty. AF is before the breaching pods put any troops on board.

 

[CZuschlag]

But the CAP-flying fighters can be shot by a couple of dice here and there from other weapon systems, because they have to be present outside of the ship during the point of engagement. CAP fighters can frequently die due to explosions of other nearby ships.

And oh, yeah ... Drakh don't have Fighters. Vree have no carriers (unless you finally included the Xeel). And you can't outrun your CAP fighters, so don't All Power to Engines. Or run Abbai Kotha, that top out at 8.

Passive Antifighter defenses seem rather ... limited. Active defenses are what are called for --- and the Antifighter trait and the CAP fighter are neither of these.

Games of passive defense don't involve the gamer. They aren't fun. Active defenses do involve the gamer. They are fun. That's the direction that any game should want to move in --- one in which the gamer is involved more than the mechanic is involved.

 

[Burger]

as you dont know the full rules you cannot say that with any certainty.

I guess I'll come back to this thread on August 4th then

 

[katadder]

if you lose init use the fighters you just launched the turn the pods were launched to go CAP on your ship or engage the breaching pods. if you win init you can choose to engage the pods anyway probably.

also can someone point out to me where breaching pods troops go onto a ship as soon as it contacts even in the 1e rules? it says they go 1st in a boarding action and thats it. now boarding actions happen at the start of the end phase so they can be shot by all guns throughout the shooting phase in 1e.

 

[Da Boss]

I don't currently envision in the fleet a Dilgar, Brakiri, Drazi, or pak'ma'ra escort; at least, not right now. Have I missed?

From what I have heard I think they do ...but I am in no way official!

 

[CZuschlag]

"A Boarding Action can be started in one of two ways -- either the Launch Breaching Pods and Shuttle Special Action or by moving one of more Breaching Pods into contact with an enemy ship or space station." (Italics inserted by poster)

-- SFoS, Page 20, Column 1, first sentence of "Initiating a Boarding Action".

Why do I get the feeling this rule might be under revision in the next week? They happen at the end phase, but the troops make it there during movement. The effect is just postponed until the end phase.

EDIT: On the Drazi, I made a stupid. Of course the Guardhawk will be an Escort. Moron me.

2nd EDIT to Katadder: I was talking escort, not necessarily antifighter. I understand they are two different properties?

 

[katadder]

well they are anti-fighetr vessels so think about what ships might have AF in 1e? the guardhawk for one. which also means that WSs are still vunerable to fighters as they never had any weapons besides the front ones so wouldnt get an AF grid. have a look through the fleets and you can probably make educated guesses at which ones are escorts.

 

[Burger]

Why do I get the feeling this rule might be under revision in the next week?

:lol:

They happen at the end phase, but the troops make it there during movement. The effect is just postponed until the end phase.

Yes, exactly. Unless this has been changed in 2e, the problem we have pointed out will still be in there.

 

[Sulfurdown]

See!! They don't need more playtesters, they just need to leak bits of information to the Analysis Team which promptly beats the information until it cries!

 

[katadder]

but it doesnt specifically say that the troops actually board in the move phase. you carry out the launch shuttles and breaching pods SA in the move phase but if you kill the ship it cant go through with the boarding. same happens with boarding pods in 1e. they breach and board in the end phase.
its in 1e you are making assumptions that the pods breach in the move phase and the troops move on board. but to actually get the troops on board they would have to carry out a boarding action which is specifically in the end phase.

CZuschlag wrote:
They happen at the end phase, but the troops make it there during movement. The effect is just postponed until the end phase.

the pods make it there during movement, not the troops.

 

[katadder]

except that as you are over reacting to the tinniest bit of information you get all sorts of outcry. people were even complaining about stuff in the preview whereas if they read and took in the whole thing they may have found the answers they were looking for.
the problem is certain people read things how they want and only see what they want to see.

 

[Da Boss]

Must admit the 1st Ed games I have played the troops are on board at end of movement phase - although it is exceedingly rare in 1st Ed?

But maybe I have been reading it wrong

 

[CZuschlag]

It's unfortunate that things have degenerated this way when talking about 2e, I agree. We've gotten to the point that there are a lot of suspicions and guardedness, on both sides, about each an every change made, that it's gotten very touchy indeed. We've seen both extremes here in Chicago on the Armageddon auxiliary craft -- both impossibly huge fighter strikes winning games, and carriers just not pulling their weight. And then we saw some examples of auxiliary craft feeling just right. And that change was about as contentious as it gets.

There are two different ideas at loggerheads here.

One side had the issue of effort and information. It's easy for the playtester to get defensive about their work -- it's their heartfelt input being criticised and raked over coals by speculation from another team. You've worked on it for weeks, months; you know more about it than they do!

The other side comes armed with their own confidence in their skillset and history. Defects made their way up the chain before, be they in playbalance or playability. What's to stop them from happening now? It can't be right if there are all these groups with tons of house rules, can it? If it was right, no one would have taken all the time and effort to write those rules to rebalance the game.

Guess what? It's exactly the same war between testers and developers in Information Technology. And User Acceptance Testers and Functional Testers later on. The two philosophies of "How dare you question all my hard work?" vs. "Nobody is perfect ... you may have missed something important!" both have little give due to all the ego and emotional investment involved.

Nevertheless, the industry that does this, IT, does UAT testing. And the goal and the realities are always the same: IT expects that final user test will find nothing and seeing nothing critical that is detected there; UAT is certain they've found several egregious bugs. Production support -- the folks responsible for the solution after go-live -- have to pick up all the pieces.

It's just sad that we, as a forum, on both sides, haven't managed this better.