Redundancy
- Thread starter Reaverman
- Start date
The way I saw it when talking with Reaverman is that this would reduce dice rolls, not increase them.
Example:Ship with Redundancy takes 4 hits RESULT: 4, 5, 3, 6
Now the 6 would normally be a crit but, since the ship has a redundant system, the 6 is counted as a normal hit and one box marked off redundancy, no rolling to see what the crit is and no deciding whether or not to use the redundancy, the 6 hit has taken it out!...when you run out of redundancy you take crits normally.
I'd say it's your preference to how many redundant systems a ship has at which PL, my preference would be reserving redundancies for Battle level +
(In actual fact when we first discussed it, this was something that we though ONLY armageddon ships might have (and that was to try to prevent them from being almost instantly ganked by Ka'Toc swarms!)
Example:Ship with Redundancy takes 4 hits RESULT: 4, 5, 3, 6
Now the 6 would normally be a crit but, since the ship has a redundant system, the 6 is counted as a normal hit and one box marked off redundancy, no rolling to see what the crit is and no deciding whether or not to use the redundancy, the 6 hit has taken it out!...when you run out of redundancy you take crits normally.
I'd say it's your preference to how many redundant systems a ship has at which PL, my preference would be reserving redundancies for Battle level +
(In actual fact when we first discussed it, this was something that we though ONLY armageddon ships might have (and that was to try to prevent them from being almost instantly ganked by Ka'Toc swarms!)
I think it would be better if the redundacy negated the first set of criticals, not one you can pick and choose. So a Raid ship negates the first critical, and not have the commander choosing to whether or not to do it. It reflects an automated process, which is handle by the ships operating systems. Otherwise people are just going to get pick, also it means the game play is not slowed down. In fact its speeded up, when someone scores a crit. You just tick the box, and dont both rolling the crit.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
When I heard this rule, I thought you would get to pick and choose when to invoke Redundancy. While this would (in my opinion) be a cool interpretation and a big damper on the grievous functional crits (the 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 4-4, 4-6, maybe the 4-5 and 6-3), if other folks think this is too time-consuming, I can work with that.
If you're forced to use Redundancy immediately, I suggest the following:
A). Raid:1, Battle:2, War:3, Armageddon: 5. This'll probably fool us and be less crit armour than we'd think. I can be convinced -- pretty easily -- that this needs to be customized per ship because of Hull value effects, especially at Raid. For example, it wouldn't be hard to argue that the Poseidon and Drakh Mothership should be Redundant 5 and T'Loth, Bimith, Solarhawk, and Drakh Fast Destroyer Redundant 2! Maybe make the Haven even worth a crap, give it Redundant 1??
B). Still nothing on Civilians. They're civilian, not even a ship with a priority!
C). Still nothing on Vorlons or Shadows. They don't take criticals, just additional damage per the Ancients table mechanic. I hate this, but I'm only considering it on the basis of fluff, which, I know, is stupid. But they don't have systems as much as ... organisms. And, you need precise to get there anyways, so why not give Precise its due here? Maybe we need to give them something different. Mentally shrugging my shoulders and saying "I dunno."
D). Still nothing on Bases. They're already freakin' huge. Also, same "you need a 7" as above.
D). Redundancy repairs for free between scenarios on any uncrippled ship. No bookkeeping necessary.
E). Redundancy fails when the ship is crippled; it's a Special Trait that falls off like Interceptors.
If you're forced to use Redundancy immediately, I suggest the following:
A). Raid:1, Battle:2, War:3, Armageddon: 5. This'll probably fool us and be less crit armour than we'd think. I can be convinced -- pretty easily -- that this needs to be customized per ship because of Hull value effects, especially at Raid. For example, it wouldn't be hard to argue that the Poseidon and Drakh Mothership should be Redundant 5 and T'Loth, Bimith, Solarhawk, and Drakh Fast Destroyer Redundant 2! Maybe make the Haven even worth a crap, give it Redundant 1??
B). Still nothing on Civilians. They're civilian, not even a ship with a priority!
C). Still nothing on Vorlons or Shadows. They don't take criticals, just additional damage per the Ancients table mechanic. I hate this, but I'm only considering it on the basis of fluff, which, I know, is stupid. But they don't have systems as much as ... organisms. And, you need precise to get there anyways, so why not give Precise its due here? Maybe we need to give them something different. Mentally shrugging my shoulders and saying "I dunno."
D). Still nothing on Bases. They're already freakin' huge. Also, same "you need a 7" as above.
D). Redundancy repairs for free between scenarios on any uncrippled ship. No bookkeeping necessary.
E). Redundancy fails when the ship is crippled; it's a Special Trait that falls off like Interceptors.
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
Hi, I haven't looked at the ACTA rules yet, but as a long time wargamer/ a current wargame designer(coming soon), I can pretty much understand most of this stuff, as well as throw in 2 bits.
Why not just make redundancy systems fighter-damage only. Basically, normal ships bypass redundancy entirely. A fluff-explanation for this would be that they have more sophisticated targetting systems, and of course much more powerful weaponry, and as such make a mockery of redundancy systems. Fighters on the other hand are small, and not as well armed. Instead of dealing direct damage to the ship, they must first clear out redundancy systems. Basically, you assume that the fighter, being as lacking as it is in targetting systems, would mistake a secondary bridge for a primary, etc. Of course, critical hits from a fighter would bypass this redundancy system entirely. After all no amount of backup command and control nodes in the world is going to save you from having your bridge blown to bits or a critical engine failure.
Why not just make redundancy systems fighter-damage only. Basically, normal ships bypass redundancy entirely. A fluff-explanation for this would be that they have more sophisticated targetting systems, and of course much more powerful weaponry, and as such make a mockery of redundancy systems. Fighters on the other hand are small, and not as well armed. Instead of dealing direct damage to the ship, they must first clear out redundancy systems. Basically, you assume that the fighter, being as lacking as it is in targetting systems, would mistake a secondary bridge for a primary, etc. Of course, critical hits from a fighter would bypass this redundancy system entirely. After all no amount of backup command and control nodes in the world is going to save you from having your bridge blown to bits or a critical engine failure.
Dreamthief
Mongoose
Or how about you do something like GW does with it's army book (yeah, yeah, yeah...GW isn't my favourite company either :lol: )
You must pick a balanced fleet!
If it's a Battle level scenario then for example...40% of your points must be spent on Battle lvl craft and no more than 40% to be spent on any other single Priority Level of craft.
GW have much more rigorous restrictions on how their fantasy armies must be comprised....partly to make sure they sell more minins...but also because balanced armies actually make for better battles.
Nothing to stop people ignoring the rule for friendlies or special scenarios.
You must pick a balanced fleet!
If it's a Battle level scenario then for example...40% of your points must be spent on Battle lvl craft and no more than 40% to be spent on any other single Priority Level of craft.
GW have much more rigorous restrictions on how their fantasy armies must be comprised....partly to make sure they sell more minins...but also because balanced armies actually make for better battles.
Nothing to stop people ignoring the rule for friendlies or special scenarios.
Depending on the nature of damage in this game, redundancy sounds like a worthwhile house rule to me. If damage is SFBish, then redundancy is indeed appropriate. If damage is more like 'chunks being blown off the ship' then redundancy should be more limited in effects.
Borrowing from past naval designs, redundancy would make sense in limiting the effects of crits. Bridge is destroyed? Crit lasts for a turn then Auxiliary Bridge/control takes over and ship is functional again.
Sound doable?
Borrowing from past naval designs, redundancy would make sense in limiting the effects of crits. Bridge is destroyed? Crit lasts for a turn then Auxiliary Bridge/control takes over and ship is functional again.
Sound doable?
We've been thinking along the same lines in our group, though we've taken a slightly different approach.
What we've implemented so far is:
Ships at Battle level get a +1 to Damage Control rolls.
Ships at War level get a +1 and can attempt two Damage Control rolls per end phase.
Ships at Armageddon (looking to the future here), get a +2 and can attempt two Damage Control rolls per end phase.
That lets us represent that these larger ships have more comprehensive damage control systems while not adding any more rolls or stats to keep track of.
The next step that we're debating is allowing ships to attempt Damage Control rolls for crits that they received that turn, to represent redundant systems taking over. Again, the bigger the ship, the better the odds that the redundant systems will kick in before the next turn.
What we've implemented so far is:
Ships at Battle level get a +1 to Damage Control rolls.
Ships at War level get a +1 and can attempt two Damage Control rolls per end phase.
Ships at Armageddon (looking to the future here), get a +2 and can attempt two Damage Control rolls per end phase.
That lets us represent that these larger ships have more comprehensive damage control systems while not adding any more rolls or stats to keep track of.
The next step that we're debating is allowing ships to attempt Damage Control rolls for crits that they received that turn, to represent redundant systems taking over. Again, the bigger the ship, the better the odds that the redundant systems will kick in before the next turn.
Actually those echo some of my own ideas on how to handle the debilitating nature of crits, especially on larger ships.
Realistically we are talking about a couple of consequences of criticals being ships disabling. Specifically the 1-6, 2-6 and 3-6 Speed 0, and the 4-5 lose and arc (some ships) 4-6 no fire. The no special actions ones are also troublesome but usually not disabling. The 6 -x crits can all be troublesome but usually survivable by Battle and greater ships.
I would like to see ships able to do damage control the turn a critical is taken. One benefit is no more recording when a crit was taken in big games. Second is that an early shot may only keep a ship from firing once rather than a mandatory twice. Many games I have played are effectively over by the second firing pass.
The crit table itself could use a couple of changes to make these less of an issue but that is too difficult to iron out. I would like to see the speed zero cirts changed to adrift (half move straight, no specials) as I just have a hard time picturing my ship stopping because my engines are not firing. Would like to have seen a lose one turn result in place of the no specials at 1-5 I think it is. Maybe no fire being minus half ad instead.
Ripple
Realistically we are talking about a couple of consequences of criticals being ships disabling. Specifically the 1-6, 2-6 and 3-6 Speed 0, and the 4-5 lose and arc (some ships) 4-6 no fire. The no special actions ones are also troublesome but usually not disabling. The 6 -x crits can all be troublesome but usually survivable by Battle and greater ships.
I would like to see ships able to do damage control the turn a critical is taken. One benefit is no more recording when a crit was taken in big games. Second is that an early shot may only keep a ship from firing once rather than a mandatory twice. Many games I have played are effectively over by the second firing pass.
The crit table itself could use a couple of changes to make these less of an issue but that is too difficult to iron out. I would like to see the speed zero cirts changed to adrift (half move straight, no specials) as I just have a hard time picturing my ship stopping because my engines are not firing. Would like to have seen a lose one turn result in place of the no specials at 1-5 I think it is. Maybe no fire being minus half ad instead.
Ripple
Twin-Linked Aldades
Mongoose
You also could do it itherwise, allowing each redundancy point to ignore the ffect of a crit for a single turn, kind of like a patch up. Seeing in many series, they manage to get weapons back on, fire one or two shots, and then the patchwork fries out as well...
That way thr crits stay as they are, but it gives the wrecked vessel / system just that one last didge effort to try and get out of a situation.
That way thr crits stay as they are, but it gives the wrecked vessel / system just that one last didge effort to try and get out of a situation.
redundacny is in armageddon, for the ancients. they take crits like everyone else but bcos they have so many redundant systems all crits are repaired in the end phase (think basically reroute).
redundancy in the younger races ships probably wouldnt be there so much, especially in the newer EA ships as its all about money they wouldnt be building all these redundant systems into them. its only really older ships that have had upgrades that would have redundant systems that could work as backups in a pinch.
redundancy in the younger races ships probably wouldnt be there so much, especially in the newer EA ships as its all about money they wouldnt be building all these redundant systems into them. its only really older ships that have had upgrades that would have redundant systems that could work as backups in a pinch.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
even modern planes have redundancy built in. It is a sensible a reasonable safety feature, unfortunately it's not dramatic.
....for a good idea!
I think this is a very good idea, but it does need to be kept simple. I don't like the idea of it onyl effecting fighters (we'd be back to the "what is the point of them?" threads - again :x ).
I would also keep it simple by not allowing choice - the first crit is dealt with first. After all, if someone has blown a whole in your engines, are you REALLY going to wait around to find out what elase might be coming your way? I think not!
I suppose if chocie was favoured, a player could specifiy that redunancy "resources" are being assigned to specific locations (ie. crit types). Thsi would have to be done at the beginning of the battle and noted down.
I think this is a very good idea, but it does need to be kept simple. I don't like the idea of it onyl effecting fighters (we'd be back to the "what is the point of them?" threads - again :x ).
I would also keep it simple by not allowing choice - the first crit is dealt with first. After all, if someone has blown a whole in your engines, are you REALLY going to wait around to find out what elase might be coming your way? I think not!
I suppose if chocie was favoured, a player could specifiy that redunancy "resources" are being assigned to specific locations (ie. crit types). Thsi would have to be done at the beginning of the battle and noted down.
Benjamen the Wolf
Mongoose
Having thought about it, I like the idea, that redundancy just ignores the first 6 rolled.
I'll have to see if we can playtest this with our group this week.
I'll have to see if we can playtest this with our group this week.
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
What about redundancy failure? For example, the Executor from star wars. When the A-wing smashed it's bridge, they weren't able to regain control of the vessel through the secondary because of some sort of failure.
That is certainly cinematic.
That is certainly cinematic.
Similar threads
