Redundancy
- Thread starter Reaverman
- Start date
OnlyTheShadowKnows
Mongoose
I like this new system if it gets added to the new rules. Reaverman is right that it should not conflict with existing rules in Armageddon or SFOS. It would really level the playing field.
Exactly
I love this idea because it did not need additional changes to anything and was just a quick auto check box.
My post above was just idle wishing on how I would fix the crit system if I could re-write the rule. Sort of like using D3 for fighter crits so they cannot completely shut down a ship but can have serious affects in damage/crew, minor effect on total usability of the ship. I would love this, do not think it would change to much and would feel more like the fighters in the series. (most fighter passes do not accomplish much but a couple hit the bridge etc for some problems. All possible if rolling one D3 for the second die in a crit effect.)
But again, to reiterate, this is cool because it is simple and easy to execute. I could teach this to a new guy in two seconds and he would be able to understand that this is just a house rule not tourney. Course if it makes it into the next supplement it could be cool.
Ripple
I love this idea because it did not need additional changes to anything and was just a quick auto check box.
My post above was just idle wishing on how I would fix the crit system if I could re-write the rule. Sort of like using D3 for fighter crits so they cannot completely shut down a ship but can have serious affects in damage/crew, minor effect on total usability of the ship. I would love this, do not think it would change to much and would feel more like the fighters in the series. (most fighter passes do not accomplish much but a couple hit the bridge etc for some problems. All possible if rolling one D3 for the second die in a crit effect.)
But again, to reiterate, this is cool because it is simple and easy to execute. I could teach this to a new guy in two seconds and he would be able to understand that this is just a house rule not tourney. Course if it makes it into the next supplement it could be cool.
Ripple
lastbesthope
Mongoose
I'm going to weigh in here so that people don't think I'm not paying attention.
I like the idea of the redundancy thing.
I think it should be administered in the following way.
1) A ship with Redundancy X, ignores the forst X crit hits it receives (though I still think it should suffer the ordinary damage for the hit.
2) They should need to be repaired between battles as suggested.
3) I think the progressiosn are maybe a bit too steep, but then maybe not.
All in al l I like the idea as an optional rule.
LBH
I like the idea of the redundancy thing.
I think it should be administered in the following way.
1) A ship with Redundancy X, ignores the forst X crit hits it receives (though I still think it should suffer the ordinary damage for the hit.
2) They should need to be repaired between battles as suggested.
3) I think the progressiosn are maybe a bit too steep, but then maybe not.
All in al l I like the idea as an optional rule.
LBH
It looks like we are talking about another set of hit points, but one that deals with Critical Hit Points. It is about how many devastating hits a ship can take before you begin to affect its operation. I hope to hear how some test battles turn out, but I have a question or two. What about ships that regenerate? Can ships regenerate a CHP and could it occur during battle? Could a ship spend a special action to repair a CHP? If you had a campaign, then could you canabalize a captured ship to repair CHPs?
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
Calistan said:
LIES!
Anyway, while I have to say that it WAS a good idea when the thread started(as a way to balance fleets against fighter hordes), it has now degenerated into a really easy way to screw over the entire set of game mechanics and open up into an entirely new can of worms.
I suggest that you stick to the original idea of trying to balance out the fleets against fighter hordes and stick to just that, not totally changing the mechanics v. a standard vessel. Perhaps rename the idea(call it fighter-shielding or something), or just leave it as it is(but explain it differently).
After all, a fighter is going to cause a lot less damage than another capital ship.
Then again, I never actually watched Babylon 5
but if it is anything like any other sci-fi show I have ever seen, fighters are decent and can deal some nice damage, but it normally doesn't come as easily as it would for a standard ship, unless it's the deathstar :wink:I quite like the concept of some ships having redundancy X.. it's a simple enough way to stop a freighter randomly blowing away a warlock destroyer in one shot.
The only problem, as noted above, is that it hurts certain attackers disproportionately: Missile EA fleets and Dilgar, for example, are in a lot of trouble...
The only problem, as noted above, is that it hurts certain attackers disproportionately: Missile EA fleets and Dilgar, for example, are in a lot of trouble...
Hmm.... OK, I'll bite.....
Making it a trait rather than a general attribute allows a degree of balancing, as noted above - brutal, multi-redundancy systems fits the narn character well, for example....
small ships with redundancy will probably be more bothered about containing the damage from criticals.
Making it a trait rather than a general attribute allows a degree of balancing, as noted above - brutal, multi-redundancy systems fits the narn character well, for example....
small ships with redundancy will probably be more bothered about containing the damage from criticals.
Small ships are likely to cost less to produce, and be tighter fitting on space, power and mass allowances. Therefore are less likely to have redundant systems than a big ship like a Sharlin, whose loss would be very expensive, so the cost of redundant systems would be justified.
If you have big powerful database PC at work, it is likely to have RAID-5 hard drives and UPS, whereas your PC at home probably doesn't (unless you're Ted Chang)
If you have big powerful database PC at work, it is likely to have RAID-5 hard drives and UPS, whereas your PC at home probably doesn't (unless you're Ted Chang)
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Even though I play the Dilgar, I wonder just how much it hurts us. Let's do some math to find out... (note in the notation below, the number to the left of the colon is damage scored, the number to the right is the crew damage)
12 dice of pulsar hits vs. 12 dice of pulse hits:
Old School:
Pulse, 2 bounce(1's), 10:10, 2 crits (average is for 1.53:2.08) is 13:14.
Pulsar, 2 bounce, 8:8, 4:4 from two MoD hits, 2 crits (3.06:4.16) -> 18:20.3.
The old pulsar
ulse ratio is 1.38:1.45.
New School, Versus Redundancy 1:
Pulse, 2 bounce, 10:10, 2 crits, 1 gets through for 1.53:2.08 is 11.5:12.
Pulsar, 2 bounce, 8:8, 4:4 by 2 MoD hits, 1 crit (3.06:4.16) -> 15:16.3.
New ratio is 1.36:1.36. The downgrade is a 1.5% relative downgrade in damage caused, and a 6.2% relative downgrade in crew damage caused.
Suprising! Not as much of a downgrade in this test as I expected. The firepower ratios still feel tolerable. The crew drop is a tiny bit alarming, but probably fudgable, as long as the damage ratio is good. Let's keep trying this out where the rubber really hits the road --- Bolters!
12 dice of bolter hits vs. 12 dice of railgun hits:
Old School:
Rail, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 20:20, 2 DD crits for 6.12:8.32 is 28.12:28.32.
Bolters, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 16:16, 2 MoD hits 6:6, 2 crits is 9.18:12.48 = 33.18:34.48.
The old Bolter:Rail ratios are 1.18:1.22. How much does the Redundancy costs bolters, then?
New School vs. Redundancy 1:
Rail, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 20:20, 1 DD crit for 3.06:4.16 is 25.06:24.16.
Bolters, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 16:16, 2 MoD 6:6, 1 crit for 4.59:6.18 = 28.6:28.18.
New Bolter Rail ratios: 1.14:1.16.
Relative loss in firepower: Damage is down 3.4%, Crew is down 4.9%. These are, indeed, real firepower drops. Tolerable? Probably. I would wish for better, but I doubt I'm going to get it. Given Bolters will be the primary weapon of choice against the ships that will have high Redundancy and this test was only against Redundancy 1, it's a bit alarming. I don't mind the firepower drop as long as the drop is even across the entire galaxy. That does suit maneouver fleets perhaps a little too well -- in particular, the WS -- but after the downgrades it's already recieved, this won't make me cry a river.
In the end, it's likely the precise users that end up worst, Vorlons, Shadows, EA Missile, Minbari. Perhaps Abbai (combat lasers) and some Vree (Xixx) as well. ISA not so much as, while they generate criticals with the I-Neutron Lasers, the next set of Pulsars aren't precise, and those criticals are the best way to overwhelm adaptive; they'd rather make their pass, get behind the enemy, and then get to work. The Drakh not so much either, as their GEG weakness against criticals can be ignored ... well, once or twice. And Motherships and Carriers hate No Special Actions when they try to jump out after launching their Raiders...
I still think the Adira could be a huge problem with this, though! Hull 6, Interceptors ... probably lots, GEG 3, Redundancy 3 or more? EEEWWW!
12 dice of pulsar hits vs. 12 dice of pulse hits:
Old School:
Pulse, 2 bounce(1's), 10:10, 2 crits (average is for 1.53:2.08) is 13:14.
Pulsar, 2 bounce, 8:8, 4:4 from two MoD hits, 2 crits (3.06:4.16) -> 18:20.3.
The old pulsar
ulse ratio is 1.38:1.45.New School, Versus Redundancy 1:
Pulse, 2 bounce, 10:10, 2 crits, 1 gets through for 1.53:2.08 is 11.5:12.
Pulsar, 2 bounce, 8:8, 4:4 by 2 MoD hits, 1 crit (3.06:4.16) -> 15:16.3.
New ratio is 1.36:1.36. The downgrade is a 1.5% relative downgrade in damage caused, and a 6.2% relative downgrade in crew damage caused.
Suprising! Not as much of a downgrade in this test as I expected. The firepower ratios still feel tolerable. The crew drop is a tiny bit alarming, but probably fudgable, as long as the damage ratio is good. Let's keep trying this out where the rubber really hits the road --- Bolters!
12 dice of bolter hits vs. 12 dice of railgun hits:
Old School:
Rail, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 20:20, 2 DD crits for 6.12:8.32 is 28.12:28.32.
Bolters, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 16:16, 2 MoD hits 6:6, 2 crits is 9.18:12.48 = 33.18:34.48.
The old Bolter:Rail ratios are 1.18:1.22. How much does the Redundancy costs bolters, then?
New School vs. Redundancy 1:
Rail, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 20:20, 1 DD crit for 3.06:4.16 is 25.06:24.16.
Bolters, 2 throw 1's (2:0), 16:16, 2 MoD 6:6, 1 crit for 4.59:6.18 = 28.6:28.18.
New Bolter Rail ratios: 1.14:1.16.
Relative loss in firepower: Damage is down 3.4%, Crew is down 4.9%. These are, indeed, real firepower drops. Tolerable? Probably. I would wish for better, but I doubt I'm going to get it. Given Bolters will be the primary weapon of choice against the ships that will have high Redundancy and this test was only against Redundancy 1, it's a bit alarming. I don't mind the firepower drop as long as the drop is even across the entire galaxy. That does suit maneouver fleets perhaps a little too well -- in particular, the WS -- but after the downgrades it's already recieved, this won't make me cry a river.
In the end, it's likely the precise users that end up worst, Vorlons, Shadows, EA Missile, Minbari. Perhaps Abbai (combat lasers) and some Vree (Xixx) as well. ISA not so much as, while they generate criticals with the I-Neutron Lasers, the next set of Pulsars aren't precise, and those criticals are the best way to overwhelm adaptive; they'd rather make their pass, get behind the enemy, and then get to work. The Drakh not so much either, as their GEG weakness against criticals can be ignored ... well, once or twice. And Motherships and Carriers hate No Special Actions when they try to jump out after launching their Raiders...
I still think the Adira could be a huge problem with this, though! Hull 6, Interceptors ... probably lots, GEG 3, Redundancy 3 or more? EEEWWW!
Well I said we would playtest this idea this weekend so here is how we implemented this simple rule and what our thoughts were.
Special Ability:
Redundancy X - A ship with the redundancy X trait will automatiically ignore X critical hits per skirmish. So a crit roll of 6 or 5 on precise weapons are reduced to a normal hit and the player checks off a redundancy box on his ship. There is no rolling to see what the crit is or deciding whether or not to use the redundancy. When a ship no longer has any redundancy left, it begins to take crits normally.
Redundancy Scale:
Raid - 1
Battle - 2
War - 3
Armegeddon - 4
Over the 3 day weekend I played 18 skirmishes using 6 different races. Between the 6 of us playtesting this, together over 30 scenarios at Skirmish to War PL were fought.
In the very first battle the redundancy rule came into great effect on the 2nd turn as 5 EA Sag opened fire on my Narn Bin'Tak. The Bin'Tak received exactly 3 crits from the swarm of EA missiles bearing down on it, yet its redundancy systems held it together while it and the Narn fleet rapidly tried to close the distance the EA player was trying to use to his advantage. By turn 4 the battle had turned in the Narn's favor and though the Bin'Tak had taken two more real crits was still slugging it out and creating the havoc you would expect from a WAR PL ship.
Our entire group had nothing but favorable things to say about this new simple rule that Reaver thought of and we have decided to house rule it and use it in our skirmishes and campaigns. It worked really well and gave those larger ships just the little extra staying power that they needed to be effective.
I gave every player a grading card to use per game to rate this new simple rule: 1 - completely disliked; to 10 very much liked.
No player rated it lower than 9 in each of their skirmishes, so from the gang in St. Louis, MO, we loved the new rule and hope it becomes an official rule in ACTA in the future.
Chewy
_________
Semper Fi
Special Ability:
Redundancy X - A ship with the redundancy X trait will automatiically ignore X critical hits per skirmish. So a crit roll of 6 or 5 on precise weapons are reduced to a normal hit and the player checks off a redundancy box on his ship. There is no rolling to see what the crit is or deciding whether or not to use the redundancy. When a ship no longer has any redundancy left, it begins to take crits normally.
Redundancy Scale:
Raid - 1
Battle - 2
War - 3
Armegeddon - 4
Over the 3 day weekend I played 18 skirmishes using 6 different races. Between the 6 of us playtesting this, together over 30 scenarios at Skirmish to War PL were fought.
In the very first battle the redundancy rule came into great effect on the 2nd turn as 5 EA Sag opened fire on my Narn Bin'Tak. The Bin'Tak received exactly 3 crits from the swarm of EA missiles bearing down on it, yet its redundancy systems held it together while it and the Narn fleet rapidly tried to close the distance the EA player was trying to use to his advantage. By turn 4 the battle had turned in the Narn's favor and though the Bin'Tak had taken two more real crits was still slugging it out and creating the havoc you would expect from a WAR PL ship.
Our entire group had nothing but favorable things to say about this new simple rule that Reaver thought of and we have decided to house rule it and use it in our skirmishes and campaigns. It worked really well and gave those larger ships just the little extra staying power that they needed to be effective.
I gave every player a grading card to use per game to rate this new simple rule: 1 - completely disliked; to 10 very much liked.
No player rated it lower than 9 in each of their skirmishes, so from the gang in St. Louis, MO, we loved the new rule and hope it becomes an official rule in ACTA in the future.
Chewy
_________
Semper Fi
I like the rule a lot but if I introduced it then I would have the following scale:
Raid/Battle: 1
War: 2
Armageddon: 3
Just so that the game isn't flooded by redundancy! Also, keep the damage from each crit, just have the special effect "ignored" at the end of the turn, exactly like in Armageddon (e.g. a crew critical would still have the crew dead but a weapons critical would see the weapons recover and the crew/damage effects remain).
Raid/Battle: 1
War: 2
Armageddon: 3
Just so that the game isn't flooded by redundancy! Also, keep the damage from each crit, just have the special effect "ignored" at the end of the turn, exactly like in Armageddon (e.g. a crew critical would still have the crew dead but a weapons critical would see the weapons recover and the crew/damage effects remain).
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
I'm just curious, but did you try this with fighter swarms(specifically fighter v. raid, fighter v. battle, fighter v. war, fighter v. balanced)? Also, did you try this with a fleet of non-redundant ships v. a fleet of redundant ships? Also, did you try a fleet of war ships v. a fleet of raid ships?
There are many many things you have to playtest to ensure nothing is broken.
There are many many things you have to playtest to ensure nothing is broken.
