S+P Playtest rules.
- Thread starter H
- Start date
CZuschlag
Mongoose
HappyDaze:
Agreed. Thei game doesn't need more ramming. I don't want to ever see ramming be the standard tactic for defeating a WhiteStar, but we're real close to it here.
Let's keep the ram out of this, please.
Given Early EA's superiority over 3rd Age, and so on, I'd like to see a SA for all of EA that Early EA can barely leverage, Mid-EA can partially leverage, and Crusade EA can really use. That might help to keep it all "EA"-ish even though they are spread out all over.
An idea again resurrected from Babylon 5 Wars ... perhaps Sustained Beams? (Would be cool for Narn, too!). Might explain why EA and Narn keep boresighting their beams (the Drazi do it for access to Attack Run).
Agreed. Thei game doesn't need more ramming. I don't want to ever see ramming be the standard tactic for defeating a WhiteStar, but we're real close to it here.
Let's keep the ram out of this, please.
Given Early EA's superiority over 3rd Age, and so on, I'd like to see a SA for all of EA that Early EA can barely leverage, Mid-EA can partially leverage, and Crusade EA can really use. That might help to keep it all "EA"-ish even though they are spread out all over.
An idea again resurrected from Babylon 5 Wars ... perhaps Sustained Beams? (Would be cool for Narn, too!). Might explain why EA and Narn keep boresighting their beams (the Drazi do it for access to Attack Run).
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Needs a special rule to cover the already Slow-Loading and boresighted Drazi Solar Cannon.
Otherwise -- this actually looks like a pretty cool idea. The only ships that I think we might have to be careful with this one are the Thentus (maybe, unlikely), the Ka'Toc (possibly), and the Hyperion (definitely!).
Races hosed by the change: Drakh (GEG is substantially less effective, but I might be OK with that), Minbari (Stealth/Slow-Loading interaction issue), Shadows (Stealth/Slow-Loading; also, pinning far more likely; this is possibly a real balance issue that would need to be addressed).
Otherwise -- this actually looks like a pretty cool idea. The only ships that I think we might have to be careful with this one are the Thentus (maybe, unlikely), the Ka'Toc (possibly), and the Hyperion (definitely!).
Races hosed by the change: Drakh (GEG is substantially less effective, but I might be OK with that), Minbari (Stealth/Slow-Loading interaction issue), Shadows (Stealth/Slow-Loading; also, pinning far more likely; this is possibly a real balance issue that would need to be addressed).
Here's a revised version. Let me know what you think.
Sustain Fire! <<<special action>>> (Automatic)
One Boresight Beam weapon can be fired with 150% attack dice (round down) this turn but the weapon gains Slow-Loading for this firing. If the weapon is already Slow-Loading, it can not benefit from this special action. The ship can not fire any other weapons this turn as power has been diverted into sustaining the beam. Ships with only one weapon system can not use this special action.
Sustain Fire! <<<special action>>> (Automatic)
One Boresight Beam weapon can be fired with 150% attack dice (round down) this turn but the weapon gains Slow-Loading for this firing. If the weapon is already Slow-Loading, it can not benefit from this special action. The ship can not fire any other weapons this turn as power has been diverted into sustaining the beam. Ships with only one weapon system can not use this special action.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Thinkin'. I'm not sure about the automatic, and I'm not sure about the nothing else firing bit. The only one system thing makes sense (in the case of the Orestes, especially).
All niggling aside, are any of these ideas remotely worth exploring in the eyes of the core playtesters, seeing as we have verbally excoriated Bonehead Maneouver?
Or are we wasting our time, and should be working on something else?
All niggling aside, are any of these ideas remotely worth exploring in the eyes of the core playtesters, seeing as we have verbally excoriated Bonehead Maneouver?
Or are we wasting our time, and should be working on something else?
It's an interesting one for sure 
We've pretty much agreed as playtesters that the Bonehead Manoeuvre isn't popular and isn't going to work. Therefore alternatives are welcome.
My personal suggestion is having EA fighter aces (squadroning fighters to give them a +1 dogfight bonus but giving them a downside too) but I'm not invested in that idea, it's only a suggestion.
We've pretty much agreed as playtesters that the Bonehead Manoeuvre isn't popular and isn't going to work. Therefore alternatives are welcome.
My personal suggestion is having EA fighter aces (squadroning fighters to give them a +1 dogfight bonus but giving them a downside too) but I'm not invested in that idea, it's only a suggestion.
What if Sustain Fire! upped a DD Boresight Beam weapon to TD for a shot with a successful CQ check but added S-L to it for that shot regardless of the outcome of the CQ check? Note that Beam weapons that don't start with DD can not use the Sustain Fire! special action.
This is mainly intended for EA and Narn heavy lasers in following the AoG modeling.
This is mainly intended for EA and Narn heavy lasers in following the AoG modeling.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
I'd figure that the penalty of adding Slow-Loading would make this a tricky order to use. You'd want to use it on the last turn before the weapon goes out of arc (perhaps due to an overrun), but if you're that close, there may be enough fire that you'd want CBD ... it seems specialist, where you think you can get to that threshold to eliminate a problem so you don't have to deal with it at all next turn. Using it for big sniper ships (if that's how you're using an Omega, for example), is probably a loser (you get less dice by a lot), and it isn't a guarantee when you go for it.
The Shadow Pinning is the only thing I majorly worry about. Perhaps a specific objection; a Shadow Ship cannot be pinned by a beam on Sustained mode.
There's no reason why Ace Pilots can't exist as well. Be very careful, however, of excessive Dogfight scores (I don't want to see EA DFR +4 fighters .... ever.)
The Shadow Pinning is the only thing I majorly worry about. Perhaps a specific objection; a Shadow Ship cannot be pinned by a beam on Sustained mode.
There's no reason why Ace Pilots can't exist as well. Be very careful, however, of excessive Dogfight scores (I don't want to see EA DFR +4 fighters .... ever.)
mollari_uk
Mongoose
I think I've asked this before, but things do change and I'm so excited about it!!
So when's P&P out?
So when's P&P out?
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Hopefully .... when it's done. And not before.
In IT Consulting, we have a paradigm: projects quality is measured in delivery time, product quality, and expenses incurred. But they frequently conflict. The short form of this is:
"Fast, Cheap, and Good. You can only pick two."
I think this applies to most projects. Let's face it --- this is a wargaming company. You have to pick cheap; it's not like we can hire hordes of playtesters.
We are left with quick and good. I'd prefer we pick good.
In IT Consulting, we have a paradigm: projects quality is measured in delivery time, product quality, and expenses incurred. But they frequently conflict. The short form of this is:
"Fast, Cheap, and Good. You can only pick two."
I think this applies to most projects. Let's face it --- this is a wargaming company. You have to pick cheap; it's not like we can hire hordes of playtesters.
We are left with quick and good. I'd prefer we pick good.
As one of the reasons why I decided to play EA is because I'm a sucker for fighters and carriers it would be so cool to get a rule for EA relating to that.
One idea to hopefully get more ideas going:
Fighter Command.
Earth Alliance carriers have a especially large and well trained staff of controllers directing fighters into combat. For each point in the carrier trait the carrier can give one fighter a reroll on one roll during the turn (dodge, attack, dogfight).
One idea to hopefully get more ideas going:
Fighter Command.
Earth Alliance carriers have a especially large and well trained staff of controllers directing fighters into combat. For each point in the carrier trait the carrier can give one fighter a reroll on one roll during the turn (dodge, attack, dogfight).
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Mabe it's just me, but the Thunderbolt stands out already. As a highly-available effective bomber, it is superior to most other fighter platforms on a cost-over-cost basis.
Remember! We don't want to just give races something new that is a no-brainer! We want to give them an option --- not always a good option, either. Something marginal. Something dicey.
The Shadows have to pay in the form of giving up a turn of beam firepower to kill a few fighters --- not usually a great trade. Alpha striking is harder than CAF, forces use of huge squadrons, and you can get shot out of it by having the formation reduced to below pentacon size (I don't think that's enough of a give, mind you). Abbai can't CBD and Regen at the same time, and CBD is the best defensive special action in the game, bar none.
The only other something-for-nothing we have right now is the Shadow Scream, which, given how hard Psi-Corps could sc^&w over the Shadows, is just a rebalance.
The exceptions to the rule are Raiders, Abbai, and Drazi-only fleets. They just need lots of help.
So every good side needs to come with a serious, real, and --- usually --- overriding downside. Not always, just usually.
Trait upgrade don't cost you anything. They're free upgrades. And forcing a carrier to use a special action when it's behind an asteroid field and safe from combat does NOT count as a downside.
If the rule was that it cost a special action and the Carrier had to be within 6" of the fighter (right in the thick of it and next to opposing Primus, Targraths, and Kabroktae ... where a Fleet Carrier isn't supposed to be!). Well, that's something else.
Something .... dubious.
Something cool.
The idea of Sustaining a beam is that, in general, you're going to get far less firepower output. Slow-loading for a 50% firepower output on the primary turn is, in general, a bad trade -- you lose 25% of your firepower over 2 turns. Not being guaranteed its success and not being able to do something else (Come About, CBD, All Hands on Deck) is worse. You'd have to pick your spots. That's, I think, what we're about here.
Dubious options. Where greed, risk, reward, and tough choices make players like me do really dumb things.
Cool.
Remember! We don't want to just give races something new that is a no-brainer! We want to give them an option --- not always a good option, either. Something marginal. Something dicey.
The Shadows have to pay in the form of giving up a turn of beam firepower to kill a few fighters --- not usually a great trade. Alpha striking is harder than CAF, forces use of huge squadrons, and you can get shot out of it by having the formation reduced to below pentacon size (I don't think that's enough of a give, mind you). Abbai can't CBD and Regen at the same time, and CBD is the best defensive special action in the game, bar none.
The only other something-for-nothing we have right now is the Shadow Scream, which, given how hard Psi-Corps could sc^&w over the Shadows, is just a rebalance.
The exceptions to the rule are Raiders, Abbai, and Drazi-only fleets. They just need lots of help.
So every good side needs to come with a serious, real, and --- usually --- overriding downside. Not always, just usually.
Trait upgrade don't cost you anything. They're free upgrades. And forcing a carrier to use a special action when it's behind an asteroid field and safe from combat does NOT count as a downside.
If the rule was that it cost a special action and the Carrier had to be within 6" of the fighter (right in the thick of it and next to opposing Primus, Targraths, and Kabroktae ... where a Fleet Carrier isn't supposed to be!). Well, that's something else.
Something .... dubious.
Something cool.
The idea of Sustaining a beam is that, in general, you're going to get far less firepower output. Slow-loading for a 50% firepower output on the primary turn is, in general, a bad trade -- you lose 25% of your firepower over 2 turns. Not being guaranteed its success and not being able to do something else (Come About, CBD, All Hands on Deck) is worse. You'd have to pick your spots. That's, I think, what we're about here.
Dubious options. Where greed, risk, reward, and tough choices make players like me do really dumb things.
Cool.
I admit I am baffled, people keep saying the Abbai need beefing up, sure the bimith needed some work, but our Abbai player has never lost a game... ever, and he's not particularly clever or a tactical genius, and he just keeps laughing when I tell him about the changes.
so why I ask Why does everyne seem to think they are so bad?!
so why I ask Why does everyne seem to think they are so bad?!
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Hiffano,
Some questions, just so I can make sure I understand.
1). What size table are you using?
2). What terrain rules are you using?
3). Who are his local opponents (galactic powers, not players)?
4). Does he usually have more ships on the board than his opponents/swarminess?
5). What scenarios do you play?
Locally, we have:
1). 4'x6', always.
2). Random (1 in 6 per 1' x 1') Terrain Generation on all scenarios
3). Dilgar, pak'ma'ra, Drakh, Vree, ISA, some (rarer) Centauri, Narn, Early EA
4). We keep fleet sizes reasonably equal to remove swarming temptations, even including Drakh Huge Hangar ships. Usually the Abbai has a slight ship surplus
5). Almost exclusively A Call to Arms, Annihilation, Carrier Clash, and Space Superiority; never Ambush, Flee to the Jump Gate. All others campaigns only.
We can't get the Abbai to win. Ever. Many have tried, all have failed. It's not particularly close, either.
Some questions, just so I can make sure I understand.
1). What size table are you using?
2). What terrain rules are you using?
3). Who are his local opponents (galactic powers, not players)?
4). Does he usually have more ships on the board than his opponents/swarminess?
5). What scenarios do you play?
Locally, we have:
1). 4'x6', always.
2). Random (1 in 6 per 1' x 1') Terrain Generation on all scenarios
3). Dilgar, pak'ma'ra, Drakh, Vree, ISA, some (rarer) Centauri, Narn, Early EA
4). We keep fleet sizes reasonably equal to remove swarming temptations, even including Drakh Huge Hangar ships. Usually the Abbai has a slight ship surplus
5). Almost exclusively A Call to Arms, Annihilation, Carrier Clash, and Space Superiority; never Ambush, Flee to the Jump Gate. All others campaigns only.
We can't get the Abbai to win. Ever. Many have tried, all have failed. It's not particularly close, either.
