Shadow scream

[Greg Smith]

That being said I'm not really sure why the Vorlons can't use APtE, I thought they could in 1st Ed.

They got a speed increase and a range increase instead.

 

[Shadow Queen]

So does the scream only work in atmosphere?

Or is it actually a broadcast sent out to disrupt the opponents comms devices? If so, just give Shadows a Comms Disruptor and call it "scream".

yes it does due to Mars and Centauri Prime

 

[Ripple]

The ones that bothered me most were mentioned (just doing Vorlons as I'm more familiar with them).

Close blast doors - vorlons are no longer appreciably bigger than their opponents, so not sure why we in effect made them smaller. I just don't see a justification for making an exception to usual play for them.

Intensify Defensive Fire - again...no reason they could not have this...and not having it just adds exceptions.

All Power to Engines - as has been noted on these boards before, more speed is not always a benefit. The flexibility loss just doesn't have a justification and adds to the 'memorize this list' aspect of the game.

I guess my point was from a play balance stand point I don't see the need for the restrictions, and more toys in the box is more fun.

I don't see a good reason to make the rules more complex by adding lists to memorize that don't add any real tactical options, or interesting restrictions, and opens up the game to lots of little 'oops' moments where interactions get forgotten, either in play or in play testing/balancing.

Ripple

 

[Methos5000]

Also I suppose the Shadow scout can benefit from Concentrate all fire but I suppose that they felt a SA that only 1 ship could use wasn't needed...

well you could also say they are the most used and make up a 1/4 of the avialble ships not counting the fighters. They will form the majority of fleets in scenarios and battles.........

Well I'm not saying they shouldn't get it. I think that the Ancients should have access to more SA.

Like Shadows don't need movement based SA because their racial movement is already superior to any of the SA, but they should benefit from Close Blast Doors and Concentrate All Firepower because they can actually benefit from them. For CBD Shadows can move their tendrils about to protect the ship better but can't fire due to blocking the "weapons port".
I think the Vorlons should have APtE, Intensify Defensive Fire and CBD also. For CBD Vorlons ships (except for HC) have to close all openings on the ship to protect itself better so they can't fire weapons, the HC being a more advance Vorlon ship can protect itself better but still fire one of its guns. For Intensify Defensive firepower, If their AAF is a 2nd Ed interpretation of their charged energy pulse you could just say they they diverted more power to the energy pulse to knock out fighters but they had to divert energy from the weapons array to do so.

So I don't think they should open up all SA to Ancients (Shadows with Superb Maneuverability and APtE would be horribly broken IMO), but I don't see a problem with them using more SA.

 

[Target]

I think a simple rule like...

• All enemy ships within 8" of Shadow Ships (Young or Ancient) suffer a -1 to their crew quality (minimum 1) and enemy Fighters within 8" suffer -1 dogfight.

Would work just as well.

That would also help Shadow fighters. Like it.

 

[Target]

With Intentsify Defensive Fire, doesn't having a fighters give you the interceptor trait with they are trying to intercept so you could double that. Nice way to have fighters die double quick but is nice when you only have 1 fighter escorting when you have no interceptors.

 

[Ripple]

Not sure the SA and IDF work that way. We didn't play it that way as we thought it would intensify the 'ships' dice, not those loaned from another unit. Could be wrong...

Just seems strange that fighters or escorts loaned traits would be enhanced by anything the ship doing IDF could do.

Ripple

 

[Target]

I think the rules say that the fighter gives the ship the interceptor trait & therefore can be doubled. Rulebook not handy so say for sure. It useful if you need to stop a few hits but if you sustaining a prolonged attack it just means your fighters die real quick, double the interceptors, twice the chances of ones. Can be waste of SA if you lose fighter coverage, probably better off with 5+ save & fighters not doubled interceptors.

 

[Greg Smith]

The rules aren't explicit, however given the way the fluff is described 'Redirecting its short range weaponry, the ship aims to nullify as many incoming attacks and fighters as possible', I would say Intensify Defensive Fire! doesn't double interceptors given by fighters, only the ship's own.

Similarly a ship benefiting from the Escort trait of another ship won't be able to boost the AF dice from the escort, it will be the escort that does IDF! to increase its AF dice.

 

[Burger]

Sounds sensible to me Greg.

What happens if a ship has interceptors 1, and a fighter also acting as interceptor? We currently roll differently coloured dice, if the fighter's dice rolls a 1 then the fighter is killed. But if the fighter survives and the interceptors become depleted, what happens? For the next hit you roll one dice, on a 6 the hit is intercepted, but on a 1 is the fighter detroyed? Or did the ship's interceptors roll the "1", so the fighter stays?

 

[Da Boss]

We play ANY roll of a 1 kills the fighter?

 

[Greg Smith]

Any roll of a 1 does indeed kill the fighter.

This was discussed in playtesting and we went with the simplest (and riskiest solution). It was also discussed whether you could withdraw your fighter from interceptor duties part of tghe way through the turn, ie when a deplted fighter/interceptor was as likely to die as stop a hit.

So a ship with Interceptor 1 and a fighter acting as an interceptor rolls 2 dice. If either rolls a 1, the fighter dies (remove a dice). If the interceptors are depleted, roll 1 dice on a 1 the fighter dies, but the ship still has a depleted interceptor.

You don't need different coloured dice.

 

[Burger]

Thanks Greg, riskier for the fighter then but simpler.

 

[inq101]

Any roll of a 1 does indeed kill the fighter.

Represent accidental friendly fire by the interceptors I guess.

 

[Sulfurdown]

The rules aren't explicit, however given the way the fluff is described 'Redirecting its short range weaponry, the ship aims to nullify as many incoming attacks and fighters as possible', I would say Intensify Defensive Fire! doesn't double interceptors given by fighters, only the ship's own.

Any roll of a 1 does indeed kill the fighter.

This was discussed in playtesting and we went with the simplest (and riskiest solution). It was also discussed whether you could withdraw your fighter from interceptor duties part of tghe way through the turn, ie when a deplted fighter/interceptor was as likely to die as stop a hit.

So a ship with Interceptor 1 and a fighter acting as an interceptor rolls 2 dice. If either rolls a 1, the fighter dies (remove a dice). If the interceptors are depleted, roll 1 dice on a 1 the fighter dies, but the ship still has a depleted interceptor.

You don't need different coloured dice.

In this setup, you're trading the risk to fighters for a boost in dice, why wouldn't the interceptor dice from fighters be doubled? In the Escort case - the Escort can act under alternate orders or it may result in a doubling-doubling if both Escort and Capital were under IDF! and in either case the Escort really isn't risking anything to balance the gain that would be achieved. In the fighter case the flights are not capable of acting independently or taking their own S/A and they are risking more by being attached to the Capital under the orders if any roll of one destroys the flight. From my perspective of the game mechanics; allowing the Fighter-Interceptor dice to be doubled you risk more for the benefit, by disallowing the F-I doubling you still have more risk to the fighters but don't gain a commiserate benefit.

 

[Burger]

From my perspective of the game mechanics; allowing the Fighter-Interceptor dice to be doubled you risk more for the benefit, by disallowing the F-I doubling you still have more risk to the fighters but don't gain a commiserate benefit.

The capital ship performing the IDF! special action sacrifices main gun firepower to increase inteerceptors and AF. How can a fighter do this?

The fighter pilot is already sacrificing all his firepower to act as a defensive screen for the capital ship. So how could it get doubled? The ship tells the pilot he's not working hard enough?

 

[Sulfurdown]

From my perspective of the game mechanics; allowing the Fighter-Interceptor dice to be doubled you risk more for the benefit, by disallowing the F-I doubling you still have more risk to the fighters but don't gain a commiserate benefit.

The capital ship performing the IDF! special action sacrifices main gun firepower to increase inteerceptors and AF. How can a fighter do this?

The fighter pilot is already sacrificing all his firepower to act as a defensive screen for the capital ship. So how could it get doubled? The ship tells the pilot he's not working hard enough?

I'm not talking about fluff (otherwise you could see it as - the fighter is ordered to get closer into the fire zone to take down incoming shots while risking higher exposure to fire from both the incoming fire and the Capital's outgoing defensive fire).
I'm stay strickly on a game mechanic. You give up use of the flight and provide risk to the flight for fighter enhanced Capital defense. Under IDF! then you are getting enhanced Capital defense and fighter enhanced capital defense at the cost of the use of the flight, original risk to the flight and additional risk to the flight, and half the ships weapons.
If we are using your original idea, Burger, of rolling separate color dice and the Fighter-Orange are what decide if the flight is destroyed then I'm perfectly content. So my question was why there is additional cost without benefit if all the dice are white? Is it so there is an increasing or exponential penalty for stacking multiple effects?

 

[Burger]

It wasn't my idea, it was my way of resolving a rules "inclarity". Greg posted the way it was done in playtesting, so I take that as being the "correct" way

 

[katadder]

if a ship has 2 or more interceptors i never put a fighter on interceptor duties as i have always lost them doing that.

 

[Target]

We had thought of the different coloured dice but then decided to go the slightly simplier way of any 1 kills & decided not everyone has the zillion of dice we have in their multitude of colours.
With regards to doubling interceptor from IDF with fighter flights. i thought the ship is directing half it's firepower to help the fighter but is increasing the risk quite some. Won't take long for you to have no interceptors as all the fighters are dead.
Right or wrong i don't seeing it altering the game in any significant way,.