Shadows playtest changes

[Burger]

Well I was going to say the Shadow doesn't have to fight back does it?

Yes you do have to dogfight back, it is compulsory not optional.

 

[Greg Smith]

You can't opt not to dogfight.

Example 1, with a Nial.
Shadow attack, Shadow fighter rolled 4, Nial rolled 3+3 Nial wins, but shield takes it. On the Minbari fighter attack, Nial rolls 5+3, Shadow rolls 2 and dies.

Example 2: Frazi.
Shadow attack: shadow rolls 2, Frazi 4, shield takes it.
Narn attack: Frazi rolls 4, Shadow 4. A draw continue next turn.

----
It seems several groups only play one dogfight phase. Which would make Shadow fighters quite a problem.

 

[mollari_uk]

Then that makes a whole load of sense now! I think I finally get it!

I know there are some details about who can fight and who can support regarding who's in contact with who, but I'll save board space and read it up myself.

 

[skavendan]

Does that mean that a DD hit would kill it out right? I mean which hit hits the shadow fighters a T Bolt in theory has the fire to kill it in 1 session of shooting but in a dog fight it will count as having a single Dice of damage?

 

[Burger]

I think the rules on dogfighting need some clarification. The 2 phases need explaining much better than currently.

Does that mean that a DD hit would kill it out right? I mean which hit hits the shadow fighters a T Bolt in theory has the fire to kill it in 1 session of shooting but in a dog fight it will count as having a single Dice of damage?

No, dogfights don't use the ship's weapons track (otherwise you'd be able to dodge it )

Against weapons anyway, shields 1 is enough to block an entire DD (or TD, or QD) hit.

 

[skavendan]

I think the rules on dogfighting need some clarification. The 2 phases need explaining much better than currently.

Does that mean that a DD hit would kill it out right? I mean which hit hits the shadow fighters a T Bolt in theory has the fire to kill it in 1 session of shooting but in a dog fight it will count as having a single Dice of damage?

No, dogfights don't use the ship's weapons track (otherwise you'd be able to dodge it )

Against weapons anyway, shields 1 is enough to block an entire DD (or TD, or QD) hit.

Makes the hole thing abit too complicated if you ask me. Also means shadow fighters will dogfight because if they dont want things like T Bolts shooting at them because it will kill them.

 

[mollari_uk]

If a T-bolt fires normally at a Shadow fighter it will probably dodge it anyway. Also a Shadow fighters dogfight score is 0. It doesn't stand much chance against most fighters. Just more than it did before.

To me shields working in a dogfight is only a minor bonus (now I know how it works). Working in AF is what matters to make them good enough to be 2 per wing. Compare them with Nials for example.

 

[Burger]

No more complicated than it has been since SFoS (or before?).

Thats the way it has always been. You buys your ships, you takes your choices. Whats wrong with shadow fighters preferring to dogfight anyway - they don't win by out-dogfighting their enemy, they win by sitting there and taking the hit, and riposting.

 

[skavendan]

If a T-bolt fires normally at a Shadow fighter it will probably dodge it anyway. Also a Shadow fighters dogfight score is 0. It doesn't stand much chance against most fighters. Just more than it did before.

To me shields working in a dogfight is only a minor bonus (now I know how it works). Working in AF is what matters to make them good enough to be 2 per wing. Compare them with Nials for example.

mmmmm o yeah dodge lol I forget they got that since no1 fielded them.

Be interesting to see how it works out now.

Paul are you up for a game some time?

 

[mollari_uk]

Cheers for the clarifications.

I'm now writing up how dogfights work for everyone in our group.

Burger, would you object if I PM you my write up so I know I'm getting this right?

Dan, I'll email you.

 

[skavendan]

Cool, I'll also be available this sunday for gaming.

 

[AdrianH]

I still think the Shadow fighters need some work. As has been pointed out, shields won't help that much in a dogfight; whether by having a better dogfight score or by having more fighters to support each other because Shadows only get 2 per patrol point, the enemy fighters will still win; it will just take a bit longer. Using shields against antifighter helps, but then most other fighters with Dogfight +0 don't need shields because they have weapons which can outrange antifighter anyway.

For comparison:
Starfuries - 4 for 1 Patrol point, two Patrol points gets you 4 Auroras to win the dogfight plus 4 Thunderbolts which outrange antifighter.

Rutarian - 2 for 1 Patrol point, Dogfight +2 and long range weapons.

Basically, if the Shadow fighter is going to cost as much as a Rutarian, or an Aurora plus a Thunderbolt, then make it equally capable. Give it a +2 Dogfight bonus. Allowing shields to be used in dogfights makes up for the fact that it is only one ship, not an Aurora plus a Thunderbolt; while it becomes better than a Rutarian in a dogfight, but less survivable against capital ships because it can resist antifighter rather than ignore it entirely.

 

[skavendan]

You do get free ones that never got used so it is something for nothing in big PL games. Theres a danger of going too far shadow scouts can take out fighters and fighters do DD and have shields Vs anti fighter could be a nasty combo now.

 

[mollari_uk]

From an armchair perspective it seems enough to me. Although only +0 dogfight you still have to gang up on a shadow fighter to gurantee success. This means that the shadows have two chances at getting lucky if you send anything less against them. But it also means they aren't meant for dogfighting same as the Vorlon fighters.

With the new AF beams it also means enemy fighters will be more cautious to get close so I think this makes a fleet wide balance.

Also they now have a very good chance of getting throught to a ship even with good AF (as both shots must hit to kill) so it makes them good at the job they are designed for.

 

[skavendan]

From an armchair perspective it seems enough to me. Although only +0 dogfight you still have to gang up on a shadow fighter to gurantee success. This means that the shadows have two chances at getting lucky if you send anything less against them. But it also means they aren't meant for dogfighting same as the Vorlon fighters.

With the new AF beams it also means enemy fighters will be more cautious to get close so I think this makes a fleet wide balance.

Also they now have a very good chance of getting throught to a ship even with good AF (as both shots must hit to kill) so it makes them good at the job they are designed for.

I agree it's only really shadowfurys that will kill a shadow fighter nearly every time. +4 to dogfight is hard for anything to win against.

 

[Burger]

OK time for some dogfight stats.

Shadow Fighter vs Tishat (+4): Shadow wins 5%, Tishat wins 84%, draw 10%
Shadow Fighter vs Nial (+3): Shadow wins 16%, Nial wins 69%, draw 15%
Shadow fighter vs Aurora (+2): Shadow wins 30%, Aurora wins 52%, draw 17%
Shadow Fighter vs T-Bolt (+1): Shadow wins 48%, T-bolt wins 34%, draw 18%
Shadow Fighter vs Kotha (+0): Shadow wins 66%, Kotha wins 17%, draw 17%
Shadow fighter vs Sky Serpent (-1): Shadow wins 83%, SS wins 8%, draw 10%

So the shields working in dogfights is equivalent to roughly dogfight +1.4.
Shields working against Anti-Fighter however, makes them the best anti-ship fighter bar none! Hence only 2 per wing.

 

[Burger]

OK a problem with shadow shields working in dogfights. Dogfighting both ways is compulsory, yes... this makes it fine when the dogfight is 1 on 1. But when flights are supporting in a big furball, it makes the Shadows almost undefeatable!

You allow your opponent to dogfight first.
Any Shadow fighters that lose their shields, use for supporting rather than attacking... they cannot be shot down because only the original attacker can die in a dogfight! And the flight you choose to be the attacker, still has its shields intact!

 

[Banichi]

I still think shadow ships should get fleet carrier. It would be a good way of improving the fighters, without improving the fighters. Which is something mongoose seems resistant to doing. Also it would be kind of fluff fitting, as shadow fighters are meant to be controled by the cpu of their parent shadow ship. The fighter regeneration aspect of fleet carrier would just represent the ship gobbing out another flight. The change to the fighters shields is cool.

Drat, it looks like we have been playing the dogfight rules wrong as well, with only one round of dogfighting per turn. Basically the way we play it is that if a flight jumps yours, and there is a draw thats it until the next turn.

 

[CZuschlag]

What is means, Burger, is that during dogfight resolution, you try to force the Shadow player resolve his dogfights first. Then, if you win, you pick on the fighter that the Shadow player picked in the second dogfight phase.

Sort of obscure, but I think it would work, right, Burger? Counterintuitive that you WANT to give your opponent the initiative in dogfights.

I'm not saying they're easy to kill, but you understand what I mean, right?

 

[Burger]

Yes, if you can beat his +6 initiative, you stand a chance of winning..... otherwise shadow player forces you to go first.