Shadows playtest changes

[CZuschlag]

Exactly. Not fun, I grant. +6 .... ick. Better gets some of that Command stuff.

Or dogfight 'em, and just Emine the whole lot.

 

[Burger]

Or dogfight 'em, and just Emine the whole lot.

Shadow fighters are quite resistant to e-mines, though... hull 5, and shields work! a 4AD e-mine (even double damage makes no difference) is not likely to kill one.

 

[AdrianH]

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!

What happens when the Shadow fighters are outnumbered, which is likely to be the case? If 4 Shadow fighters are facing 8 Starfuries, can they choose to ignore 6 Starfuries and gang up on just 2? And during their round, can the Starfuries not declare two attacks on one Shadow fighter rather than declaring only one attack with support?

 

[Burger]

If 4 Shadow fighters are facing 8 Starfuries, can they choose to ignore 6 Starfuries and gang up on just 2?

Depending on how they arrange themselves, the opponent will of course try to get his other 6 in support.

And during their round, can the Starfuries not declare two attacks on one Shadow fighter rather than declaring only one attack with support?

Nope, each fighter can only be in 1 dogfight per round.

 

[AdrianH]

If 4 Shadow fighters are facing 8 Starfuries, can they choose to ignore 6 Starfuries and gang up on just 2?

Depending on how they arrange themselves, the opponent will of course try to get his other 6 in support.

During their turn, yes. They'll probably put 2 Starfuries on each Shadow fighter, giving themselves +3 in each fight and probably meaning that every Shadow fighter is now without its shield. During the Shadows' turn, can their fighters then arrange themselves to ignore most of the Starfuries, or are they stuck facing another round with at least a +2 advantage to the enemy?

 

[Burger]

To be honest it's getting a bit too practical, I was suggesting a theoretical plan that Shadows could use. I'm sure it would work if the numbers were even. I think I'd have to push some counters around before continuing the discussion in this much detail, to see if it is really feasible or not when outnumbered 2:1.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I get the feeling that it would be much simpler and have less questions raised if it was changed to active shields giving a +1 in a dogfight.

 

[greenboy]

I quite like the idea posted in the mongoosae mods yahoo group for shiled on starwars fighter. If a fighter has shields you have to win the dog fight by more than the shield rating to win. this also has the possibility of making large fighters with more than 1 hit point but no shields.

 

[Da Boss]

Merging - several questions

1. Their Speed will be half that of the fastest ship, and they can enter hyperspace while merged.
If one ship has no Special Actions crit can the other shift them both into hyperspace by acting for them both in the merging turn. I would hope so as they are the presently the only race not able to open jump points to allow their compatriots back in (being Masters of Hyperspace :roll: )

2. Merged Shadow vessels may split apart by moving away from one another in any Movement Phase, dividing any remaining Shields evenly. This probably should say this can not take a shadow ships shields above its starting maximum.

 

[AdrianH]

1: since merging is supposed to be primarily a rescue operation, I'd have thought that grabbing a ship which can't make hyperspace by itself and dragging it in is an important part of that operation...

2: since only similar ships (and variants) are allowed to merge, this only arises if a Stalker and a Scout have merged, and then only if the Stalker's shield is over 5. That being the case, does the Stalker leave with all of whatever shield it had, or with its shield reduced by half the difference? For example, if the pair weren't attacked at all, the Scout's shield is 5 and the Stalker's is 10; the Scout breaks off with its shield at 5, but does the Stalker get away with its full 10, or only 7 or 8? If the Stalker does lose some shield, one possibility might be to say that the Scout does have its shield raised beyond its normal maximum, but only for the turn in which it breaks from the merge - this helps make up for the fact that it's not allowed to use Stealth. Its shield then drops to 5 at the start of the next turn.

 

[mollari_uk]

I've posted some thoughts on the shadow rules in the main P&P sticky thread as a result of a game I had last night. See what you think.

 

[Greg Smith]

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!

There is no 'allow' - the rules say 'The player who won the initiative for the
turn attacks with all of his flights first, followed by his opponent'

Which actually makes winning initiative a disadvantage, in this instance. :?

 

[Burger]

Oh weird. Never realized that. I guess everyone just kind of assumed that since the winner of init gets to choose who sets up first, gets to choose who moves first, gets to choose who attacks first... it kind of followed that they also get to choose who dogfights first. It actually is quite a disadvantage to have to move fighters and dogfight first, sometimes (depending on the situation).

 

[Triggy]

Oh weird. Never realized that. I guess everyone just kind of assumed that since the winner of init gets to choose who sets up first, gets to choose who moves first, gets to choose who attacks first... it kind of followed that they also get to choose who dogfights first. It actually is quite a disadvantage to have to move fighters and dogfight first, sometimes (depending on the situation).

You get the choice on moving them but the fighting of a dogfight is compulsary to go first if you win initiative.

 

[AdrianH]

I've posted some thoughts on the shadow rules in the main P&P sticky thread as a result of a game I had last night. See what you think.

I'm not sure whether to reply in the P&P Playtesting thread as I'm not playtesting but since you asked here, I may as well reply here.

Hunting packs: the main disadvantage of putting all the Maximus' and Demos' into a hunting pack is that the Centauri lost all their initiative sinks, giving the Young Shadow ship more freedom of action against the Liati.

Stalker: given the new FAP, you wouldn't have had 2 Scouts instead of the Stalker. A War point breaks into 1 Battle and 2 Raid, or 3 Raid, meaning you either get a Stalker and 2 Scouts or 3 Scouts - you'd get 1 Scout instead of the Stalker.

AF: you've just found the positive side of making the AF accurate rather than antifighter. The downside is that if you use it against fighters, they get to shoot first, whereas a real antifighter system shoots before the fighters.

Shields in dogfights: see the above comments about why the Shadows would not necessarily have won after being lucky enough to kill one of the two Rutarians.

 

[Greg Smith]

AF: you've just found the positive side of making the AF accurate rather than antifighter. The downside is that if you use it against fighters, they get to shoot first, whereas a real antifighter system shoots before the fighters.

Another upside, is you can kill Thunderbolts, Rutarians and even Porfatis, whereas normally AF can't touch them.

 

[mollari_uk]

Stalker: given the new FAP, you wouldn't have had 2 Scouts instead of the Stalker. A War point breaks into 1 Battle and 2 Raid, or 3 Raid, meaning you either get a Stalker and 2 Scouts or 3 Scouts - you'd get 1 Scout instead of the Stalker.

Ooh yes, ok. Now in that particular case it would have been better to have the stalker, but not by much. In other priorities though you can get 2 scouts to a stalker and at the minute it's still a no-brainer.

AF: you've just found the positive side of making the AF accurate rather than antifighter. Smile The downside is that if you use it against fighters, they get to shoot first, whereas a real antifighter system shoots before the fighters.

I prefer it as accurate. It means you can still use the weapon if needed making it not totally useless if fighters simply fly away.

Shields in dogfights: see the above comments about why the Shadows would not necessarily have won after being lucky enough to kill one of the two Rutarians.

I think this makes it work now as Shadows are most likely to win initiative making the stalemate much less likely.
[/quote]

 

[silashand]

I prefer it as accurate. It means you can still use the weapon if needed making it not totally useless if fighters simply fly away.

Agreed. Besides, it makes more sense based on what you see in the show IYAM.

Shields in dogfights: see the above comments about why the Shadows would not necessarily have won after being lucky enough to kill one of the two Rutarians.

Personally, I think the younger races should have to gang up on shadow fighters in order to have a chance of killing them. I like the shields in dogfights rule. Makes Shadow vs Vorlon fighter battles a little more interesting to be sure. JMO though.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Ripple]

I thought the change to the weapon was decided as needed... so if the fighters aren't near you, you don't use it in that mode and fire normally. Did I miss it having to be declared at the start of the turn or something?

I don't see how it's more accurate to the show...

At least for a while it was bounced around that this idea (not sure when/who first brought this up... I know we were early suggesters though) should be a longer range version of AF...

Anyway...

Ripple

 

[Methos5000]

AF: you've just found the positive side of making the AF accurate rather than antifighter. The downside is that if you use it against fighters, they get to shoot first, whereas a real antifighter system shoots before the fighters.

Another upside, is you can kill Thunderbolts, Rutarians and even Porfatis, whereas normally AF can't touch them.

A downside though is against those Rutarians and Nials for example you need to make stealth checks to be able to shoot at them. Nials can be really deadly at this, higher stealth, they are already hull 4 so there is no weakness to the mini-beams and their own mini-beams will ignore the hull 6 of the big ships. They can knock down the shields and then the Minbari death beams can pin the Shadows.

Still overall an interesting concept and it can be useful for the pesky dodging ships that managed to sneak in behind you.