Speed 0 ships, modest suggestion

[Alexb83]

Actually, it's something that has struck me over the course of many games where ships have been critted near to death, and still been used as init sinks - but yes, watching a Vorlon fleet stare dumbfounded at the immobilised Whitestar sitting dead in space whilst its squadron of three friends whipped around behind them - that really took the first prize for ridiculous rules.

Also, as an aside - Shadows and Vorlons can't use initiative sinks in this way, since they can never be at speed 0.

IMO it's a very simple rule to insert, under the description for the turn sequence you simply put: 'ships capable of movement are then moved one after the other'. You're book-keeping your speed 0 ships anyways.

 

[katadder]

yes but then shadows and vorlons dont have to worry about being dead in space. the last game was my whitestar immobilised, it had speed 0, therefore no dodge, and with only front guns it was doing nothing anyway as ships moved out of its arc. however it was still in my fleet so is still useful and i dont see the problem with this. a lucky crit (like what was got on it) should not force a ship to be completely out of the game just cos people dont like it.
hash used battletech as an example of init - but battle tech if a unit has no move though overheat, being shut down, KO'd pilot whatever then that unit is used as an init snik, i even believe it is exampled as one in one of the rulebooks so whats the differance here?

plus read matts update of 2e, soon your vorlons will also be able to do this for a turn

 

[Hash]

Its a matter of preference I guess - it can irritate some players (and I'm sure Alexb83 isn't the only person to feel that way) and not bother/please others . Likewise if you switched it - that would irritate other players who preferred it the "old" way. Which is another way Reaverman's comment for "swing both ways" could be taken - (btw my Drazi will have their revenge Vorlon powergamer! )

While I understand the point that is being made here - I do think the rules of the game have to be fixed at some point so that everyone can concentrate on the game and tactics. Personally, unless the rule completely removes the fun from the game, I've lost interest in continual tweaking here and there for the "official" ruleset and would rather get on with playing and house rule something if it really bothers me - I play most of my games with my friends so am not really that bothered how it is done officially anymore.

 

[Alexb83]

By being immobilised, by definition it should be out of the battle, until it is repaired - and in any case, no immobilised ship is completely out of the game unless it's also got no weapons left. It hasn't been destroyed so it hasn't lost VP, and the enemy may simply ignore it and go after the rest.

Taking smaller ships (which generally have weaker hulls and therefore are more likely to take hits, and hence crits - however lucky those crits may be) is all well and good for getting initiative sinks, but it should also have a downside when those crits stop them dead in space.

 

[katadder]

theres always the fact your crews dont know the engines are offline until they see it not move thats why you an count it as an init sink.

 

[Alexb83]

I think the spectacular explosion that disabled the engines, or the fact that your sensors show it as dead in space might be a dead giveaway.

I maintain that if you've managed to disable an enemy ship, it should work to your advantage, rather than theirs. Just as in FT where you know that if the enemy has lost their bridge or their drive, they cannot turn or thrust and will be continuing at their current speed and heading for the next turn.

As for Vorlons - Matt's post says nothing about them except that they're shifting back to the 'standard' Ancient damage system. Quad damage is mentioned (and I have to assume it's for Shadows and Vorlons) but not linked to them.

 

[katadder]

yes the ancients damage table - take damage as per everyone else, take crits as per everyone else, but auto repair them in following end phase. thats the ancients damage table.

 

[H]

I think the spectacular explosion that disabled the engines, or the fact that your sensors show it as dead in space might be a dead giveaway.

I maintain that if you've managed to disable an enemy ship, it should work to your advantage, rather than theirs. Just as in FT where you know that if the enemy has lost their bridge or their drive, they cannot turn or thrust and will be continuing at their current speed and heading for the next turn.

As for Vorlons - Matt's post says nothing about them except that they're shifting back to the 'standard' Ancient damage system. Quad damage is mentioned (and I have to assume it's for Shadows and Vorlons) but not linked to them.

so you have a ship that is clearly not dead, it can't move into range, it cannot move out of range, it cannot turn to face an enemy, or turn any flankingweaposn to them, it cannot unload it's troops unless the enemy is stupid enough to come in close.
How is that an advantage for it?

 

[Alexb83]

It just became a free initiative sink. That's the whole point of this - if it can't do anything else, at all (except shoot at whatever's in its arc/range) then why the hell can it act as if it was moving?

 

[Burger]

Alex I think you've repeated yourself enough times now, and most people disagree with you

It didn't just become a free initiative sink. It just became a sitting duck.

 

[katadder]

whats wrong with it being a free init sink though? you havent destroyed the ship, just happened to get that crit on it? why penalise the opposing player more? the ship is paid for, in play, and just hapens to have had a particular crit against it, why should this completely nuetralise it? the penalties of that crit are already bad enough. plus the extra damage caused from the crit to said ship.

 

[Alexb83]

Because it defies logic that a ship which is unable to move should be involved in the 'movement phase' of the game.

Sitting still should not count as a movement action, unless you invest an SA in it to make it happen voluntarily. Why else are there negative effects on the all stop! special action? To make people think twice about what they're sacrificing in order to do it.

 

[Greg Smith]

But the movement phase isn't just about mevement, it includes special actions. It is possible to reduce some ships to speed 0 without preventing them performing special actions, so when is a speed 0 ship going to declare SA? If it was left until the end, that would be an unfair advantage to the other side, if it was first that would be penalising a ship that can do everything except move.

 

[Locutus9956]

It does not defy logic. The ship is still part of the fleet and can potentially move in future.

And it hasnt become a free initiative sink! The fleet hasnt magically gained an extra initiative step, it has the same number it would normally have he simply has no choice about what one of them can do on its turn!

And to complain about behing outmaneuvered with Vorlons because of it and therefore its not fair is bordering on the insane. The Vorlon fleet is, bar none the toughest fleet in the game in terms of sheer surviveability, most of their mid range ships are pretty maneuverable and have a full forward arc. In that forward arc they generally pack the sort of firepower that other fleets wish they had! To counterbalane this it IS easy to outmaneuver them. What you seem to be complaining about is that you cant use your fleet filled with nothing but pricice weapons to go crit fishing and just ingore any ship that gets speed 0 rather than actually having to finish it off! If the example given too, the whitestar in question has lost its dodge so why not just SHOOT IT AND MAKE IT DIE. Problem solved.

To call a tactic 'unsporting' just because you happen to dislike it personally seems to me somewhat more unsporting.

Frankly I think too many people think good sportsmanship should mean 'being nice and letting me win'. Sportsmanship is, in my oppinion about being friendly open.

Don't rub it in your opponents face when theyre losing, but also dont whine and moan when your losing, take it like a grown up. If you win due to luck dont try to claim your opponent was an idiot and you blatantly outplayed him, but if you lose fair and square dont spend the next day and a half complaining about cheesy tactics and unfair ships and jammy dice rolling. Be open about what your doing and be friendly and understanding about genuine mistakes. If you move on to the firing phase and someone says 'oh hang on I forgot to move my fighters do you mind if I do?' let them if it wont really affect the game, dont be such a stickler for the rules that you come across as a jerk! Conversely though dont try to rewrite the rules mid game with 'oh but its just not common sense, it should work like this....'.

If a tactic is legal in the rules its fair enough, just because you didnt manage to counter it doesnt make it unsporting.

 

[Alexb83]

It does defy logic. Lack of movement is not movement. Since the player has no choice, why then is he/she allowed to say 'I am chosing to let this ship sit still' (which is what he/she is doing by using it to skip a turn in the movement order).

It is part of a fleet, and can move in the future, but it cannot move at present - which is my point. As for ships reduced to speed 0 which can still SA - I would suggest they use all hands to deck asap.

What does vorlon survivability have to do with being outmanouvered? This is an issue about initiative order, not how tough (or, as the case may be, not) ships are.

 

[Locutus9956]

The point is the that the initiative sequence is a game mechanic. Its not supposed to represent your fleet waiting to see what the imobile ship does as it would all happen simultaneously in reality.

The point about Vorlon toughness is that you are complaining about a fleets weaknesses (less initiative sinks + big blind spots to avoid being fired at). The weaknesses of any given fleet exist to offset its strenghts. What you are proposing effectively makes your fleet stronger and others (especially boresight dependant fleets or those thar rely more on initiative sinks) to outmaneuver their opponents.

To come back to battletech and full thrust briefly:

Full thrust does not use initiative based movement so the comparison is entirely irrelelevant.

Battletechs initiative system does indeed work in such a way that it evens out the swarm vs big ship situation a bit but if a mech is immobile or otherwise unable to act it can still be used as an initiative step.

The overriding point is, you are complaining that something that is already a bad situation for an opponent isnt so bad that it utterly screws over half their fleet. I wonder if you would be so indignant about this if you were playing a fleet that could suffer criticals yourself perhaps?

 

[Alexb83]

Locutus, we use an initiative system where different fleets get different bonuses - the whole point is that some fleets get to wait and see what the other fleet does, because they have a greater ability to take advantage of that movement - 'waiting to see' is exactly the point of the system!

How does it screw over half the opponents' fleet? In the example I gave, the opponent had a clear option: Break squadron with his other WS's, and move one of them in initiative order - possibly putting it in a place where the Vorlons could shoot at it.

The FT comparison is valid, because it shows how when a ship is disabled, you automatically know (without having to give any consideration to possibilities) where it is going to be next turn.

This doesn't screw him over at all, it leaves him with other ships that he can choose to move together/seperately however he likes, it simply means that he must expose one of his active ships to possible danger - which is exactly what you're expecting the person who's just critted their opponent to a standstill to do.

 

[Hash]

But the movement phase isn't just about mevement, it includes special actions. It is possible to reduce some ships to speed 0 without preventing them performing special actions, so when is a speed 0 ship going to declare SA? If it was left until the end, that would be an unfair advantage to the other side, if it was first that would be penalising a ship that can do everything except move.

A very valid point and a big flaw in simply ignoring Speed 0 crits until the end - I'm afraid I'm now convinced, I think the current system works better.

 

[Alexb83]

I've never yet seen a ship reduced to 0 (except by a crit with no SA attached). Being as it still has something meaningful to do (it could still, for instance, CAF, or run silent, or do any number of things except move). It does have an impact on the game which might warrant the idea of 'seeing what it's going to do', and then reacting to it - hence a place in initiative order.

But a ship which is just going to sit there, with speed 0, no SA, and oblige you to move first (regardless of whether you've won or lost init) - it's silly.

 

[H]

It's a game, it is not real life, it is not even close to real life. It is a game mechanic which pretty much everyone has accepted and not worried about. you know those posts where one person continually harps on about one subject, refusing to accept anyones oppinions but their own, no matter what compelling argument can be used for any other opinion? this is one of those posts.
You have a piont of view which is your choice, I think it is clear that others do not agree. If it means so much to you, use it as a house ruling, I don't think it would be something that could be used as a cannon rule for the game.