Speed 0 ships, modest suggestion
- Thread starter Alexb83
- Start date
hiffano said:
There hasn't been a compelling argument for why it is the way it is, simply 'that's how it is', which to me really isn't satisfactory.
Going RaW, in the book it states that during the movement phase, a player 'nominates one of his ships and moves it', and/or selects special actions which may influence the way in which it moves (all stop!).
I still contend that not moving the ship doesn't fit that.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
I always used to take that view (and on those grounds I personally think speed 0 ships should be able to make 1 turn at their normal rating (half 0 is still 0 
) but those arent the rules. To be honest no matter how much we argue over this I cant see Alexb ever changing his views on the matter nor the rest of us changing over to his side really.
Nor can I envisage the rule actually changing.
In the words of Grand Moff Tarkin: "This bickering is pointless"
(seriously Im all for debating the rules but when an argument has clearly just degenerated into both sides just saying the same things over and over again its time to agree to disagree and move on)
) but those arent the rules. To be honest no matter how much we argue over this I cant see Alexb ever changing his views on the matter nor the rest of us changing over to his side really.Nor can I envisage the rule actually changing.
In the words of Grand Moff Tarkin: "This bickering is pointless"
(seriously Im all for debating the rules but when an argument has clearly just degenerated into both sides just saying the same things over and over again its time to agree to disagree and move on
)Alex,
You should try running Drazi sometime. If you want speed 0 ships to not be used as initiative sinks, I would suggest eliminating the Boresight Arc. What you are suggesting is making the penatly for Speed 0 No SA larger. This will have significant effects on races that rely almost exclusively on Boresight weapons like the Drazi. If they can't outsink people, then they die.
Dave
You should try running Drazi sometime. If you want speed 0 ships to not be used as initiative sinks, I would suggest eliminating the Boresight Arc. What you are suggesting is making the penatly for Speed 0 No SA larger. This will have significant effects on races that rely almost exclusively on Boresight weapons like the Drazi. If they can't outsink people, then they die.
Dave
Dunno if someone brought this idea up (Sry only skimmed the thread).
But initiative means that ships are participating in the battle. And an immobilized ship is a very actice participant on the table. So it gets to act as a initiative 'sink'. Plus how does the enemy know the engines are shorted out? Maybe theyll come back any moment. Maybe its only the control consoles getting some damage and engines running at full steam?
No seriously, if you have a problem with that rule, you can 'house rule' something with your friends. But ive never seen that as a problem, and more importantly as i play Narn, not having a ship as initiative sink, can make you lose valuable firepower. Drazi ive never played, but im sure a few immobilized ships can potentially end the game for you......
But initiative means that ships are participating in the battle. And an immobilized ship is a very actice participant on the table. So it gets to act as a initiative 'sink'. Plus how does the enemy know the engines are shorted out? Maybe theyll come back any moment. Maybe its only the control consoles getting some damage and engines running at full steam?
No seriously, if you have a problem with that rule, you can 'house rule' something with your friends. But ive never seen that as a problem, and more importantly as i play Narn, not having a ship as initiative sink, can make you lose valuable firepower. Drazi ive never played, but im sure a few immobilized ships can potentially end the game for you......
Have to agree with the majority.
They are right in the fact that it is an 'activation sequence' rather than a 'movement sequence'.
They are right in that many ships that cannot affect your fleet still count as activations, say a crippled/speed crit'ed ship moving into a corner.
You are just struggling with the idea of the two terms above. You see this as a sequence of movements, its not. Its a sequence of activations. Much like mini-beam the trait (how does that make it anti-fighter), or AJP on fighters (they have a jump drive?!)...the name can be misleading as to the actual mechanic.
Personally I would love to see AJP changed to a series of traits...Jump Drive, Jump Disruption Resistance, and Enhanced Jump Point Accuracy. I think it would be more accurate, allow for more variation in races and better reflect the way tech advances, but I don't write the rules here.
Ripple
They are right in the fact that it is an 'activation sequence' rather than a 'movement sequence'.
They are right in that many ships that cannot affect your fleet still count as activations, say a crippled/speed crit'ed ship moving into a corner.
You are just struggling with the idea of the two terms above. You see this as a sequence of movements, its not. Its a sequence of activations. Much like mini-beam the trait (how does that make it anti-fighter), or AJP on fighters (they have a jump drive?!)...the name can be misleading as to the actual mechanic.
Personally I would love to see AJP changed to a series of traits...Jump Drive, Jump Disruption Resistance, and Enhanced Jump Point Accuracy. I think it would be more accurate, allow for more variation in races and better reflect the way tech advances, but I don't write the rules here.
Ripple
Ripple said:
The name is indeed misleading - it talks about 'moving', which I (and hopefully the rest of the english speaking world) understood was defined as displacement, 'a change of position or location' as per the dictionary. It does not call it 'the activation phase', rather 'the movement phase'.
Speed 0, no SA ships can do nothing which resembles a change in position or location. But evidently they can influence the battle enough to force an initiative winner to move first?
AJP on fighters doesn't mean they have a drive - it's Advanced Jump Point, not Advanced Jump Drive (indeed they cannot open JPs, as per the special action rules) simply that they can enter/leave hyperspace in an advanced fashion.
Ahh we.. you see there is a time to take out a dictionary.
This isnt.
Quite unfortunately tabletop gaming is more like a model of the real world (the kind physics uses to esplain some things like the duality of light). It works to represent some parts really well, but it doesnt work with every detail, so every model can be broken, if you just look hard enough.
Same goes on in this case. You are right ACTA has an activation sequence throughout its movement and shooting phases. But in this case we already have turns representing real time action. Anything beyond that is just a way to make the "model" (called ACTA) work well and fun to let us partake or replay from the "real thing" (Called spacecenter Babylon 5, the show and various movies). It isnt meant and cannot be a perfect representation of the action we see on screen.
How come WS can zoom into the enemy back arc without never getting a shot fired at them, from the enemys frontal weapon? Reality dictates a different thing, but our model (the game ACTA) can let you do such a thing.
As such its only a rule, it works and is fun. Boresighting ships need initiative sinks. Sure play drazi implement the rule, and play against Centauri, have fun, it just disadvantages certain races against others, and that is a problem. ACTA is currently balanced using ini sinks, remove them, and youd have to rebalance quite a few fleets.
Oh and btw, staying still in space, is also a kind of movement. Just ask mathematicians, they also like to move forward -10" sometimes.
This isnt.
Quite unfortunately tabletop gaming is more like a model of the real world (the kind physics uses to esplain some things like the duality of light). It works to represent some parts really well, but it doesnt work with every detail, so every model can be broken, if you just look hard enough.
Same goes on in this case. You are right ACTA has an activation sequence throughout its movement and shooting phases. But in this case we already have turns representing real time action. Anything beyond that is just a way to make the "model" (called ACTA) work well and fun to let us partake or replay from the "real thing" (Called spacecenter Babylon 5, the show and various movies). It isnt meant and cannot be a perfect representation of the action we see on screen.
How come WS can zoom into the enemy back arc without never getting a shot fired at them, from the enemys frontal weapon? Reality dictates a different thing, but our model (the game ACTA) can let you do such a thing.
As such its only a rule, it works and is fun. Boresighting ships need initiative sinks. Sure play drazi implement the rule, and play against Centauri, have fun, it just disadvantages certain races against others, and that is a problem. ACTA is currently balanced using ini sinks, remove them, and youd have to rebalance quite a few fleets.
Oh and btw, staying still in space, is also a kind of movement. Just ask mathematicians, they also like to move forward -10" sometimes.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
How does the one feature of a Spd 0 ship being nominated for initative raise such a fervor in a system that uses chess-move style to dictate movement. And if it's such a problem, why not simply limit ships to a Speed 1 instead of speed 0. The entire issue goes away. (Except for boarding, I know, but that's a different issue.)
If you're really trying to up the game from a tactical to a simulation then you have to drop the CM-style and move beyond an individual initative toward an interpretation of the inertial movement of a ship combined with their sensor abilities combined with an evaluation of crew-quality, particularly the CO and pilot in addition to their engine efficiencies. I personally don't have a problem with that but it would slow the game down a bit.
If you're really trying to up the game from a tactical to a simulation then you have to drop the CM-style and move beyond an individual initative toward an interpretation of the inertial movement of a ship combined with their sensor abilities combined with an evaluation of crew-quality, particularly the CO and pilot in addition to their engine efficiencies. I personally don't have a problem with that but it would slow the game down a bit.
Sulfurdown
Mongoose
You can consider that the ships nomination is also the engagement of any non-movement systems, specifically at that time it's relaying sensor data to the rest of it's fleet. This also would reason out why that Raider Modified Freighter hiding behind the far asteroid field at the edge of the board can be used to sink initative.
