Stealth as a 'Second Armour'

[CodeofArms]

Hello,

I'm going to be trying a modified stealth rule with my group Inspired by the 'victory at sea' rules which makes it act as a 'Second-Armour' instead of a total shot negation.

The way I have interpreted the current stealth rules; you elect what weapon system you want to fire at the target, and roll to beat stealth. If you fail you automatically miss with all AD levelled at that target.

The system we are trying works by making a 'attack' against the ship using all attack dice of the weapon system you are firing, ignoring the special abilities of the weapon. All shots that beat the stealth score are then are used normally (with abilities) to attack the target.

Eg. A Nova attacks a Tinashi from 12 inches away with its broadside weaponry (12AD TL). It makes an attack against the stealth of the target (4+) ignoring the special abilities (TL) of its weaponry. 6AD succeed in breaking the stealth of the target, the remainder are wasted. The Nova player therefore rolls 6AD TL against the Tinashi (Hull 5).

Hopefully this will work but i'm worried about totally nerfing the Minbari ; perhaps making it a Special Action which causes the stealth value of the target to be raised by one such as;

Saturation Fire;
Crew Quality; Automatic
For each weapon system fired at a target with stealth, roll all attack dice against the targets stealth score, disregarding any special weapon traits. The stealth value of the target is considered to be 1 higher for the purpose of this roll. Each AD of the weapon system that beats the targets modified stealth value is then used in a regular attack against the target.

Has anyone tried this (rather unoriginal :roll: ) rule tweak before/currently/in the future. Cheers.

 

[Hugbiel]

Look like transforming stealth to a kind of dodge thing : it become the same process : any 4+ hit the target, any 3+ prevent a hit.

 

[voodoomachine]

So you're saying that a 4AD beam, SAP, DD weapon that fires on a ship using this modified stealth rule, fails the stealth roll, would just become a 4AD weapon, no special rules?

I would be more in favor of each Weapon system rolling againest stealth. I know that the main weapons targeting system is for the ship, but couldn't each system be put on manual control? It would reduce stealth from an "All or Nothing" thing to a "Reduction of fire". Some of the weapons systems are still going to miss, but one or two out of four in the front arc might hit.

I think it would help when dealing with the Calamari.

 

[Enalut]

I think you both mised the point, an I think it is an interestng idea--not sureif I like it, but might be worth tryig it out.

The idaeis the first roll--the stealth roll--rolls agains the stale roll--i.e. stealth 4+ means that you roll each weapon systems dice agasit the stealthscore. After that roll, you roll all sucessful ice against the hull as normal

For example: a Primus firing agaist a Tinashi (Stealth 4+) at 25" 6 AD Battle Laser:

Stealth Roll, 6 AD, unmodified (target 5+ beacause of range): 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5--2 dice get through stealth.
Hull Roll, 2 AD SAP B DD: would roll agasint Hull 5 as normal.

Overall, I think it could work, but would wantto see how it workedout.

It sems like it would maintain the benifits of Stealth (Boneheads need it, their ships are generally rather frail, and it adds good flavor), but keep stealth from being so all or nothing.

 

[Target]

This way has been bought up before, with several others which are all superior to the current stealth system. Maybe one Mongoose will listen that the all or nothing system just annoys the majority of players.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

how do you know it frustrates most players?

 

[Alexb83]

Because most of us have said as much?

I see a couple of options with the current system: First, Minbari should be 5+ stealth across the board, especially in light of the new stealth modifiers and the available scout technology in other races' fleets.
I can't see why Sharlins (honkin great huge ships) are stealthier than Torothas (so teeny!). Then again, I can't see why the EA get infinite range stealth 5+ scouts when noone else (especially Minbari, the masters of stealth tech - dont)... but that's just me.

Other options:
I like the idea of secondary armour to a certain extent - an effective 2+ dodge at 20 inches+ is what it amounts to for stealth 5+ ships (they'll only hit you with 1 in every 6 dice). Then again, perhaps this isn't a bad thing - I'd rather take a 5/6 reduction on the 50AD coming my way than get whacked with all 50AD due to someone rolling a lucky 6.

Minbari are fragile enough without having to worry about everything or nothing (more commonly, nothing) stealth.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Because most of us have said as much?

well, even if a majority of players on this forum think so, we're a very small subsection of the total fanbase - there's a lot more ActA players than those of us here.

I see a couple of options with the current system: First, Minbari should be 5+ stealth across the board, especially in light of the new stealth modifiers and the available scout technology in other races' fleets.
I can't see why Sharlins (honkin great huge ships) are stealthier than Torothas (so teeny!). Then again, I can't see why the EA get infinite range stealth 5+ scouts when noone else (especially Minbari, the masters of stealth tech - dont)... but that's just me.

Well stealth is a measure of active systems, so size is secondary to the power of the ECM suite. And when the EA only have two stealth-capable ships it's not that big of an imbalance.

Minbari are fragile enough without having to worry about everything or nothing (more commonly, nothing) stealth.

Maybe your opponents are just better with the dice than I am, but the best my early EA have done against the boneheads post-armageddeon is a near-draw.

 

[Alexb83]

It's true that the Delphi is one of only two ships that the EA can field with stealth - however, at 5+, with infinite range scouting abilities, it just seems un-fluffy to me that the EA have been able to go from 3rd Age being unable to break enemy stealth tech, to Crusade era being suddenly able to reproduce it, and break it, at any range.

Conversely, in ItB the Minbos have scanners so powerful that the EA are scared of them, and yet they have no +1 to beat stealth? (a technology they have a brilliant understanding of, to boot). I'd go so far as to say that it's wierd that Shadows and Vorlons don't ignore stealth like other Ancients, too... or that the Adira doesn't have a HEL equivalent (due to Drakh technology). I guess it all comes down to game balance... but the Delphi doesn't seem all that balanced bearing fluff in mind (comes back to EA getting all the new toys whilst other races stagnate).

 

[katadder]

or that the ISA doesnt get +1 to beat stealth rolls due to vorlon tech (much like drakh get their +1 due to shadow tech).

 

[Burger]

or that the ISA doesnt get +1 to beat stealth rolls due to vorlon tech (much like drakh get their +1 due to shadow tech).

The Vorlons only gave the ISA what they needed to, to fight the Shadows. Since the Shadows didn't use stealth tech (in the series), the Vorlons didn't have a need to give them anti-stealth tech.

Whereas the Drakh were much closer to the Shadows, and plundered their homeworld after they left.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

It's true that the Delphi is one of only two ships that the EA can field with stealth - however, at 5+, with infinite range scouting abilities, it just seems un-fluffy to me that the EA have been able to go from 3rd Age being unable to break enemy stealth tech, to Crusade era being suddenly able to reproduce it, and break it, at any range.

Conversely, in ItB the Minbos have scanners so powerful that the EA are scared of them, and yet they have no +1 to beat stealth? (a technology they have a brilliant understanding of, to boot). I'd go so far as to say that it's wierd that Shadows and Vorlons don't ignore stealth like other Ancients, too... or that the Adira doesn't have a HEL equivalent (due to Drakh technology). I guess it all comes down to game balance... but the Delphi doesn't seem all that balanced bearing fluff in mind (comes back to EA getting all the new toys whilst other races stagnate).

There's plenty of reasons in fluff for why the EA would be pouring a lot of research time and money into more advanced EC(C)M that are just as valid though - primarily that there's an ingrained fear that the Minbari will come back and finish the job. And the other races have had varying leaps in technology in the same time period anyway. Recall while you find contention with the power of the delphi, many peopel are underwhelmed by the Nemesis and Warlock

 

[Target]

how do you know it frustrates most players?

Have you ever seen the stealth isn't broken thread?
How many times to people say the all or nothing is prefectly fine?

 

[MongooseMatt]

I can't see why Sharlins (honkin great huge ships) are stealthier than Torothas (so teeny!).

Size has absolutely nothing to do with an active stealth system. . .

The reason we have prevaricated on the Stealth issue is because a) the (current Armageddon) system works on a game balance level and b) we have seen absolutely nothing that is better. I _am_ interested in exploring new options and we have tinkered with a few mechanics. However, there are some problems we consistently run into. For a start, to capture the feel of the TV series, it has to be an all or nothing system (at least by weapon system, if not by ship - that is certainly something to debate). All the proposed systems that give 'leaky' stealth are going to rob something away from the feel of the Minbari. Introducing Crew Quality into the mechanic is an interesting direction to go in, but with the spread of possible CQ, there is a good risk of nerfing ships that happened to roll badly at the start of the battle. You also need to move away from a one dice system (because of the range), which is a drag in itself. . .

We are not being ignorant about this (!). We do listen, and we do consider what you chaps say. But, right now, we haven't seen a suitable system to replace the current Stealth rules. That does not mean the rules as written are the best that can be, nor does it mean we are resistant to change. This is certainly something we will be looking into for 2e. However, we are reasonably confident that, in terms of balance and play, the current rules at least work.

 

[CodeofArms]

. I _am_ interested in exploring new options and we have tinkered with a few mechanics. However, there are some problems we consistently run into. For a start, to capture the feel of the TV series, it has to be an all or nothing system (at least by weapon system, if not by ship - that is certainly something to debate). All the proposed systems that give 'leaky' stealth are going to rob something away from the feel of the Minbari. Introducing Crew Quality into the mechanic is an interesting direction to go in, but with the spread of possible CQ, there is a good risk of nerfing ships that happened to roll badly at the start of the battle. You also need to move away from a one dice system (because of the range), which is a drag in itself. . .

Cheers guy, I don't suppose you have any 'alternative' mothballed stealth ideas we could all tear into thus shattering all hopes and dreams of any previous playtested ideas coming back to life.

P.S. Is it me or is it always my topics that force moderator input? Why must i case so much trouble

 

[Target]

The real flaw in the current system is it comes down to few cruial one dice rolls in 5 pt raid game. Does your big ship see theirs? Tactics doesn't come in a lot. If a ship has 50% chance to avoid all damage, it's hits have to come down by 50%. This in turn makes the ships too fragile.
Ways around this that i can recall being suggested are
Roll stealth for each weapon system.
Failed roll make ships only hit on 6's, ignore traits.
Failed roll increases the ships hull eg +2 to hull.
Failed roll increases the bulkhead hit from 1 to 1-4, no crits.
Guessing there is many more ideas out there.
Any of these would allow stealth ships eg Minbari ( even spelt it right this time) to not be so fragile or low hull and the whole game dependant on a couple of rolls.

 

[Alexb83]

I can't see why Sharlins (honkin great huge ships) are stealthier than Torothas (so teeny!).

Size has absolutely nothing to do with an active stealth system. . .

The reason we have prevaricated on the Stealth issue is because a) the (current Armageddon) system works on a game balance level and b) we have seen absolutely nothing that is better. I _am_ interested in exploring new options and we have tinkered with a few mechanics. However, there are some problems we consistently run into. For a start, to capture the feel of the TV series, it has to be an all or nothing system (at least by weapon system, if not by ship - that is certainly something to debate). All the proposed systems that give 'leaky' stealth are going to rob something away from the feel of the Minbari. Introducing Crew Quality into the mechanic is an interesting direction to go in, but with the spread of possible CQ, there is a good risk of nerfing ships that happened to roll badly at the start of the battle. You also need to move away from a one dice system (because of the range), which is a drag in itself. . .

We are not being ignorant about this (!). We do listen, and we do consider what you chaps say. But, right now, we haven't seen a suitable system to replace the current Stealth rules. That does not mean the rules as written are the best that can be, nor does it mean we are resistant to change. This is certainly something we will be looking into for 2e. However, we are reasonably confident that, in terms of balance and play, the current rules at least work.

I will say this - the current stealth system is quick, easy to use and to understand (at least I find it that way). Perhaps I missed something in not having played the pre-armageddon stealth system. Was stealth considered overpowered before (before the 8 inch rule, I mean)?

I think the 'bone of contention' for most Minbari players seems to be that the main stealth rule seems to have been changed, whilst the fleet remains unchanged, which leaves them feeling as if they've lost out for no gain.

Going to a per-weapon system roll is potentially better on the one hand, but also potentially worse. At long range it would change nothing, at close range doesn't it serve to increase the chances of the stealthed ship getting hit (quite significantly for those opponents where they have many, many weapons in each arc).
How could this be balanced against the ships which rely heavily on stealth and pay for it with weaker hulls and shorter damage tracks?

Keeping the current system, perhaps tweaking some stealth values, and throwing in some 'satturation fire' allowing you to ignore stealth and fire out a few weak or no-trait AD might be handy.

Anyways, it's reassuring to know that Mongoose are keeping an open mind - but I guess we'll have to wait until 2ed to see what'll change

Edit: on the size issue, small cross-sections against sensors would have the same effect in space as they do here on earth (assuming some parity in the sensors and range finding equipment). Shouldn't smaller ships gain some benefit from this in terms of passive stealth?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Edit: on the size issue, small cross-sections against sensors would have the same effect in space as they do here on earth (assuming some parity in the sensors and range finding equipment). Shouldn't smaller ships gain some benefit from this in terms of passive stealth?

With current day technology, you are mostly right (though it is worth comparing the radar cross sections of, say a B-2 against an F-15). However, we always took the Minbari stealth systems to be active in nature - potentially, a larger ship with greater power reserves could be more stealthy. That said, there are always other drains on a ship's power, which we also try to take into account. . .

 

[Alexb83]

I suppose active only stealth does make sense in terms of what we see in season 2 ep 1; they clearly know that the Trigati is there, it's just that their targetting systems can't lock on.

I really am torn - going to a per-weapon roll is just going to make the stealth ships more susceptible to fire once they're in range of multiple weapons. Leaving it as it is... well, everyone complains about how it is.

I know in full thrust, the proposed israeli stealth rules effectively reduced the effective range bands of weapons being shot at them - but that's just too fiddly for ACTA.

On the special actions front - I would again propose a new 'fire on manual' SA. An appropriate CQ test to fire your weapons at 1/2 normal AD, gaining the weak trait. Might be handy for ships like Novas or Saggitarius to satturate the space around stealthy ships they couldn't otherwise see to hit.

 

[Burger]

Perhaps I missed something in not having played the pre-armageddon stealth system. Was stealth considered overpowered before (before the 8 inch rule, I mean)?

I think the 'bone of contention' for most Minbari players seems to be that the main stealth rule seems to have been changed, whilst the fleet remains unchanged, which leaves them feeling as if they've lost out for no gain.

It was considered overpowered, yes. The old tournament stats were considered balanced by most, they kept the stealth the same as SFOS but reduced the damage and crew, and made the skeleton/crippled thresholds higher.

With Armageddon, Minbari players got back their higher damage/crew and went back to the normal thresholds... but rather than stealth being +1 at over 10", it was changed to +1 at 20", and -1 at under 8". So the "gain" was retaining the SFOS stats and getting back some of the excellent variants. Personally I consider that reasonably fair nerf to stealth.

My bone of contention is that fighters fire first and ignore stealth within 1"... ignoring stealth is unfounded, a total nerf to Minbari, and against canon. The low hulls of Minbari mean they are basically fighter-food, and the firing first means they have no decent defences. Fighters can quite easily take a capital ship out of action before it can even fire a shot.