Stopping for directions (Energy Mines & Stealth)

Taran-
I'd buy that Stealth in the current usage includes slick surface coatings and angles in addition to active electronic countermeasures and I'd buy that in the setting those physical structures also play *some* roll, but then why wouldn't that +1 Stealth Breaker Bonus be permanent if the structural measures composed enough of the Stealth that it gives the bonus to begin with?

SKJ -
You're right about other ships knowing that a stealthed ship is there - just not being able to get a read on what it is or get a weapons lock.

I still would disagree with the "Thumper" analogy since a thumper uses the surrounding environment to build the image after an impact, not easy to do in a near void. Though you could think of it as a twisted echolocation provided you had your systems designed to do that kind of active analysis in the middle of combat. - I'd consider it if it was a scout. And if it's mentioned that this is the future where they've got all that super technology, then there could be just the same counter measures. So... to mechanical game balance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The real basis of my issues isn't with the auto-stealth-bypass. I get it. I just was looking for it to be spelled out in the rules like it does for dodge or interceptors and I got side tracked into trying to figure out how the game defines things as simple as an attack. (SKJ I think has it right about an energy mine automatically getting to hit stealthed ships but it takes a combination of the special rules for energy mines, stealth and adaptive armour... Sidebar: Eligible Targets states that in order to have a successful attack you need two things - the ship in the weapon arc and in the weapon range, says nothing about rolling dice. Make all the extra "non-delusional" assumptions you want.)

My issue is the automatic "I get Stealth Breaker Bonus". There are enough factions now that utilize energy mines (PMR, Gaim, Narn, any fleet that has access to those ships) and ships that have Stealth trait, that it is of some concern even if you aren't playing Minbari. The Drakh lost their +1 vs Stealth from 1st Edition because it was considered over powered. So why do the Gaim/PMR/Narn/Allies (who are theoretically lower tech) get it? That is purely a mechanical question about the game function.
 
Sulfurdown said:
Taran-
I'd buy that Stealth in the current usage includes slick surface coatings and angles in addition to active electronic countermeasures and I'd buy that in the setting those physical structures also play *some* roll, but then why wouldn't that +1 Stealth Breaker Bonus be permanent if the structural measures composed enough of the Stealth that it gives the bonus to begin with?

The ship can maneuver to shield the weakened location. Can rework its EW to shield the damaged are. Can get repairs done (damage control is a constant process). Lots of reasons. Not that I think anyone thought of that in designing the game. It's just best for gameplay this way.

@Centauri Admiral:
Space IS big. But the combat always occurs within eyesight of each other. Doesn't matter how good your Stealth systems are, if you don't have the Star Trek Cloaking Device, you can't avoid being seen by a straight up visual scanning device (like a video camera with a computer to cut through any camouflage).


In fact, when you get down to it, we Are arguing realism in a game set 170 years in the future where warships fly through space and shot each other with lasers.
 
My arguement isn't on realism, it's the game balance. My questions on the mine bypass stealth was definitely not grounded in realism but rather trying to find out what the rules actually are saying. Realism is just fun to think about and try to rationalize why things do what they do in the game.
 
SKJ - explain technomage craft to me then! Case in point.

Taran - Why do whitestars for instance, overlay their command deck viewing ports with tactical HUD's to gain a better look of the battlefield, where I wonder do those tactical overlays come from.

I agree though, that we are argueing about a game set 170 in the future, perhaps a bit silly and I'm sorry to resurect this thread.

I suppose the fact of the matter is that emines do autobreak stealth and its not going to change - end of.
 
Ok, I feel a bit lost here. I don't have the 2n ed book so I'm thinking I may be missing out on something here. What do you mean when you say they "break stealth"? Did they change something about stealth in 2nd ed?
 
Stealth can now be modified in the following ways...

if your in a dust cloud or asteroid field you now get stealth 3+ (I think) or a bonus of 2 to any existing stealth score.

If you are beyond 20 inches of range from an aggressor, you get a bonus of 1.

If you are within 8 inches of range from an aggressor, you get a penalty of 1.

If a scout has successfully lowered your stealth (it must be within 36 inches and succeed on a CQ check needing an 8) you have a penalty of 1.

If a ship (or fighter!) that has successfully attacked you is on the table, you receive a penalty of 1.

Certain races and refited ships receive a specific bonus to penetrate stealth by 1.

You can also run silent but I don't remember the specifics... it is worth attempting more now than before though I think.

Think that is the relevant stealth rules, how e-mines interact is that they 'automatically' attack everything within 3 inches. The discussion was whether that automatic attack still had to make a stealth roll (did I get close enough?) or not (fire into the jamming, the splash will get em!). Right now the position by mongoose and the playtest crowd is that the automatic attack does not need to make a roll.

Further, since the e-mine was attack was launched by a ship that is presumably still on the table, that ship is now lowering the stealth of said attacked ships by one. This allows ships to auto reduce stealth (depending on definition of successful attack, right now I believe all you needed was to make an attack roll, regardless of outcome) on multiple ships at a go.

Nightmare scenario for a stealth ship is a Narn squadron. Escort Ka'Tan lobs in the e-mine first to reduce stealth for the heavy ships firing second in the squadron. Add in a good scout and your starting with stealth minus 2. Would be fine if a 1 always failed stealth checks, but alas not the case.

Related issue is stealth going too high. Right now you can force stealth to eight or higher in some cases, cleanly off the die. The ship can never be targeted, though it likely is vulnerable to boarding. Again a six should always succeed. You don't want stuff like stealth going off the die, either use a bigger die if you want more modifiers or put in the automatics fail/succeed or you will create situations where the game breaks down. Save those moments for stuff you can't forsee.

Ripple
 
Seriously though, I'm perfectly willing to accept that e-mines can hit ships under stealth without having to first break stealth. It fits with what I've seen in the shows. (After all, Sheridan was famous for doing something similar...)

I'm not nearly as happy about it providing a bonus to other ships breaking stealth. I look at the bonus to breaking stealth as transmitting your own successful targeting information to the rest of the fleet. That just doesn't work with e-mines.

I am willing to play it as written and can justify it (as shown above). I'd just be a little happier if e-mines didn't help with other ships targeting. I haven't played with it enough to tell how play balance would be affected by the change though...

ShopKeepJon
 
Just to confirm as well that a 6 on a stealth check see's any stealth ship no matter what its score.

a roll of 1 see's ships reduced to stealth 1+ - in other words if it is stealth 1+ by mods - no need to roll.

:)
 
Back
Top