Ripple said:
Sulferdown -
They removed turning restrictions from the combat special actions (CAF, CBD, IDF).
My point about not giving something back was it relaxed the limitation (currently can only fire on targets that have moved) without adding a new restriction to replace it.
You already have to point at your target (this is relaxed as you now only have to point at where your target was), your are restricted from using turning limiting SAs (you are already), you telegraph your intentions true... but you get to have intentions on ships you otherwise would not even be able to target, hardly a limitation. And it's shared by the FTT SA.
The limitation is that you get half your AD instead of the full amount. Compare this to the "FTT SA" where you get the -full- amount of AD to bring onto the target.
FTT SA also requires a change to the initiative order, in that you move, your opponent moves, and then you turn to follow him. However, consider the fact that you -gain- the benefit of moving out of the initiative order with a vessel that would not normally do so.
And you don't suffer AD penalties to do so; you simply can't use a SA.
Compare this to "Raking Fire" where you have to boresight a target
before it moves, meaning you don't modify the initiative order at all, nor penalize a fleet that wins initiative by ignoring their initiative with a SA that enables you to turn after they do.
Plus, the enemy has to remain in your forward arc -AND- you suffer a Half AD penalty, rounded down.
You get to engage targets you'd normally have to use an SA to target (read Come About) by moving to bore at the edge of a turn, gaining 45 degrees of arc, that would have required a CQ 9 check.
The idea that Come About or other high-turn SAs enable you to target with boresight only works if initiative sinks have no effect on boresight targeting, which this thread has established is not the case: Boresight is heavily affected by initiative sinks.
Lets use Drazi as a case study.
Every single Drazi ship has 2x45 degree turns, though some are agile, we can ignore agile for the purposes of this discussion.
Lets say we’re using a Firehawk Advanced Cruiser and we’re firing at a Marathon Advanced Cruiser which would require exactly 45 degrees to bring into boresight.
Under FTT SA, we turn once to bring it into boresight, and then declare our SA. The Marathon’s initiative comes around, it moves and requires an additional 25 degrees of turn to bring back into boresight, still in the forward arc, but with FTT SA we have to turn 25 degrees and boresight his ship after he moves.
When firing comes around, we’ve turned out of initiative order so our Firehawk’s firing arcs have changed meaning that ships that may have just been in our forward arc are likely now in our starboard/port arcs (In the case of most Drazi ships, this is largely a non-issue. If we reverse the situation, using the Marathon as a firing ship, things are much different), and we have a boresight on the Marathon, using our –FULL- AD.
Under Raking Fire, we turn once to bring it into boresight, and declare we have boresight. We can no longer turn, if we want to maintain boresight/raking fire on the Marathon. The Marathon’s initiative comes around, it moves and requires an additional 25 degrees of turn to bring back into boresight, but is still in the forward arc. Under “Raking Fire” our ship remains how it was facing before the enemy moves, with no changes.
When firing comes around, our ship is still facing towards where the ship with no changes, but we can shoot at the Marathon with our boresight weapon, however at –HALF- AD.
Conclusion:
Raking fire uses a limitation on maneuver, in that you work within your initiative, and have to boresight the target like normal, in addition to an AD Penalty, in exchange for being able to shoot a boresight weapon in the forward arc. Assuming your target stays in the forward arc.
In essence, the advantage of firing a Boresighted weapon in the forward arc is countered by the fact that in order to do so you have to boresight the target before it moves, and you fire at half your AD.
FTT SA uses the limitation of having to save one turn in addition to using your SA in exchange for being able to turn an additional 45 degrees and turn out of initiative order to fire a boresight weapon at full AD. Assuming your target doesn’t move faster than you can turn 45 degrees.
FTT also has the added advantage of being able to unmask guns in different arcs that may not have had arc previous to the second turn from FTT, if the target moves enough to unmask the arc.
With FTT, the benefits of firing a boresight weapon at full AD is paired with the additional advantage of turning out of initiative and possibly unmasking new fire arcs that had no arc before, is countered by the requirement of saving one turn and using up an SA.
The benefit you get of firing in a forward arc is essentially exactly the same as you get saving a 45 degree turn; they essentially cancel each other out, as a forward arc is 90 degrees and saving a 45 degree turn, the bare minimum turn, is precisely the same. The only difference is that Raking Fire means a ship with lumbering 1/45 degree turn can fire its boresighted weapon at half AD, provided it gets boresight on the target before it moves, while FTT SA enables the lumbering 1/45 degree turn ship to save its turn and boresight the enemy after he moves, at his full AD.
FTT is an SA, so yes you can’t use any other SA; however, compared to the fact that “Raking Fire” reduces the boresighted weapon to half its AD, I fail to see how FTT is somehow more balanced. 8 AD is better than 4 AD, even if you TL it. And in the case of Drazi, this is a non-issue; all of their non-beam boresighted weapons are twin-linked. Though under FTT, a Firehawk can fire both its weapons at its FULL AD, while under Raking Fire, that AD is halved.
Of course, with “Raking Fire” you could use SAs such as CBD! and CAF!, but I don’t see why we should penalize boresight fleets further for what is largely a metagamed and largely artificial limitation on boresight weapons.
Regardless, under “Raking Fire” even using these SAs, you are penalized because your boresight weapon is firing at half AD. And using other firepower affecting SAs only reduce this further, such as IAD! which would reduce the AD down to 1/4th.
CBD! is also balanced out by the fact if you use it, and use “Raking Fire” that boresighted weapon is the only one you can fire, and its firing at half AD: Hardly benefits outweighed by cost.
A squadron of four Firehawks under Raking Fire would get 5+ saves, but they could only use one of their boresight weapons at half AD.
A squadron of four Firehawks under FTT SA would get no saves, but they could fire both boresight weapons at their full AD.
CAF! is balanced out because you’re firing the boresight weapon at half AD, and every boresight weapon I’ve ever seen is either beam or twin-linked, so it doesn’t benefit. And you have to use CAF! on the target you’re trying to boresight, so only your forward arc weapons are firing and they would do so anyway. They just get TL, and you’d have probably have done that anyway, if you CAF!
Under FTT, you can’t use CAF! or any other SA but you do gain the benefit of firing your boresighted weapon at full AD, in addition to all your other weapons.
Ultimately, they are fairly equivalently balanced, though I am inclined to favor Raking Fire because I see it as less complicated, more in-tune with the dynamics of the initiative system, more representative of the show and the dynamics of the battle itself, and a bit more balanced.
