The Plasmatic Pulsar Device (PPD) -- UNOFFICIAL

[Captain Jonah]

Re stuff posted above.

PPDs are not focused or precise weapons, the PPD fires pulses of plasma and should act like plasma. Devastating rather than precise. It doesn't penetrate armour. The pulses in FC do not grant a higher chance of stripping weapons since all pulses hit within a single movement phase.

I don't see why it would go through shields on a natural 6, its hardly a narrow focus weapon that concentrates its entire force on a small area allowing shield breach and it is described as splashing plasma across the whole facing shield. Hardly a weapon to go through shields on a natural 6.

PPDs have variable damage to reflect how many pulses hit, unlike Disruptors or Photons a PPD has a wide ranger of damage.

In terms of the OP where the “To Hit Roll” determined the Multihit damage. My thought was instead of having an upside down damage you simply took one off the dice rolled as the damage.

Re Multihit multi AD.

Now you can treat them like Plasmas and have one per stat line and give that one multiple AD to reflect the individual pulses. Drop the accurate to +1 or remove it since the weapon has multiple AD to reflect the chance to hit with each pulse. They would be F arc only.

PPDs do some hefty damage when you add the splash effect as well, a lot more than a Photon does. Hitting with all 4 pulses at 10 hexes in FC will do 20 damage compared to a Photons 8. An overloaded PPD that hits with all 6 pulses will do a total of 36 damage, 24 on the facing shield and 6 more on the side shields.

So making it:


PPD range 24" 4AD, Multihit 2, Kill zone 10, Minimum range 4”, Devastating, Reload. Possibly Accurate +1 to reflect that each pulse has a 50% chance to hit at even long range and good chance to hit at shorter ranges

Can be overloaded, this adds 2AD to each PPD, may fire overloaded at a target between 4” and 8”. Weapon cannot fire at any target within 4” of the firing ship

 

[storeylf]

Re stuff posted above.

PPDs are not focused or precise weapons,...

In FC the PPD can be aimed at weapons/power, which would imply that it isn't quite as indiscrimate as you imply.

Also the PPD does have more chance overall of stripping weapons/power than many other weapons even when not aimed, as whilst all 4 pulses are treat as one volley, the 3 shields it hits are not. That gives you 3 chances to hit a weak/down shield, and if all shields are down it gives you 3 seperate volleys, which increases the chance of getting weapons etc.

I see no reason why it wouldn't leak throuigh shields, it does burnthrough in FC, and as noted the splash effect greatly increases the chance of hitting a weak/down shield giving you greater chance of internal damage even when actually facing a full shield. Indeed rather than devastating/precise I'd be more tempted to give it leak on 5+ to represent the way its wrapping effect finds the holes in shields. Failing that precise would give an effect more like FC - greater chance of getting the nasty damage lines.

PPDs in FC do upwards of 24 damage in total (not 20), they are the hardest hitting direct fire weapon currently in the game (except for hellbores, but that requires a overload, and overloaded PPDs would beat them if they existed in FC). They do that damage beyond overload range, or the range at which phasers kick in hard (which is why I said killzone 10 in my earlier post, to be better than phaser 1s killzone).

Making them multi hit 2 with killzone 10 though makes them a lot more potent than in FC compared to other weapons on the face of it, that is 16 damage possible (4 * a photon). Depending on special rules for splash/wrap damage that may or may not be to potent. It is supposed to be the scary long range weapon, and it certainly would be with 4AD, accurate + X, multihit 2.

That scaryness is, however, mitigated by its relative rarity. In FC it is limited by how many ships with them can be in a fleet. However, even if you didn't do that in ACTA it would still be limited by how many you find on ships. There are only handful of ships that carry them, 1 per CA, 2 per CS, or 2 or 4 per DN.

I also suspect that more than SFB/FC the ISC echelon formation will really come into its own in ACTA. Small plasma ships up front with heavy PPD ships behind will actually work in ACTA, where as in SFB (and FC to a lesser extent) that formation just doesn't work (big blob stacks are the order of the day). To a large extent I doubt that an all PPD fleet would work as well as the ISCs supposed awesome formation.

Overload PPDs don't exist in FC. I don't see a great need for them, I certainly don't see a need for them to get an overload range of 8", greater than other weapons with overload. Overload PPDs in SFB were extremely situational (you were less likely to keep the enemy in the 4-8 bracket through out 6 pulses compared to 4). That is why FC didn't have overloads, as it couldn't represent the very situational nature of such an overload it didn't hand out the awesome damage such a weapon could do when applied in one go. I think the same would apply in ACTA.

 

[SonOfOrder]

24" 4AD multi-hit 2, accurate +1, sure is a scary long range weapon, a disruptor :-D

How about 24" 4AD accurate +1, multi hit X, precise, reload.
Where is X is the number of attack dice which hit in a given volley.
So if only 1 Ad hits, its multi hit 1, but if 4 dice land its multi hit 4 and packs a real punch.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Actually like the Captian's stat line for 'A SINGLE' PPD. Again, don't feel it needs an overload option, and whilst i like the idea of a 'Leak' enabled Plasma, not to sure (though Bolts leak, so there is an established option for direct fire Plasma).

The more i think about it, i don't think it should canceal the Klingon special rule (thats for the Hellbore), and not too sure on the accuate AND Devastating - though see the reasoning behind it. If i had to choose, i think i'd go for the accruate (but as ALL Plasma has devastating :?: ), with both you have a weapon that is as scary as Photon's rolling a '6'.


The ISC are my fleet of choice, so i want them to be competative with the other fleets (i am a Gorn when the ISC don't exsist - and will eventually get my hands on some ships, only 7 months gone and 2 more to (hopefully) go :lol: ). That said, the PPD is the 'flavour' weapon of the fleet, and i can't wait to try a full 'Echelon' of 10 ships (as we will obviously have too many dreadnoughts - though the ISC Battleship would be Fun).

 

[storeylf]

Before you get to concerned about the apparent power of the weapon based on a stat line you have to account for how many you will have.

Photons and disrupters turn up 4 per cruiser, 6 per DN, and 2 or 3 for FF/DD size ships. you can have ~20 photons/disrupters in a 1000 pt fleet.

The PPD turns up 1 or 2 on cruisers and 2 or 4 on a DN. A 1000 pt fleet may only have 4-5 PPDs, probably 8-10 at max if they went all PPD ships (but that will leave you weak in other ways).

The PPD is more than a 'flavor' weapon. All the FF/DDs have plasma F, you only see a few plasma S on the larger ships, and there are no Plasma Rs. A CA has 2 plasma S and 1 PPD. It also has rear firing plasma, but they are odd, your heavy weapon is the PPD.

24" 4AD multi-hit 2, accurate +1, sure is a scary long range weapon, a disruptor :-D

Not really, A disrupter would be 1AD. Also the PPD will probably be reload, so half the above effectivenss, but still twice as effective as a disrupter overall.

Using the above line, A CS would have an 8AD weapon line, and a DNP would be 16AD. They are, however, the extreme PPD ships.

A CA would have just 4AD of PPD and a DNT would have 8AD, but they would also have 2 plasma S each.

However, in FC the ISC CA is the most expensive CA class ship by a good margin, a Gorn BC/CM looks cheap in comparison. On a straight multipler from FC the ISC CA would be ~235 points in this game, so you would really be comparing to almost a BCH.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

I like the PPD being represented by a weapon with multiple AD. I think its the best way of indicating that "more accurate hits more" and it also allows some leak through shields, with out it being an all or nothing event. Should probably add a note that the dice cannot be split against other targets.

Instead of killzone maybe PPD's can get get more attack dice at a shorter range?

-Tim

 

[Finlos]

The PPD can do splash damage but it really isn't significant enough to counter the Klingon's special shield rule. The way a Hellbore operates, when the Hydrans are introduced, will be.

I like the idea of the Overload! special action adds 2 AD but I think 6" should be kept consistent with other weapons.

An AD roll of 6 ignoring shields is a basic rule of the game, I see no reason to change that.

There is also no minimum range with photons in ACTA where there is in SFB (don't know about FC) so there is a precedent for ignoring the PPD's myopic zone. No stacking bases and the size of the ships effectively creates that anyways.

PPD range 24" 4AD [one AD per pulse], Accurate +1 (+2?), Kill zone 10, Precise / Devastating +1, Reload

The above statline has been suggested and I think that's the one I will playtest next chance I get. I'm still undecided about the precise / devastating debate. Precise sets it apart from other heavy weapons and also reflects the PPD's ability to strip the other ship of weapons and power. Devastating is appropriate but many other heavy weapons also have it. edit: I'm leaning towards precise.

Keeping a restriction of 1 PPD per ship total is flavourful but the general consensus on these boards seems to be against flavourful restrictions.

 

[Da Boss]

I quite like some restricitons and unique ships but you do have to do it accross the board I feel.

Your stats looks like an interesting weapon that is different to the Disruptor and the Photon

 

[Nerroth]

The issue of restrictions for weapons like the PPD is not one of flavour, but of game balance; the ISC in FC would arguably be overpowered of they had unrestricted access to the device, hence the specific limit built in to the rule.

Again, the web caster will be a good comparison, once we see how its rules are laid out. In the M81 Galaxy, a Neo-Tholian fleet packing loads of web casters is part of the point; to show how the Will was able to enforce its dominance prior to the Seltorian Revolt (and why the revolution would have gotten nowhere had it not been for the web breaker).

In the Milky Way, the strict cap which (4Q1e) puts on web caster deployment:

When players are allowed to select whatever ships they want (up to some point total), no more than 1/3 of the ships in the force can be Neo-Tholian, and no more than half of the ships in the force can have web casters.

makes it much less overwhelming a system; and one which is perhaps more evenly weighted against the lighter forces of the Seltorian Tribunal force sent against them (since the heaviest Selt warships had to be left back in the home galaxy).

If Mongoose say that, to avoid the web caster being overpowered in ACtA:SF, there will indeed be a deployment cap of some kind, the door would thus be open for a similar restriction with the PPD.


And photons have no minimum range in FC, and have no feedback rules to be wary of either. (However, there are no proximity photon rules in that game, hence the lack of them in ACtA:SF.)



EDIT: As an aside, there is one other thing to consider for the ISC, for those who aren't familair with them; the rear-firing plasma-Fs.

If you look at the Squadron Scale Ship Card for the Command Cruiser (ignore the Fleet Scale edition for conversion purposes) you'll see two sets of three plasma-F launchers with side-to-aft launching arcs.

In FC, these are handled simply enough with a specific rule (4J6); anything smaller than a battleship can fire only one torpedo from either bank at a ship (BBs can fire one per side), while the rest can be used defensively gainst drones, shuttles and whatnot (akin to plasma-Ds).

This should be simple enough to port over; allow only one aft-firing torpedo (or one per side for the BB) to fire at a ship, but give the rest the same special rules as plasma-D racks (and allow them to be fired offensively at shuttles).


Between the rear-firing Fs and the PPDs, that should cover everything the Pacification fleets should need to be accommodated for in this game system.

 

[Da Boss]

Sounds like it would be easier to juts call them Plasma-Ds and be done with it?

re the ISC special formations - how are they supposed to work in the fluff - only because in B5 - the Dilgar had a very cool Pentacon rule whihc allowed thier squadrons of 4 or 5 ships to skip an initiave pass as well as giving them scary amounts of firepower. SOunds like a special rule could be made up here to be be cool

 

[Nerroth]

Because they are not plasma-Ds; they are their own weapon system. (Plus, if I recall, there may be an ISC escort with D-racks slated for conversion to FC in this year's Reinforcements Attack module. I may be wrong on the CLE using Pl-Ds, though.)


Generally, the ISC use the Echelon formation; a "gun line" with 4-6 frigates or destroyers, a second line with cruisers, and an anchor ship (such as a dreadnought) backing it all up. The idea being that the PPDs from the second and third lines can fire over the gun line, and use the smaller ships to soak up enemy fire in order to minimize losses of key capital ships.

It worked well enough against (most) other Alpha Octant fleets, but ran into a few problems with the Tholians (and their cast web) and even more so with those pesky Andromedans...

 

[Da Boss]

Hmm you might then allow ISC ships in squadrons to use the old SA (although I Always thought it was a very Star Trek thing in general)

Manoeuvre to Shield Them!
Crew Quality Check: Opposed
Effect: With careful manoeuvring, the Captain orders his ship
to physically shield another from attack. If an enemy attempts
to fi re at another friendly ship and draws a line that passes
within 1” of this ship’s measuring point or stem of the base, then
an opposed Crew Quality check must be made. If your ship
rolls higher, then the enemy must attack this ship (Stealth and
Dodge traits will not apply against this attack). If you roll equal
or lower, the enemy will continue to attack the original target.
You may only shield a ship that is within 5” of your own.

 

[storeylf]

Generally, the ISC use the Echelon formation; a "gun line" with 4-6 frigates or destroyers, a second line with cruisers, and an anchor ship (such as a dreadnought) backing it all up. The idea being that the PPDs from the second and third lines can fire over the gun line, and use the smaller ships to soak up enemy fire in order to minimize losses of key capital ships.

It worked well enough against (most) other Alpha Octant fleets, but ran into a few problems with the Tholians (and their cast web) and even more so with those pesky Andromedans...

All fictional - in either SFB or FC playing that way will tend to get you beaten. As a generalisation those games favor blobs in the same hex, FC a bit less so due to its stacking limit.

 

[Da Boss]

hence my suggestion - its always fun to try and make some of the fluff come alive in the game IMO

 

[Nerroth]

One thing I look forward to seeing in ACtA:SF is how empires which are supposed to use proper formations (like the ISC) will actually get to use them.

I never much cared for the superstack. (Yes, FC's stacking limit helps cut down on this, but even so.)

 

[Jean]

From past experience I doubt MGP have strong views either way - and ADB have a very limited official presence these days over here it seems.

Oh, I think Jean's still here as much as ever.

I am still here and as long as things are going well, I don't see a need to post just so you know that I am reading things.

Jean

 

[storeylf]

hence my suggestion - its always fun to try and make some of the fluff come alive in the game IMO

I can see the ISC playing a bit more like they are supposed to in ACTA, as long as he PPD has the range and power to make that sort of tactic viable. But you are right, with the ISC I'd like to see them designed in a way that makes their supposed doctrine actually work well.

To an large extent that would require that the PPD be designed with long range punch in mind, even if it means dropping the short range power. Instead of replicating what it does in SFB/FC look to what the ISC are supposed to fight like in the fluff, and give them the weapon that it is supposed to be to allow that. From what I remember it was suppsoed to be the long range weapon, that could hammer anything at range, whilst the picket lines prevented anything closing on it.

Range 36
4AD
multihit 3
accurate +2
reload

That makes the short range capability less impressive relative to its long range ability. There is less incentive to get close with it (that the kill zone encourages) and more incentive to sit behind a screen blasting things at range.

The long range hitting power is quite impressive, a 1000 pt fleet with say 4 PPDs (roughly what I'd expect in a balanced ISC fleet) would shred a ships shields in 1 volley at very long range, averaging ~33 damage (6-9 woud be leaks). A slightly more heavy PPD fleet with a 5th PPD could be averaging ~42 damage. The half range point is equal to phaser max range, and over the range of plasma and photons, so it is still has a good short range in that no one can really keep out of it, but it is better to be close to it where those other weapons are good but the PPD is not really that much better. Of the existing empires only Klingons could hope to engage at range, everyone else has to close and face an ISC gun line with its plasma and good phaser1 suites, whilst enduring the PPD hammering.

No precise or devastating, just heavy long range hammering power.

 

[Captain Jonah]

24" range should be enough, 36 is far beyond what they have in SFB/FC and takes us back to the whole problem with Drones killing ships on turn one.

They are long range killers yes which is why I think they should have the minimum range, to balance them out. The ISC have a tactical doctrine of leading and flanking with cannon fodder ships to cover the PPD armed heavies, this is fine. It allows you to get in close and avoid the PPD fire (the ISC are not that manoeuvrable) but that means you are in close with a fleet full of FFs and DDs with all of their Plasma Fs and the rear Plasma Fs on the big stuff cover the sides as well as well as the rear.

ACTA-SF moves and plays very differently to SFB or FC. You want to avoid the ISC being worse than the Gorn and sitting in a clump in the middle of the map just rotating to keep the PPDs in arc but on the other hand you want the PPDs to be nasty enough to force people to close.

Allow them to be overloaded, if you are silly enough to get between 4” and 6” of a PPD armed ship, well that’s your problem…….

I think Accurate +1 is enough, they are not all but impossible to miss and +1 makes them 4+ at long range.

Having a kill zone reflects that even though they are designed for long range firepower they still do more damage at short range and makes them a more unique heavy weapon.

Multihit 3 makes them too powerful at long range particularly if combined with accurate +2. Perhaps Multi 3 with just +1 Accurate.

In terms of limiting the numbers of ships it very much depends on how the weapons work, with a minimum zone if you replace too many Plasma S ships with PPD ships you can end up fighting a war with only your lighter ships and phasers since the enemy gets tucked in close under the range of the PPDs.

I don’t know how Web casters or PPDs are going to work but my feeling is that if they are so powerful that we need special rules limiting how many of them you can have then they are over powered or under costed. The Neo Tholians are more capable ships, they should be more expensive to reflect that. Don’t force a Tholian player to only have a few of the Squadron ships and taking the rest of his fleet in PCs and DDs.

Balance the PPDs and the web casters, don’t impose limits on them. Point cost the ships, don’t impose limits on them.


The only factor which decides the make up of a fleet should be the player.

 

[storeylf]

24" range should be enough, 36 is far beyond what they have in SFB/FC and takes us back to the whole problem with Drones killing ships on turn one.

Not really. In FC all weapons are range 25 max. Drones are range 25, and the PPD is the same.

Range has nothing to do with whether you can kill a ship in one turn. I could have range 999 but if I only do 1 damage it won't kill squat. Equally I could have range 2 and wipe somthing out with 60pts of damage.

They are long range killers yes which is why I think they should have the minimum range, to balance them out.

Agreed. I forgot to mention the minimum range.

ACTA-SF moves and plays very differently to SFB or FC. You want to avoid the ISC being worse than the Gorn and sitting in a clump in the middle of the map just rotating to keep the PPDs in arc but on the other hand you want the PPDs to be nasty enough to force people to close.

No idea about what you mean by gorn sitting in the middle?

I think you are missing the key bit of my last post, ignore how it plays in SFB/FC and look to how the ISC are meant to play in the fluff. SFB/FC are no where near the fluff in that respect. Flying in 3 lines will lose you the battle in those games, the ISC formation that is supposed to be behind their whole ship/weapon designs simply doesn't work very well in SFB/FC. That is a shame.

So ignore SFB/FC and look at the fluff, remember ACTA is not a port of either those games per se, it is a port of the SFU, and the fluff is as much the SFU as those 2 games.

Allow them to be overloaded, if you are silly enough to get between 4” and 6” of a PPD armed ship, well that’s your problem…….

I'm on the fence with that. In SFB overloaded PPDs were very rare. You start firing at range 8, by the time you get to 5 impulses later, where the overload effectively starts, the chance that you are still in range 4-8 is very small.

FC did all of its fire in go, and overloaded PPDs would have been obscene in such a system, as they would deliver huge damage with no chance to avoid it like you could in SFB.

ACTA could well be the same, as you have few ways of avoiding the extra damage you should be wary of allowing it. On the othe hand overloads are somewhat harder to use in ACTA in the first place, so maybe.

But again, it is less about the mechanincs, and more about the fluff, PPDs were the long range weapon that sat behind screens of smaller ships, and I'd prefer to see them designed to encourage that sort of play, rather than giving close range killing power that encourages them to be used up close, or makes them look like that is what they are good at.

I think Accurate +1 is enough, they are not all but impossible to miss and +1 makes them 4+ at long range.

That depends what you are trying to achieve. I was trying to give them that long range punch, whilst having the short range ability not that much better, +2 does that better than +1 on both accounts, more long range damage and less benefit from short range.

Having a kill zone reflects that even though they are designed for long range firepower they still do more damage at short range and makes them a more unique heavy weapon.

All SFB weapons do more damage at short range (even photons whose hit chance increases greatly up close), PPDs are not unique in that regard, giving them killzone does not reflect them very well at all. Whilst I was the one initially suggesting it, the more I think about it the less I like it. They are a long range weapon, that does incrementally more damage up close in FC, like any other weapons in FC. Killzone makes them appear to be designed as a close range weapon which they were not really.

Phasers and killzone feels better, their damage output ramps up hugely as they get closer. A phaser 1 does 650% more damage on average at point blank than it does at range 9 in FC, and 1300% more than max range. The PPD doesn't come anywhere near that sort of increase in damage output as the range closes.

Multihit 3 makes them too powerful at long range particularly if combined with accurate +2. Perhaps Multi 3 with just +1 Accurate.

On what basis do you make that statement?

4AD, Multi hit 3, accurate +2 and reload makes them inline with 4 disrupters over a 2 turn cycle at long range, the disrupter being slightly better at short range. Whilst we don't know ISC points yet, I'd expect to see about ~4-5 heavy weapons of other empires per PPD, which is what you get in FC. It will be hard to overcome that ratio without going so extreme that you will be very weak in comparison up closer. The PPD has the edge in front loading the damage (always better) but has the problem of requiring a reload special action, will be more restricted arcs (on less manouverable ships), and is inferior at close range over 2 turns. So I'm not sure why the statline is too powerful at all?

Points depending of course, but I'd expect a long range slogging match between klingon and a ISC echelon fleet (ie. a good mix of small and large ships) would probably go Klingon, they will be dishing out about the same damage, or a bit more even, but not dealing with double strength shields.

In terms of limiting the numbers of ships it very much depends on how the weapons work, with a minimum zone if you replace too many Plasma S ships with PPD ships you can end up fighting a war with only your lighter ships and phasers since the enemy gets tucked in close under the range of the PPDs.

I don’t know how Web casters or PPDs are going to work but my feeling is that if they are so powerful that we need special rules limiting how many of them you can have then they are over powered or under costed. The Neo Tholians are more capable ships, they should be more expensive to reflect that. Don’t force a Tholian player to only have a few of the Squadron ships and taking the rest of his fleet in PCs and DDs.

Balance the PPDs and the web casters, don’t impose limits on them. Point cost the ships, don’t impose limits on them.

The only factor which decides the make up of a fleet should be the player.

yes. I broadly agree with that, for PPD anyway. The fact they appear in small numbers on a few (larger) ships is likely to be a balancing factor on its own. As I mentioned earlier, theISC ships are expensive anyway in FC, and I expect they will be in ACTA, I can see the CA being close to the cost of other peoples BCH.



For emphasis, The main point about my previous post was not to port the weapon as it appears in SFB/FC that closely, but rather design it in way that meets the ISC fluff more closely, in particular the supposed doctrine of their 'echelon' formation. That requires a weapon that is designed for long range hitting power, not short range.

 

[Wagged]

Just a couple of penneth worth wrt the ISC and ACTA:S F

In SFB the hex size was 10kkm if I recall correctly - which allowed you to 'imagine' the ISC in formation within that single hex. As has been said previously, fleets often became stacked to maximise concentration of firepower and to remove the possibility of a single ship being isolated.

It did not stop a single ship being targetted and wrecked up close, but it gave the impression that fleets were firing across great distances at each other.

Within ACTA:S F, fleets are forced into formations - but the distances represented appear to be exaggerated because of model size. if the gunline was base to base with the cruisers in an ISC miniature fleet, they would be the equivalent of 10kkm away in scale terms (Correct me if I've got this wrong) which makes them behave more like the 'fluff'.

With respect to the tuning of the PPD damage, from what has been posted,

PPD range 24" 4AD [one AD per pulse]... Seems about right, although I think it would be better to see 4AD, but rolled one at a time - and as per the flavour of the weapon - once one pulse hits, all following pulses automatically hit -although you might want to include the rolls to allow for a potential leak through on a natural 6.

The actual damage from a PPD would translate to multihit better I would think - but as with Plasma's the amount of damage (not attack dice) reduces with range? Multihit 6 up to 50% range, multihit 4 up to 75% and mulitihit 2 beyond perhaps? No reduction in damage for Klingon front shields imho - splash damage varied from 40-50% of total damage if i remember rightly and although it could be factored in to the actual damage to shields it might be a pain in the backside to do so with multiple ships firing PPD's.

As said earlier in this post - just my couple of penneth worth.