Tal Hawkins said:
You VERY clearly said that the Minbari would have an advantage for the next 3 weeks until new tactics were put out. If it takes new tactics that no one else has thought of to this point to take the Minbari on as an equal foe then quite obviously the Minbari are overpowered compared to the other choices.
So tell me what part of that is putting words in your mouth?
Umm, the part where I didn't say any of that. Tactics no one has thought of? Think of them! That is part of the game - otherwise, we would be doing nothing more than rolling dice against each other. . .
Seriously, you are hearing things I have not said. I did not say the Minbari will have an advantage for three weeks, and I did not say that we had intentionally made them more powerful.
I _did_ say there would be an anti-Minbari tactics article in 3 weeks and that we had intentionally made Minbari a tactical problem - the same is true, however, of most other fleets. Ask fighter jocks what they think of Narn, or enemies of the ISA what they think of White Stars, as just two examples.
To put this whole debate into context. . .
The issues seem to be the increase in Damage and Crew of Minbari ships, as well as a rise in the AD of their Beam weapons.
Most ships got a boost in their Beam weapons and most War level ships got an increase in Damage and Crew (the whole PL needed a little boost here and there as these ships were a little vulnerable for my likiing in the old rules).
As got the Minbari specifically, we raised them up because some were just not competing at their PL (the Tinashi springs to mind) but, most importantly, we gave other fleets the ability to erode the importance of Stealth - the Minbari had to have something in return or they would be owned by any League fleet that got its act together.
The result of this is that games against the Minbari _can_ be far less random, with the final result being based less on luck - I am sure we have all had games were Stealth either worked all the time or may as well not have been there. This means the balance is shifted, slightly, away from pure luck and on to player tactics. You cannot beat a string of 1's but you can alter the odds more in your favour.
Why do this? Because it does not change the complexity of the game (even with SFoS, there are very few new rules introduced, and most of them are for special cases) but it does increase the depth. That is, players will find the rules easy to learn but potentially hard to master - something we try to put into all our games, to an extent.
There is another factor to consider when it comes to balance between the fleets - the fleets are indeed balanced, but they are balanced
assuming both players involved know the rules and are experienced tacticians (in CTA terms).
This means there will invariably be some fleets that are easier to grasp than others if you are looking to get the full effect out of them. The Minbari are probably one of those (at least at high PLs - the emphasis on fleets shifts with the size of game too). The ISA are a more 'advanced' fleet that will require a greater understanding of tactics (especially at low PLs - White Stars are good but they are not the answer to everything).
The choice comes down to this - do you want a game where absolutely everyone has an even chance of winning, or do you want one that rewards players that stick at it? The former is easier to accomplish but will be more random and reward dice rolling over tactics. The latter can throw up oddities for beginning players (and you are all beginners where SFoS lists are concerned
) but should make for greater longevity in the game.
Back to the Minbari - we have given you the tools to defeat them and given the Minbari a fighting chance of maintaining a balance against those tools when they are employed. Don't use the tools your fleets have access to and the Minbari probably will own you. . .
