Track that target SA

[Banichi]

I think bringing this SA into the game is a great idea, but personally I think 9 is too higher number to have to pass a cc test on to be able to do it. 8 would be better imo. (It would at least give pak warbirds a fighting chance of sucess)

A cc test with a target of 9, coupled to the fact you only get to use half your attack dice starts to erodes its use as a solution to init sinking.

I'd even be in favour of having it with a target number of 8, with a +1 to your dice roll if the ship you are targeting is lumbering, and -1 if it is agile.

(None of this is influenced by one of my fleets being EA. No no no, not in the slightest :wink: )

 

[Da Boss]

I'd even be in favour of having it with a target number of 8, with a +1 to your dice roll if the ship you are targeting is lumbering, and -1 if it is agile.

I don't know if its balanced but like this idea

- but would add Agile OR SM for +1 and +2 for Adrift or space station

 

[Greg Smith]

But you would never need to do it against an adrift ship or station.

Also, you don'y actually hve to specify a target when you declare the action, it simply switches your B arc to Front (or aft).

Interestingly, you could perform it with an Omega and use the front beam as boresight and the rear as aft arc.

 

[Banichi]

I didn't think that there was any problem boresighting adrift ships or spacestations. One doesn't move in the movement phase, and the other just doesn't move. (Greg must be a quicker typer than me :lol: )

 

[Da Boss]

But you would never need to do it against an adrift ship or station. .

Maybe you can't get it round enough to get it lined up but could if it was in your F / A arcs? :?:

 

[Da Boss]

I didn't think that there was any problem boresighting adrift ships or spacestations. One doesn't move in the movement phase, and the other just doesn't move.

One does not move but see my other post and the other does move - just in a different phase.

Also can you use this SA if you are adrift?

 

[Greg Smith]

Good point.

 

[Banichi]

I kind of like the idea of having to declare a target. Gives the targeted ship some incentive to try and get the heck out of your forward arc, even if they end up a bit out of position. It makes sence that if a ships sensors pick up that its being targeted the crew are going to want to do something about it.

Also having to pick one target to use this special action on seems more in keeping with the fact that the firing crew are trying to line up on one ship, rather than covering an area of space.

 

[Banichi]

One does not move but see my other post and the other does move - just in a different phase.

But it doesn't move in the movement phase, so can't avoid any boresights that can be bought to bare. Regardless of how many init sinks there are in its fleet.

 

[Foxmeister]

I haven't played with new SA yet (that's scheduled for monday), but my gut feeling is that CQ8 is probably where it should be.

Of course, the irony here is that one ship that should be boresighted but isn't would have an easier time performing this SA than most of the boresighted ships in the game....

Regards,

Dave

 

[Da Boss]

One does not move but see my other post and the other does move - just in a different phase.

But it doesn't move in the movement phase, so can't avoid any boresights that can be bought to bare. Regardless of how many init sinks there are in its fleet.

yeah but it might move out of the area you can swing round enough to be within boresight arc - or you yourself maybe adrift

 

[Banichi]

If it could move out of the area that you could swing around enough to be in boresight arc wouldn't it be out of forward arc anyway? (forgive me if I havn't got the right end of the stick with what you are saying, its been a long day)

As to the ship that is attempting the SA being adrift. I would have thought that being adrift would mean you couldn't do it. After all the targeting ship is trying to manuever to snap off a shot.

 

[Foxmeister]

If it could move out of the area that you could swing around enough to be in boresight arc wouldn't it be out of forward arc anyway? (forgive me if I havn't got the right end of the stick with what you are saying, its been a long day)

No - take a lumbering ship with a single 45 degree turn. If your target is at 45.1 degrees before you turn, you can't boresight it. With a F arc weapon, it would have to get beyond 90 degrees to get out of arc.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Greg Smith]

In those instances, a CQ9 test means Come About! is better - if it succeeds gives you your full firepower, while TTT will only give you half.

 

[katadder]

TBH its better to use come about in all situations with a boresight ship now looking at it.
the only times its better to use TTT is if you lose init, the enemy hasnt moved any ships into range and the ones in range are yet to move or if you want to target something that will be moving later than your ship.
all other times a come about will get you a boresight on a target that has already moved as easy as a TTT but with more firepower.

edit: this post has made me realise that its better to use comeabout 90% of the time so will be requesting a reduction to CQ8 for TTT.

 

[Triggy]

TBH its better to use come about in all situations with a boresight ship now looking at it.
the only times its better to use TTT is if you lose init, the enemy hasnt moved any ships into range and the ones in range are yet to move or if you want to target something that will be moving later than your ship.
all other times a come about will get you a boresight on a target that has already moved as easy as a TTT but with more firepower.

edit: this post has made me realise that its better to use comeabout 90% of the time so will be requesting a reduction to CQ8 for TTT.

Surely this was the exact purpose of the TTT Special Action though - it wasn't to give better options than Come About! it was to allow ships with boresight to fire at all when they wouldn't have been able to due to quirks in the initiative system.

I'm not ruling out a change to CQ8 however but I'd have thought it would be based on playtesting saying it's not enough just for the ships that move first (such as in an all-Drazi or certain Narn/EA fleets).

 

[wkehrman]

In those instances, a CQ9 test means Come About! is better - if it succeeds gives you your full firepower, while TTT will only give you half.

But, TTT gives you an arc. So if your intended target hasn't moved, it does not matter nearly as much. To avoid getting hit, the target must now make a concerted effort to leave the arc rather than simply sidestepping the boresight. Depending on the distance to the target, this may not be possible.

Since this is about power and computer recalibration, I'd say you can use TTT if you are adrift.

 

[wkehrman]

I'm not ruling out a change to CQ8 however but I'd have thought it would be based on playtesting saying it's not enough just for the ships that move first (such as in an all-Drazi or certain Narn/EA fleets).

Basing changes on playtesting? How dare you bring logic and order in here! This is no place for calm and reasoned debate!

 

[Greg Smith]

Oh, yeah CA! is only better if you have a target that is adrift/stationary/already moved and it is between 45 and 90 degrees.

TTT! is better if you have targets that haven't moved. Heck you could line a boresight up, but still TTT! in case it is destroyed before you get to shoot.

 

[Foxmeister]

I would be more than happy if TTT required you to choose your target when you perform the SA.

The fluff says:

Re-calibrating its main weaponry, the ship sacrifices power to get a snap shot off at a fleeting target.

More often than not, my issue with boresight is that due to init sinks, I can't fire on the target of choice. It's rather ridiculous that I can get off shot after shot against a succession of Hermes, but fail to be able to draw a bead on the Omega that's currently tearing me a new hole.

If I had to declare my desired target prior when performing TTT, I'm restricting myself to a single target in my F arc (so making the weapon generally less effective than a real F arc weapon), and my opponent still has the opportunity to try to get out of arc (but at range this is probably unlikely).

I think this would warrant a lower CQ test, with the proviso that if it is failed I can still move to attempt to boresight a different target. However, if I succeed, my boresight weapon *must* fire on the chosen target, or not at all if it is no longer a viable target when the ship gets to fire.

Regards,

Dave