Ways to fight stealth

[Burger]

A boresighted White Star wouldn't be that bad. Not as good, of course. But with the introduction of Blue Stars, the ISA can easily stock up on the essential initiative sinks to field boresight ships.

 

[H]

A boresighted White Star wouldn't be that bad. Not as good, of course. But with the introduction of Blue Stars, the ISA can easily stock up on the essential initiative sinks to field boresight ships.

and a whitestar is more maneouvreable than anything but Vree and Shadows*.

*disclaimer. their MAY be more maneuvreable ships, the Ipsha for example, but i'm generalising

 

[tneva82]

Only to support your point. That was in the first season, when the (bad acting) commander, Sinclair, did all the thinking and ordering not to fire. In other words, although it would seem to me that if we were to, more closely follow the show, then a failed stealth roll would waste a slow-loading shot.

Actually second season with commander being Sheridan.

But why would that hinted at wasting slow-loading? Stealth turned off, they could be locked to just as easily as any earth vessel. Only thing note of note regarding stealth is precicely the fact that EA had never managed lock on before that against minbari vessels with stealth activated.

 

[Locutus9956]

Only thing note of note regarding stealth is precicely the fact that EA had never managed lock on before that against minbari vessels with stealth activated.

Which is my number one issue I have with making stealth 'random' in its effectiveness. Make it a fixed effect, game plays better, rule is less frustrating and luck dependant (both to play as AND against) and also makes more sense from a fluff standpoint and makes the game FEEL more B5ey. Some things I like in ACTA more than B5Wars for example, interceptors and adaptive armour being two prime examples that really feel RIGHT in how they effect the game, but the two things I always felt B5 Wars NAILED right on the head and got the B5 'Feel' perfectly were Minbari Jammers and Shadow energy absorption and 'pilot/ship pain' (which ACTA now thankfully does to an extent with the shields rule and the pinning rule, how well they work in ACTA I've yet to see for myself in this case).

The current stealth rules DO work and arent as annoying (at times) as they were previously, and are (as always) not unbalanced, but the just dont FEEL right. They dont make me think 'B5'.

 

[madpax]

Which is my number one issue I have with making stealth 'random' in its effectiveness. Make it a fixed effect, game plays better, rule is less frustrating and luck dependant

Not saying I would like a change in stealth, but what would be your suggestion?

Otherwise, say the word 'stealth' and you swamp the forum :lol:

Marc

 

[Locutus9956]

Read back in this thread a bit, I put one possible ideaup.

EDIT: (or read below, I should emphasise its a VERY basic idea, that would need fine tuning)

 

[Locutus9956]

In fact here it is again with the rest of the post trimmed away

Stealth: The stealth number is simply the number required to hit this ship. Beams, Mini Beams, AP and SAP have no effect, you must still roll the stealth number to hit. Twin linking and CAFing DOES apply. All current modifiers to stealth apply as normal (-1 at 8", fighters ignore in base contac (and fire at hull rating), +1 over 20", scout can lower by 1, Vorlons and Shadows count it as 1 lower etc etc) With beam weapons AD that hit and reroll only need their normal 4+ to CONTINUE to hit (only the initial AD are affected by the stealth rating

Now for this rule to work would of course require Minbari ships to be made signifigantly tougher in terms of actual hit points and crew and thresholds but I think it could work well. Oh and their actual HULL values would probably need dropping somewhat so that without their stealth theyre very easy to hit.

Also of note it is possible for the stealth rating once modifiers are applied to EXCEED 6, thus making the ship impossible to hit. For example, if we gave a Sharlin stealth 6, then at long range or mid range on silent running it would be immune to enemy fire (basically undetectable) but even at long range on silent running, if it was scout locked and another (closer) ship had alreay hit it, you would cancel out the +2 bonus with your -2 effect and thus still hit it on 6s....

Similarly, that same Sharlin, with stealth 6, at short range, scout locked, and having already been hit, shot at by shadows would be hit on a 2+.....

Thinking about it I would say that if the stealth target number is lower than the number you would need to hit if the stealth wasnt there then you use the hull number to target (for example if we gave that sharlin hull 4 then a normal weapon or a beam would still need to roll a 4 to hit even if the stealth rating was reduced to 2 or 3. But an SAP weapon would only need a 2 if stealth was reduced to 2. Basically you only roll against the stealth rating if it makes the shot HARDER, otherwise you are deemed to have effectively defeated the stealth system and are simply firing at the ship.

EDIT: Id also say that precice weapons would gain no benefit unless the stealth target number is lower than the hull target number.

 

[Burger]

I don't understand how your idea would relate to the hull values: are you rolling against the stealth rating instead of the hull rating? Or rolling each AD against stealth, then rolling it against hull?

Or just one roll, against MAX(stealth,hull)? Modified stealth or raw stealth? Can you give some examples, such as firing at a Leshath (stealth 6, hull 4)and firing at a Troligan (stealth 3, hull 6)?

 

[tneva82]

and also makes more sense from a fluff standpoint and makes the game FEEL more B5ey

How's so? Stealth in B5 series was pretty much on/off. You had lock or you didn't have lock.

 

[Sulfurdown]

Sounds like he's substituting the Stealth for Hull unless the Hull is higher.

 

[H]

Sounds like he's substituting the Stealth for Hull unless the Hull is higher.

which is just variable hull on one ship essentially.

 

[Locutus9956]

and also makes more sense from a fluff standpoint and makes the game FEEL more B5ey

How's so? Stealth in B5 series was pretty much on/off. You had lock or you didn't have lock.

Erm. Thats kind of the point, it was basically: You dont have a lock. Period. You NEVER have a lock unless they TURN OFF THEIR STEALTH.

So the current rule with that fluff could only really be justified as 'roll to see if the minbari crew are stupid and press the big off button by mistake'....

I don't understand how your idea would relate to the hull values: are you rolling against the stealth rating instead of the hull rating? Or rolling each AD against stealth, then rolling it against hull?

Or just one roll, against MAX(stealth,hull)? Modified stealth or raw stealth? Can you give some examples, such as firing at a Leshath (stealth 6, hull 4)and firing at a Troligan (stealth 3, hull 6)?

Its basically the last one. Just one to hit roll against whichever would be higher (out of stealth after modifiers, or hull after weapon traits) in a given situation. (and it would of course require some adjustment to the values).

But, for the sake of example, using current values:

Firing a precise AP weapon against a Leshath at long range would require a 7 to hit the shot would not be allowed.

Firing a precice AP weapon at that same Leshth at standard range would require a 6 to hit, but if you do hit you crit on a 6 and bulkhead on a 1.

Firing that same AP weapon against a Leshath at short range, after its been hit, and lit up by a scout would require a 3 to hit (since the stealth value would be 3) The score that would be needed to hit the ship without stealth would also be 3 but since this isnt lower than the 'stealth target number' your still shooting at stealth so dont get the benefit of precice.

If a Shadow player is firing an precice AP weapon at the same leshath at short range having lit it up with a scout and already hit it with another ship you would need a 2 to hit it by stealth but since you would need a 3 to hit its hull this number is the target number used, and since your rolling vs hull rather than stealth you DO get the benefit of precice and thus cant bulkhead and crit on a 5+.

I know this sounds hideously complex the way I've written it at the moment but its actually fairly straightforward.

Baiscally work out the target number for hull, and the target number for stealth and use whichever is higher as your 'to hit number'. If theyre equal you use stealth. If your using the stealth number, no precise, if your using the hull number, hooray for preciceness.

Emines and fighters at point blank always use hull and get the full benefit of all the rules they do against any other target.

 

[Locutus9956]

Sounds like he's substituting the Stealth for Hull unless the Hull is higher.

which is just variable hull on one ship essentially.

Basically yes but with the crucial difference that the 'stealth hull value' is unafaceted by weapon traits like AP, SAP, BEAM, MINIBEAM, etc etc (well it is a bit by beam (its in the original 'wall of text' )

 

[Burger]

I do like that idea a lot!!! Best stealth fix so far

 

[Locutus9956]

I do like that idea a lot!!! Best stealth fix so far

I know, I cant believe it never occured to me before, I was just thinking it through and suddenly a lightbulb came on I like it so much in fact that Im planning on tweaking the minbari list at some point and trying it out (and if it works well Ill probably houserule it at our club (but not for tourneys etc unless MGP want to implement it officially of course ))

The only issue with the rule that Im trying to think of a way round at the moment is currently it actually slightly penalises precice weapons with higher AP, SAP ratings (basically a precice weapon (or a precice beam or minibeam) against that Leshath would only have to lower the stealth to 3+ to be 'shooting at hull (and get precice) wheres an SAP precice weapon would have to lower stealth all the way to 1+ before it would count as 'shooting at hull') I suppose the easiest fix to this would be simply to rule that precice NEVER works vs a stealth target unless its stealth number is lowered to 1+, regardless of the hull target but this might be a bit too powerful...).

Any suggestions on this point would be welcome of course!

Edit: although I suppose, you could argue that a precice SAP weapon is simply LESS precice than a precice non SAP weapon Doesnt ring true to me though....

 

[Sulfurdown]

But, for the sake of example, using current values:

Firing a precise AP weapon against a Leshath at long range would require a 7 to hit the shot would not be allowed.

Firing a precice AP weapon at that same Leshth at standard range would require a 6 to hit, but if you do hit you crit on a 6 and bulkhead on a 1.

Firing that same AP weapon against a Leshath at short range, after its been hit, and lit up by a scout would require a 3 to hit (since the stealth value would be 3) The score that would be needed to hit the ship without stealth would also be 3 but since this isnt lower than the 'stealth target number' your still shooting at stealth so dont get the benefit of precice.

Even though they are the same value in the last quoted example - the Hull is 4, you're lowering because of Armor Piercing which means you're targeting the ship just fine and your weapons are then punching through the hull. Why wouldn't the precise trait function?

 

[Burger]

Sounds like a very good house rule, also good grounds for an S&P article! Doubt it (or anything else) will get taken up officially, although maybe in 3e?

Precise never working is a bit harsh... how about precise always still works even when shooting against stealth? Only things that wouldn't work is hull-affecting traits such as AP, SAP, Beam, Mini-beam? E-mines would always roll against hull.

 

[Sulfurdown]

I do like that idea a lot!!! Best stealth fix so far

Pending review & testing - Is this why CtA 2nd Edition comes in two books?

Sounds like a very good house rule, also good grounds for an S&P article! Doubt it (or anything else) will get taken up officially, although maybe in 3e?

Precise never working is a bit harsh... how about precise always still works even when shooting against stealth? Only things that wouldn't work is hull-affecting traits such as AP, SAP, Beam, Mini-beam? E-mines would always roll against hull.

Precise not working makes perfect sense to me if you're trying to punch through Stealth. It's exactly that the weapon is capable of very surgical strikes but your targeting is still mucked up by the Stealth. I'd just think that once you're rolling against Hull all the weapon traits come live. (So an SAP weapon could be targeting a Hull value and end up with a one point lower score then stealth - but that's the weapon cutting through hull by that point, you've already beat the stealth.)

 

[Locutus9956]

Got it. Looking at Sulfurdowns previous reply an solution occurs to me.

Precice, works as long as the stealth score is equal to or higher than the UNMODIFIED hull (you still use the modified number to actually roll to hitif its not lower than stealth)

So in the last example you would need a 3 to hit but becuase without anti hull traits like AP you would need a 4 (higher than stealth) you WOULD get the precice trait.

(Edit, seems Sulfur already beat me to it ) But yeah basically add the above to the main blurb (ill post a nice tidied up version of the rule once I've ironed the kinks out of it!)

 

[Locutus9956]

Sounds like a very good house rule, also good grounds for an S&P article!

Perhaps, Im not sure it works 'as is' with current hull/stealth values (but the more I look at it, it actually just MIGHT...). Only time will tell....