Will P&P address PL?
- Thread starter animus
- Start date
That side of the implementation is quite simple. But it does open a whole can of worms full of othe questions. What if you have 2 points of armour left, and take 6 hits? Does that 2 armour protect against the entire 6 hits (that seems too powerful to me), or do you roll 2 of them in "crit immune" mode, if you get a bulkhead roll another one, then roll the remaining 3 that can crit? It might just be one more number on the ship sheets, but it is a whole lot more work to calculate what happens.katadder said:armour is easy to use in game though, its just an extra shade on burgers damage sheets
I tend to agree, it would be just bad luck if thats the only weapon left.
The way i would do it is, crits do an extra point & MoD would do an addition point as well eg The hit which is a crit does extra point 1 goes to 2 & if it had MoD goes to 3. The crit essentially doesn't get it's special effect just the dam without rolling on the chart for simplicity.
I'd also say armour doesn't protect vs beam & mini beam since they slice through it easily & they do crits as usual. Another reason why beams should be the ultimate & why ancients use them & nothing else.
Think it would be fairly simple way or a straight out ignore x amount of crits works just as easily. I'd prefer a way that the more severe a crit they more the take off the score.
I do think the game really need some sort of system though.
The way i would do it is, crits do an extra point & MoD would do an addition point as well eg The hit which is a crit does extra point 1 goes to 2 & if it had MoD goes to 3. The crit essentially doesn't get it's special effect just the dam without rolling on the chart for simplicity.
I'd also say armour doesn't protect vs beam & mini beam since they slice through it easily & they do crits as usual. Another reason why beams should be the ultimate & why ancients use them & nothing else.
Think it would be fairly simple way or a straight out ignore x amount of crits works just as easily. I'd prefer a way that the more severe a crit they more the take off the score.
I do think the game really need some sort of system though.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Target said:
Sorry - but that would hideously disadvantage those races which don't have many beams versus those that do. Think Dilgar vs Minbari!
Regards,
Dave
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Burger said:
I agree - damage to armour, as presented here, would need to be rolled individually until the armour was depleted which would slow down the game massively IMHO, but the alternative really fubar's ships with single weapon systems (and most especially the Shadows).
I still favour a VaS style additional roll (modified by PL) to score a crit when a 6 is rolled on the critical table.
Regards,
Dave
Another thing that could work would be to disregard the first crit-die from each weapon from ships of lower PL fireing at higher one.
Would certanly smooth out the problem of all smaller ships being more powerful also while when big ships going at each other could still get in som nice shots.
The good thing is that a Bismarck type of disabeling on a big ship would go from probable to very unlikley.
Would certanly smooth out the problem of all smaller ships being more powerful also while when big ships going at each other could still get in som nice shots.
The good thing is that a Bismarck type of disabeling on a big ship would go from probable to very unlikley.
another thought - if people don't like the additonal damage element of crits - add the damage multiplier as a mod to the crit roll for effect but does not mulitply the damage crew element of the crit.
so......
a Centauri battle Laser hits a ship - rolls location and then rolls effects normal
a Minbari Neutron Laser hits a ship - rolls location and adds +1 to effect roll
A Shadow Slicer hits a ship - rolls location and adds +2 to effect roll
A Vorlon Lightning Cannon hits a ship and rolls location and adds +3 to effect roll
probably nonsense :wink: but a thought :?:
so......
a Centauri battle Laser hits a ship - rolls location and then rolls effects normal
a Minbari Neutron Laser hits a ship - rolls location and adds +1 to effect roll
A Shadow Slicer hits a ship - rolls location and adds +2 to effect roll
A Vorlon Lightning Cannon hits a ship and rolls location and adds +3 to effect roll
probably nonsense :wink: but a thought :?:
I think a "Bulk" (Redundancy) score would be the best solution still. If people are still squemish about them, allow the crit to come through and score the additional crew and damage wreckage just ignore the first couple of effects. I don't think this would do enough to help big ships, but it would help. Something has to be done: Big ships have to balance against their "equivalents" at lower PL's.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
What about a different approach? Why not "reverse" Redundancy and make it a save roll.
For example, let's just say that Narn ships are big, thick, under-engineered hulls, and because of this they are less susceptible to losing systems due to critical hits. To model this in the game, we can give the G'Quan a "Redundancy" score of 4, which means that it can save against the effects of a critical hit (but not the damage or crew hits) by rolling a 4+.
Other large ships (e.g. say the Sharlin) would have the same ability, but the reasoning behind their "save" would be that they are engineered in such a way that they can frequently bypass damaged systems (a la Star Trek!), and so gain the same 4+ save.
Regards,
Dave
For example, let's just say that Narn ships are big, thick, under-engineered hulls, and because of this they are less susceptible to losing systems due to critical hits. To model this in the game, we can give the G'Quan a "Redundancy" score of 4, which means that it can save against the effects of a critical hit (but not the damage or crew hits) by rolling a 4+.
Other large ships (e.g. say the Sharlin) would have the same ability, but the reasoning behind their "save" would be that they are engineered in such a way that they can frequently bypass damaged systems (a la Star Trek!), and so gain the same 4+ save.
Regards,
Dave
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
This is the approach I'm supporting.Foxmeister said:
It can also take into account that 1 point of damage on a Tethys is much more likely to cause a crit purely because you're destroying ~17% of the hull, whilst that same 1 points of damage on a Victory is much less likely to cause a crit as it's only 1% of the hull. This is actually what I'd see as the main reason for such an ability, so I'd probably add Redundancy as a new stat rather than a trait.
This aspect is also easy to add in to the current stats - to start with, just say that ships with 0-X damage get "Redundancy: -" (or no Redundancy if added as a trait), X-Y damage get "Redundancy: 6", Y-Z get "Redundancy:5", etc. This is easy enough for players to add the new stat to the ships that they use beforehand, and then they can just use the stat as normal during gameplay. MGP can then release revised versions of any ships which for whatever reason should have a Redundancy stat different from this, and can include the stat as normal for any new ships released.
On the basis that the main cause of Redundancy would actually just be the the bulk of the ship rather than redundant systems, I would also look at abandoning "Redundancy" as the name of this stat. "Durability" maybe?
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
A PL based solution sounds horrible to me. A White Star isn't going to have anything like the durability of an Explorer.
Also, I hate the idea of complete immunity to crits for X crits followed by a sudden increase in vulnerability to crits thereafter. Not only because it needlessly increases the bookkeeping for the game, but also because it just feels wrong. I have no problem for increased bookkeeping for better solutions, but this seems to just increase bookkeeping on top of being a substandard solution.
Also, I hate the idea of complete immunity to crits for X crits followed by a sudden increase in vulnerability to crits thereafter. Not only because it needlessly increases the bookkeeping for the game, but also because it just feels wrong. I have no problem for increased bookkeeping for better solutions, but this seems to just increase bookkeeping on top of being a substandard solution.
Similar threads
