Will P&P address PL?

[katadder]

well fighters in most sci-fi series including B5 are used for taking out the engines/weapons of capital ships. so the weapons are powerful enough to do this even on fighter sized craft. so capital ships should have no problem causing the crits on each other no matter the size.
bigger ships can just survive the hits longer and effect repairs.

it should be no harder to ever cause the actual crits, bigger ships just tend to have more back up systems and so can generally ignore the effects of the crits.

also under this save thing as you cant even get the crit damage we would have to look at lowering the damage scores of big ships. would you really want to have to do every bit of damage on a ka'bin'tak with no crits?

 

[Burger]

As it currently stands, a given single hit from a fighter (without Weak/Precise) has exactly the same probability of knocking out the engines (1/6 crit) on a Sho'Kov as it does on a Ka'Bin'Tak, and that makes sense does it? Personally I think not.

This is why I think essentially making critical effects modifiable by the PL level of the firer makes sense - certainly no worse sense anyway than the status quo.

Your example says that a larger ship should be less susceptible to suffering crits. It says nothing about sizes of ships causing crits.

Yes it does. It says they are both caused by a fighter. So his example is saying that a ship of a similar PL (fighter vs Sho'Kov) hyas the same chance of taking out engines of a ship 5 PLs above it.

Confirming crits based on PL difference sounds like a great rule to me. 2 PL difference = 4+, 3 PL = 5+, 4 PL or more = 6+. Simple and easy.

bigger ships just tend to have more back up systems and so can generally ignore the effects of the crits.

Sounds like you agree with me and fox then Big ship should _sometimes_ ignore crits that are caused by a smaller ship...

 

[Da Boss]

are you all talking about crit effects or damage or both :?:

 

[Foxmeister]

Your example says that a larger ship should be less susceptible to suffering crits.

No it doesn't - it states what the *current* situation is and then makes a comment about it. At no point does my example say that "a larger ship should be less susceptible to suffering crits".

It says nothing about sizes of ships causing crits. Your conclusion has just been thrown in there out of nowhere.

Yes it does - I've stated that I don't think it makes sense that a single hit from a Fighter should have exactly the same chance of knocking out the engines on a Ka'Bin'Tak as it does a Sho'Kov. Big ships and small ships - size is implied! Plus, my conclusion is perfectly consistent when taken in context with all my other posts on this subject so it has hardly been "thrown in out of nowhere"!

You seem to be arguing about the argument, rather than debating the debate!

Regards,

Dave

 

[katadder]

ignore the effects, not the damage, so not ignore the entire crit.
foxmeisters version ignores the entire crit or protects from the entire crit.

if I blow up something on a big ship it will still take the damage. however the big ship is more likely to have a backup system to ignore the actual effects.

 

[Burger]

So how about...

If the target ship is 2 or more PLs above the shooter, then you still roll critical hits as usual. But after, roll a D6 for each critical hit. If you fail to roll 4+ (or 5+ for 3 PLs higher, 6+ for 4 or more PLs higher) then the targetted system was saved, and the critical effects are not applied - although the damage is still applied.

Sounds great to me!!

 

[Foxmeister]

are you all talking about crit effects or damage or both :?:

I think it would be simpler just to ignore the crit full stop (as per VaS) since this would mean if the crit was "saved" (or "unconverted") you wouldn't need to roll the additional dice for the crit effect.

At this point though, I don't mind the idea of just ignoring crit effects and allowing the additional damage from the crit to go through, but then again it might just be simpler and quicker to say that for any "saved" crit the ship takes an additional 1d6 damage/crew (modified by DD/TD etc).

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

then again it might just be simpler and quicker to say that for any "saved" crit the ship takes an additional 1d6 damage/crew (modified by DD/TD etc).

That would make saved crits do more damage on average than ones that go through!!

I don't think it's any more trouble to still roll the crit, and also roll to save from the effects. One more rll, after rolling to hit, to damage, crit location and crit sub-location is not much really...

 

[katadder]

So how about...

If the target ship is 2 or more PLs above the shooter, then you still roll critical hits as usual. But after, roll a D6 for each critical hit. If you fail to roll 4+ (or 5+ for 3 PLs higher, 6+ for 4 or more PLs higher) then the targetted system was saved, and the critical effects are not applied - although the damage is still applied.

Sounds great to me!!

this would be too much as in effect gives them unlimited backup systems. where even the biggest ship would only have a limited amount of back ups.
which is why the original redundancy score with tickboxes for each crit effect ignored.

also on that you mentioned fighters would never be able to take out the engines or weapons of a ship as they would need a 6 followed bya 6 to even hit a battle ships vitals. which isnt right.

 

[Burger]

also on that you mentioned fighters would never be able to take out the engines or weapons of a ship as they would need a 6 followed bya 6 to even hit a battle ships vitals. which isnt right.

I make patrol and battle 3 PL difference, so 6 followed by 5+. Sounds fine to me. But yeah redundancy is a better option, however it doesn't seem to be liked by TPTB.

When exactly do we see fighters doing all these massive critical hits to big ships in the series, anyway? I can't think of any time a Sharlin, G'Quan, Omega or Primus is disabled by fighters...

 

[Foxmeister]

also on that you mentioned fighters would never be able to take out the engines or weapons of a ship as they would need a 6 followed bya 6 to even hit a battle ships vitals. which isnt right.

Why not? It's not impossible just very unlikely - the vital components of a Ka'Bin'Taks engines are likely to be buried very deeply in its structure and thus far less "accessible" to a fighters guns than they would be on a Sho'Kov.

After all, it was very, very unlikely that a single rebel fighter could successfully hit the exhaust port on the Death Star - so much so that it took someone with the ability to control something that "surrounds us, and penetrates us, and binds the universe together" to do it!

Regards,

Dave

DISCLAIMER - please note the Star Wars reference above is only meant to be an exercise in humour and not there to draw realistic parallels to starship combat in the Babylon 5 universe! ;)

 

[Foxmeister]

But yeah redundancy is a better option, however it doesn't seem to be liked by TPTB.

I really don't mind the basic concept of redundancy but the main problems I have with it are:

1. Rather than give a decreased chance of scoring a crit, it stops it dead (apart from the damage) whilst it is active. i.e. whilst redundancy is in force, a given hit has absolutely zero chance of knocking out vital systems. So when an ancient shadow ship fires upon a G'quan (say redundancy 3) it's going to need 4 crits in order to get a single critical effect - it may get lucky and blow it up anyway due to the additional damage, but that doesn't sound right at all by me.

2. Personally, I really don't think it will do anything to discourage swarms - it may take a little longer for the crit fishing to pay dividends but you know you'll eventually knock out redundancy and then you are back to where you are now.

You can "fix" (2) by making redundancy scores higher, but this in turn fubar's (1).

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

1. Yes... but G'Quan would not have 3. More likely, 1.
2. Maybe, but by the time you've knocked out redundancy, the big ship has whittled your swarm down a bit. And when swarm members die, you lose firepower. So the redundancy buys time for the big ship to knock out swarm members, to a manageable level.

 

[Foxmeister]

1. Yes... but G'Quan would not have 3. More likely, 1.

Realistically within a "standard" 5pt Raid (which seems to be de rigeur for many here) I really don't see it having much of an affect at all if it is pitched that low. It would probably make so little difference in game as to make it largely not worthwhile - of course I appreciate that this is purely subjective and playtesting may prove otherwise!

Regards,

Dave

 

[nekomata fuyu]

No it doesn't - it states what the *current* situation is and then makes a comment about it. At no point does my example say that "a larger ship should be less susceptible to suffering crits".

As it currently stands, a given single hit from a fighter (without Weak/Precise) has exactly the same probability of knocking out the engines (1/6 crit) on a Sho'Kov as it does on a Ka'Bin'Tak, and that makes sense does it? Personally I think not.

You're quite clearly giving an example and saying that it makes no sense that the size of the target doesn't help protect against the crit.

Yes it does - I've stated that I don't think it makes sense that a single hit from a Fighter should have exactly the same chance of knocking out the engines on a Ka'Bin'Tak as it does a Sho'Kov. Big ships and small ships - size is implied! Plus, my conclusion is perfectly consistent when taken in context with all my other posts on this subject so it has hardly been "thrown in out of nowhere"!

You've compared a small ship taking a crit against a large ship taking a crit, and then followed up with a conclusion that you should modify the crits based on the PL of the ship causing the crit. That's not consistency. That's trying to sneak in different conclusion by switching focus from the crit takers to the crit causers just as you make your conclusion.

You seem to be arguing about the argument, rather than debating the debate!

Part of debating the debate is showing why your conclusion doesn't hold water on the first place.


If you want to conclude that the chance of causing crits should be modified by the PL of the firing ship, your example should show the chance of Ship A causing a crit against Ship X, and Ship B causing a crit against Ship X. Instead you're not comparing any firing ships - you're just using the same firing ship to compare the results against different targets.

 

[Burger]

If you want to conclude that the chance of causing crits should be modified by the PL of the firing ship

No, not the PL of the firing ship. The PL difference between the firing ship and the target. In the case of fighter vs Sho'Kov, it is 0. For fighter vs Ka'Bin'Tak, it is 5. Example holds and conculsion is valid.

 

[Dave G]

Quote:
"This is why I think essentially making critical effects modifiable by the PL level of the firer makes sense - certainly no worse sense anyway than the status quo. "

As others have said the AD of the weapon defines its strength and power.
Bigger weapon, more attack dice, more chance of scoring crits.

Once a crit has been scored the ability of the target to "shrug it off" should not be dependant on the ship carrying the weapon shooting at it, but the ship that has just been hit.

Hence (option 1):
Raid ship ignores a critical hit on a saving throw of 6.
Battle ship ignores a critical hit on a saving throw of 5.
War ship ignores a critical hit on a saving throw of 4.
Armageddon ship ignores a critical hit on a saving throw of 3.

(option 2):
Larger ships have more spares, more crew, bigger wiring systems.
So (for example):
Raid ships have improved damage control rolls of +1.
Battle ships have improved damage control rolls of +2.
War ships have improved damage control rolls of +3.
Armageddon ships have improved damage control rolls of +4.

So with option 1 larger ships are less laible to suffer crits.
with option 2 larger ships still suffer the crits, but repair more quickly.

My personal preference is for option 1, with a slight twist.
The extra damage and crew loss is taken from the crit, but not the other effects if the saving throw is made.

 

[Foxmeister]

You're quite clearly giving an example and saying that it makes no sense that the size of the target doesn't help protect against the crit.

Once again, you are completely misrepresenting what said, which was:

As it currently stands, a given single hit from a fighter (without Weak/Precise) has exactly the same probability of knocking out the engines (1/6 crit) on a Sho'Kov as it does on a Ka'Bin'Tak, and that makes sense does it? Personally I think not.

The first part is a statement of fact, the second a rhetorical question, and the 3rd my answer to the rhetorical question. At this point I have made *absolutely* no reference to any crit protection whatsoever.

What you have done, twice now, is make incorrect inferences and then presented them back to me as if they were my own words.

You've compared a small ship taking a crit against a large ship taking a crit, and then followed up with a conclusion that you should modify the crits based on the PL of the ship causing the crit. That's not consistency. That's trying to sneak in different conclusion by switching focus from the crit takers to the crit causers just as you make your conclusion.

No - what I said was: This is why I think essentially making critical effects modifiable by the PL level of the firer makes sense - certainly no worse sense anyway than the status quo.

That little bit where I say "I think" means that I am expressing an opinion, and an opinion is not necessarily the same as a conclusion. I'm not arguing anything here, merely expressing my opinion which I am perfectly entitled to have. I think it works - your opinion may differ, but at no point am I saying that 2+2=Shag Pile Carpets.

Part of debating the debate is showing why your conclusion doesn't hold water on the first place.

(a) You make a claim that I say something which I didn't (see above) and use incorrect inference to back up those claims

(b) You use that erroneous claim to make a statement that I'm drawing a logical conclusion when in fact it is quite clear that I am stating an opinion.

IMHO, that is not debating but being argumentative, and I have no wish to play that game.

Regards,

Dave

 

[katadder]

have to go with some of the others here.
the ability to shrug off a crit has nothing to do with the firer, or its relationship between PLs.
if a weapon causes a crit, it causes a crit, no matter the size of the firer. the AD takes into account the firers ability to cause crits.

the ship that has been critted then has to have its redundancy against any ship of any size unmodifiable.
its best to have a certain number of crits a ship can shrug off as obviously if it takes 2 engine crits the same from differant targets, and using your save system you fail the 1st save, but make the 2nd then whats that mean? the engineers weren't trying hard enough to fix it, they suddenly stumbled across a cache of spare parts they didnt know they had? what? much better to ignore the 1st how ever many crits effects.

 

[Foxmeister]

its best to have a certain number of crits a ship can shrug off as obviously if it takes 2 engine crits the same from differant targets, and using your save system you fail the 1st save, but make the 2nd then whats that mean?

It simply means that the 1st hit hit a vital part of the system (and therefore the critical effects are applied) and the 2nd hit didn't - no more, no less. Both could've caused additional damage, assuming damage/crew effects from crits are carried regardless. I don't see that being a problem myself.

We're clearly not going to agree on this point though! There are a multitude of reasonable solutions to this "issue" and each is going to carry its own advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, I suppose all that really matters is:

a) Does the Ultimate Authority (i.e. Matt) deems this to be an issue worth resolving?
b) If the Ultimate Authority does deign to bestow a solution upon us, the solution we get will be the one he picks!

Regards,

Dave