ok had this little niggle in a game against the FB2 sa'vasku
I attacked a sa'vasku cruiser well I think it was (they all look the same
didn't have time to count the spines!) with 2 heavy fighter groups and 2
attack fighter groups. All groups were fresh from the carrier. Now my opponent
then used the point defences of the cruiser to defend himself but also fired
an interceptor pod from the cruiser and an interceptor pod from another
cruiser which was a couple of inches away. This attack on my fighters
basically reduced 24 fighters down to about 12 and could have been a lot
higher!
Now I know fighters are easy to kill but what I had objection to were the
following: Heavy fighters gained no benefits against the interceptor pod.
Other ships could use interceptor pods to attack fighters attacking fellow
ships.
Now the Kravak scatter guns take into account heavy fighters and they are one
shot weapons. I know each interceptor pod strips a hull box but to be honest
it seems like a small price to pay for something that effective.
Did we get something wrong or does that sound about right.
Jeremy had his fighters decimated by Sa'vasku spicules and interceptor pods.
1) I believe it was intentional that interceptor pods could be fired in
support of nearby Sa'vasku (it's their primary ADFC weapon, I believe). 2) I
believe heavy fighters lose only D3 fighters to interceptor pods, not D6 (much
like against Kra'vak scatter guns).
But, I don't have a Fleet Book handy to check either of these...
> Jeremy had his fighters decimated by Sa'vasku spicules and interceptor
That's one up for the Sa'vasku then.
> 2) I believe heavy fighters lose only D3 fighters to interceptor
That would of helped since one of the Heavy fighter groups lost 5 fighters to
the pod.
> Jeremy had his fighters decimated by Sa'vasku spicules and interceptor
Your correct, it's intentional. The final paragraph in the Interceptor Pods
rules section reads "Any fighter group, missile salvo or plasma bolt within
12mu may be targeted, not just those attacking the firing ship.
> 2) I believe heavy fighters lose only D3 fighters to interceptor pods,
The rules in the Interceptor Pod section does not specify a different kill
rate against heavy fighters, however it does mention that it's effect is the
same as that of a KV Scattergun which as you mentioned essentially kills 1D3
heavy fighters.
> But, I don't have a Fleet Book handy to check either of these...
Hope this helped.
> I attacked a sa'vasku cruiser well I think it was (they all
Now *there's* verisimilitude!
- Sam
> Jeremey Claridge wrote:
Sounds like the ony error was allowing the pod to do damage against a ship.
If you think the Sha'Vasku are evil, just wait for the Phalons.
Bye for now,
> " If you think the Sha'Vasku are evil, just wait for the
""
Best read in a Sean Connery accent :D ;-]
This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received
it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the
information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents of this
message may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC, unless
specifically stated.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:04 PM, John Leary
> [SMTP:john_t_leary@pronetusa.net] wrote:
> Sounds like the ony error was allowing the pod to do damage
He didn't say it did damage to a ship only that non attacked SV ships fired
Interceptor Pod's (IP) at his Heavy Fighter (HF) group. Reading the IP rules
it makes no mention of being able target ships (the KV Scattergun (SG) rules
do explicitly) so, I agree you can't attack ships with IP's.
I'd say the intention in FB2 was to make the IP like the SG in attacking
fighters and ordnance such as missiles. pp10: Scatterguns: para 9
Thus the reduction of HF kills to half is valid for IP's too
IP's can also fire on *any* target (Fighter Group, Missile, Plasma Bolt)
within 12mu even those not attacking the firing ship pp23: Interceptor Pods:
para 4
This last rule may be a bit ambiguous about whether you can attack any target
within 12mu with an IP, even if its not attacking *anything*. My reading is an
IP can target anything within 12mu whether attacking or just flying by.
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:04 PM, John Leary
[OFFICIAL mode on...]
Yes. The IP is the SV's Area Defence weapon. The half-hits vs. heavies
is valid.
IPs have no effect against ships - use a lance or leech pod against
them.
[OFFICIAL mode off...]
> [OFFICIAL mode on...]
heavies is
> valid.
Am I the only one then who thinks this IP weapon ruins fighters and their use
in FT? Personally if I where playing the Sa'vasku I would bring along ships
that were just floating IP generators and attach them to my ships.
At least with Scatter guns you know the second wave of fighters might have an
easier time of it.
and before people say it. Yes my fighters did get a mauling and yes I am
bitter:) I'm also someone with 22 fighter groups all painted up and based and
they are not coming out to play anymore!
I would disagree with your ascertain that Interceptor Pods are unbalanced. As
you pointed out, Scatter Guns go away after one use. However, they are not
limited to larger KV vessels. The mass of a Pod Launcher makes them hard to
fit on very small vessels. Also, they do not reduce the hull integrity of the
KV ship as the Interceptor Pods do.
As to your comment about bringing along floating IP generators, what is to
stop a KV player from bringing along a floating Scattergun platform? It
amounts to about the same.
I think that the real trick is to make sure that valid victory conditions are
specified for the scenario. If you base it on damage, then each time the SV
use a pod weapon or launch drone pods, it is contributing toward the victory
points of the enemy. If you base it on number of ships lost, then the SV could
bring in "Mass Donors" (ships with a lot of mass and a womb to "gift" another
ship with mass as it uses it in combat) that sit back out of range. If you
base it on damage inflicted, then it becomes a bookkeeping nightmare.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
heavies
> is
***
I think that the real trick is to make sure that valid victory conditions are
specified for the scenario. If you base it on damage, then each time the SV
use a pod weapon or launch drone pods, it is contributing toward the victory
points of the enemy. If you base it on number of ships lost, then the SV could
bring in "Mass Donors" (ships with a lot of mass and a womb to "gift" another
ship with mass as it uses it in combat) that sit back out of range. If you
base it on damage inflicted, then it becomes a bookkeeping nightmare.
***
Here I go again, commenting on the item when it's not seen my hand, but I will
point out that damage inflicted is necessary when more than two players are
involved, but that would seem easy enough to give the IP 'loss' VP's
to the owner(s) of the fighters/missles/etc., right?
Ya gots ta luv a weopen like this: go ahead, hit me, and give me more points!
(Not that I'm saying enough VP's; don't have the numbers.)
Feel free to spank me if I've missed the point.
The_Beast
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
> If you base it on number of ships lost, then
> I would disagree with your ascertain that Interceptor Pods are
Well I don't like the no extra cost to be able to fire an anti-fighter
weapon in support of another ship.
> As to your comment about bringing along floating IP generators, what
It
> amounts to about the same.
Point taken both weapons are open to abuse.
> I think that the real trick is to make sure that valid victory
But what about a straight fight with no specific scenario.
Personally I would have thought keeping the interceptor pod to a point defence
weapon for only things attacking that ship and dispense with
the 12 range against any missiles/fighters.
Knowing that you could be facing a 1d6 damage from one ship is bad enough.
With the possibility for the neighbouring ships within 12 to give you a
pounding keeps my fighters in the docking bay until the enemy don't have
enough hull left to throw at them. But that's a hell of a gamble.
To be honest this sounds like the Tuffley Missile Crisis (as I like to call
it) we had when FB2 came out and everybody hated the new missiles.
There's just no pleasing some people:)
> I would disagree with your ascertain that Interceptor Pods are
Firing IPs cost a point of bio-mass and 3 PP. The firing of such
precludes the Pod Launcher's use in another mode during that turn. The Pod
system is quite flexible, choosing which mode to use during the turn when
appropriate.
> As to your comment about bringing along floating IP generators, what
It
> amounts to about the same.
Abuse, I'm not so sure.
All sides have Area Defense Weapons of sorts with advantages and
disadvantages. Some are better than others when the dealing with particular
forces and tactics.
What's to keep the Phalons from using ships with a load of Pulsars and an ADFC
in the same manner (they can also fire those Pulsars offensively when they're
not needed on the defense).
> But what about a straight fight with no specific scenario.
The Spicule already serves this purpose. The IP is more effective but
cost a bio-mass, 3 power points instead of 1 and the use of a more
expensive and larger ship component.
> Knowing that you could be facing a 1d6 damage from one ship is bad
Other tactics might work as well. There's no need to leave the fighters in
their bays.
Fighters could launch and hold off outside the bulk of the enemy fleet keeping
them from potentially being lost if a bay is lost. Fighters
can also hold outside IP range, picking off ships that fall out/leave
formation, using their secondary move ability to jump at targets of
opportunity. Another consideration is combining your fighter attacks
with close assaulting of your ships - forcing the SV to choose whether
to use Interceptor Pods or Lance/Leech Pods that turn, protecting
either your ships or fighters by virtue of tying up these weapon systems.
> To be honest this sounds like the Tuffley Missile Crisis (as I like to
After several months of play I believe this issue will be clearer (and
I'll probably be proven wrong) ;-) I have a feeling there will be
other item(s) in FB2 that haven't been mentioned in this forum yet that will
cause some commanders fits (some or all of these may require adopting new
tactics).
Your concerns may be very valid. Only time will tell... ;-)
> There's just no pleasing some people :)
How true... <G>
> Jon Tuffley wrote:
> [OFFICIAL mode on...]
That's the way it was playtested, yes.
OTOH, if an SV player fighting me wants to spend 3 PPs *and* 1 bio-mass
in order to get 1 range 12mu, screen-skipping "beam" die with no chance
for re-rolls instead of simply spending 3 PPs (and *no* bio-mass) for
*3* normal beam dice at the same range I'm not going to try to argue him out
of it <G>
Later,
> Jeremey Claridge wrote:
> Am I the only one then who thinks this IP weapon ruins fighters and
Keep in mind that the Pod Launcher Node is really a Mass 6, ammo-using
system - the Node itself is Mass 3, and it requires 3 Mass of Power
Generators to supply it whenever it wants to fire in addition to the
single Bio-Mass it uses up whenever it fires.
For 7 Mass (1 IP shot), a Human ship could carry 5 PDS + 1 ADFC. They
cost a bit more and are considerably less flexible than the SV systems, but
they inflict on average *more* damage on the fighters than the IP
does - and unlike the IP they are multi-shot. Add one extra PDS for
each extra IP shot the SV player wants.
> Personally if I where playing the Sa'vasku I would bring along ships
Many Human fleets already include special-built CEs with 2-3 ADFCs and
8-12 PDSs. What's the difference?
> At least with Scatter guns you know the second wave of fighters might
The key word here is "might", IMO...
> I'm also someone with 22 fighter groups all painted up and based and
You're not going to fight the SV *all* the time, are you? <g>
Kevin Walker asked:
> What's to keep the Phalons from using ships with a load of Pulsars and
You mean like the Klashh-Huulth (PACKER-E; ADFC + 3 Pulsers), Keraph
(PAGAN; ADFC + 5 Pulsers) or ADFC-equipped Voth variant (PACHYDERM-E; 2
ADFCs + 10 Pulsers)? :-)
...and that doesn't even include their PBLs - be prepared to use a lot
of secondary moves if you attack a Phalon force with fighters <g>
Regards,