G'day,
Here's what Derek's come up with to (kinda) bring MT missiles into line with
the FB. He hasn't added any new kinds of missiles or anything like that,
basically he's only fiddled with the way they move. They seem to work quite
well (at least so far).
Once again (and hopefully the last time for today as my supervisor has now
walked in on me sending these email twice!) I hope you enjoy. And as always
comment away.
Cheers
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
Missiles
The following is a set of rules to upgrade the 'More Thrust' missiles found in
the More Thrust supplement on page 2.
Missiles are small-unmanned spacecraft carrying some kind of warhead
(usually nuclear), they move on the board in the same way as fighters.
Launching missiles.
Missiles are launched and then moved during the same phase as salvo missiles
are launched (phase 4) but before salvo missile fire is carried out, players
alternate launching Missiles from any missile armed ship. The player who lost
the initiative goes first, play alternates by ship. Counters, miniatures or
whatever is used to represent the missiles are placed in front of the ship to
indicate the launch.
One ship may launch any number of missiles, subject only to the number of
missiles the ship is carrying.
Moving missiles.
After all missile launches have been completed, all missiles (including the
missiles already in play as well as those newly launched) are moved.
Missiles are moved exactly in the same way as fighters, with players
alternating moving missiles with the side who lost the initiative going first.
Each time a missile moves it uses it uses one 'combat endurance factor' (CEF,
exactly the same thing as fighters use).
Missiles also may make a secondary move in the Allocate missile and fighter
attacks phase by expending a further CEF.
Attacking (or defending against) missiles.
PDS can target and attack missiles the same as salvo missiles and fighters,
but because missiles are single items (unlike salvo missiles and fighters that
come in groups) a PDS can only ever kill a maximum of one missile per turn.
Class 1-beam batteries and screening fighter groups can also engage
attacking missiles, for each battery a score of 5 or 6 will kill the missile.
For each fighter in the group roll a D6, if a 5 or 6 is scored on any of the
dice rolled the missile is destroyed.
Fighters can also intercept missiles in the same way they can intercept salvo
missiles, roll a D6 for each fighter in the intercepting group, the missile is
destroyed on a roll of 5 or 6 with any successful fighters having to roll
against the resulting explosion. A roll of 6 on a D6 and the fighter is caught
in the blast and destroyed.
Optional rule; if desired, players can use salvo missiles as a long range
missile defence. After all missiles have been launched and moved and the
players have moved on to launching and placing salvo missiles, salvoes may if
desired by the owning play be used to attack missiles. Place the salvo at or
within the salvo missiles' attack range and during the point defence fire
phase (phase 7) salvo missiles can attack the nearest missile still within
it's attack range.
To resolve this attack roll D6 1 for the number of missiles on target, if the
final score is less than one then there are no missiles on target and it's a
clean miss. If there are missiles on target roll a D6 and add the number of
missiles to the score rolled, if the final result is 6 or greater then the
target missile is destroyed.
Missile attacks.
A missile can attack any target within 6 MU (3MU if employing optional rules
while using 'vector movement') move the missile up to the target to indicate
the attack (Phase 6. Allocate missile and fighter attacks).
After the missile has survived all defensive fire it attacks the target, roll
2D6 for damage applying half (rounded up) to armour (if any) and the reminder
to the hull, screens have no effect on missiles.
Please note that unlike a fighter a missile does not need to expend CEF to
attack a target.
Missile Types. (sorry this table is going to mess-up in the conversion
from word doc to email txt file)
Type Mass Cost Move allowance Endurance Warhead 'Normal' missile 2 6 18 3 2D6
damage. Half to armour, half to hull. ignore screens
EMP missile 2 6 18
3 Enhanced electro-magnetic pulse on
detonation. Roll D6 on detonation and subtract one for each screen, final
score gives the following results.
1 - 2: No effect.
3 - 4: Roll for every
system on target ship, as if for threshold roll; systems are knocked out on
rolls of 5 or 6. 5 6: Roll as for threshold, but systems are knocked out on a
roll of 4, 5 or 6.
Needle Missile 2 6 18 3 Like the needle beam, this type of missile can seek
and destroy one specific system on the target ship. The missile's
owner picks it's target system and rolls a D6; a score of 1-3 misses the
target system but does D6 worth of normal damage, on a score of 4-6, the
missile finds it's target and knocks out that specific system IN ADDITION to
doing D6 of normal damage.
> Optional rule; if desired, players can use salvo missiles as a long
I wouldn't allow that. I'd say a missile is small enough that a salvo missile
couldn't be expected to detect it. Of course, if it were allowed, I'd a lot
rather have you waste your SLM on a missile than on my ship.
> A missile can attack any target within 6 MU (3MU if employing optional
Insert "at the end of its movement" here.
> Beth Fulton wrote:
Sounds good to me!
Bye for now,
I don't know. You could allow FT missiles as a salvo missile defense by making
them a separate missile type dedicated to this purpose, rather like the decoys
used in the Honor Harrington books. The HH decoys were essentially small drone
ships with enhanced signatures, ECM, etc. Very useful for pulling missiles off
course, but rather prone to attrition.
Decoy MT missiles wouldn't be worthwhile for smaller ships, but they might
become economical for some of the capital ships. Any thoughts on cost?
> Laserlight wrote:
Given the damage potenial of Salvo Missile pack (6 to 36 pts.)I would be
surprized of some races are not experiment with towable Wild weazel
like devices (SFB-temble). I have a house rules for decoys that reduce
the number of missile that impact by d6 with some restrictions.
> ---Jonathan Jarrard <jjarrard@ford.com> wrote:
Very
> useful for pulling missiles off course, but rather prone to attrition.
No! Please No! Not Wild Weasels from SFB!
> At 09:29 AM 3/5/99 +1000, you wrote:
[snip]
One comment - brilliant!
As in all extremely elegant solutions, the main thought I had was: "Now,
why didn't *we* think of that?". {:-}
> No! Please No! Not Wild Weasels from SFB!
Wouldn't a weaselboat from FT, or a dummy bogey do this anyway? An SML fired
in anticipation of a ships movement will not necessarily be within 36" of
the firing ship - an SML 'wasted' on such a ship/dummy, will serve just
as well.
Or can I assume that now the fleet book is in common use, that people don't
use them.
Denny Graver wrote in reply to Imre Szabo:
> >No! Please No! Not Wild Weasels from SFB!
SML fired in anticipation of a ships movement will not necessarily be
> within 36" of the firing ship - an SML 'wasted' on such a
> will serve just as well.
FT2 Active sensors (same as the MT Basic sensors) have a range of 54". If the
target flies fast enough for the SMs to be launched at that range, it has a
very good chance of dodging them anyway.
So, well... if your opponent routinely fires SMs at unidentified targets
moving at high speeds, the FT2 weasel systems might work. If he doesn't, he
isn't very likely to be fooled.
Regards,
Actually, I like most the original EW rule, and some of the More Thrust rules.
What I really don't want is "now that you have weaseled... (Include atleast 20
restrictions in this space.)" SFB is too rules heavy, and I'm forever leary of
FT getting too rules heavy.
IAS
> Denny Graver wrote:
> >No! Please No! Not Wild Weasels from SFB!
> Beth wrote:
> Missiles
And in the FB1 Mass and Points Cost Table, p. 11 :-)
> Launching missiles.
> One ship may launch any number of missiles, subject only to the
I'd add in the same provisio as for SMs (only in the FAQ, IIRC - not
explicitly stated in FB1): It has to have at least one working FC to launch
any missiles of either kind.
> Attacking (or defending against) missiles.
> Class 1-beam batteries and screening fighter groups can also engage
Since an MT-style missile is about as large as a fighter I'm sorely
tempted to let fighters use their normal anti-fighter hit rolls here.
(Well, OK, Class-1s too, but they already hit fighters on 5 or 6 <g>)
> Optional rule; if desired, players can use salvo missiles as a long
Only if you allow salvo missiles to target fighters IMO. (Especially if you
consider MT missiles to be smaller than fighters, which the
fighter-vs-missile hit numbers suggest!)
> Missile attacks.
Since you allow secondary movement for the MT missiles, the "3mu" range
vs vector-moving targets is pretty much irrelevant IMO. On the first two
turns it reduces the missiles' aquisition envelope from 18 mu to 15mu...
> Missile Types. (sorry this table is going to mess-up in the
Yep :-/
> Type Mass Cost Move Endurance
Apart from my intense dislike of the Needle missile (if a 2-Mass system
with a dedicated firecon is able to inflict on average 1/3 point of
damage and has a 17% chance of knocking its target system out, I just
don't see how a missile smaller than the ship-mounted beam and lacking
the support of the FC could possibly have a 50% chance to kill its target
system in addition to an average damage more than 10 times higher...), I'm not
sure I agree with these movement rates. (I'm not sure I disagree with them
either, mind!) The MT missiles are as fast as MT Fast fighters;
this version is slower than Standard fighters :-/ OTOH, giving them a
movement allowance of 36mu might be a bit over the top <g>
Later,
How about a smaller, faster missile to pad out the range
Mass 1 Move 24" Damage 1d6 Endurance 5 Cost 4
G';day,
> Only if you allow salvo missiles to target fighters IMO. (Especially if
We puposely omitted something here which you've picked up on. The logical
progression of targeting MT missiles with SMs is to allow SMs to target
fighter groups, Derek has had this in mind, but he's been concentrating on MT
missiles and was leaving SM vs fighters for a latter date. Then again it may
not be too far off as
he wants to do a re-fight for a system (NSL vs FSE) and I want to
field test my light and heavy FSE Arsenalship designs...
(Aaron I wouldn't mind borrowing your field again - I'll take good care
of it, promise).
Anyways, that's all I can answer for Derek. The rest will have to wait until I
take it home and show him, but thanks for all the comments.
Cheers
Beth
.
My comments on the missile rules:
> One ship may launch any number of missiles, subject only to the number
Just an idea: a ship may launch as many missiles as it has FCs. This also
helps prevent missile boat design abuses.
> Missiles are moved exactly in the same way as fighters, with players
This actually made alot of sense to me. Missiles should be at least as agile
as fighters.
> Each time a missile moves it uses it uses one 'combat endurance factor'
I also like the use of the CEF. The fewer mechanics we have to remember, the
faster the game can procede.
However, going to this system, especially if the secondary move is of any real
distance, significantly changes the balance of the Missile system. They were
originally fairly easy to evade with a fast moving ship, and even average
ships had a decent chance at evasion if they had enought time to prepare. Only
the big cows were pretty much a sure thing if they got caught flat footed.
It may be possible to rebalance by making the secondary move comparatively
small (6"?). Another idea might be to restrict the secondary move to a number
of arcs (front 3?).
> Class 1-beam batteries and screening fighter groups can also engage
You might save some breath by saying that "MT Missiles" are affected by
defensive/screening systems/fighters exactly as SMLs. It looked like
everything was the same to me.
> To resolve this attack roll D6 1 for the number of missiles on target,
I don't understand this. I THINK it says roll 1d6-1 for each attecking
missile, and then add a d6 roll. If the result is >6 then you killed it.
It seems needlessly complicated. An alternate might be to simply say that an
SML on target for a missile destroys that one missile. It's going to be
difficult enough to employ this effectively, why add more uncertainty with
lots of dice. Unless, of course, you're just trying to make sure that no one
tries it.
> Please note that unlike a fighter a missile does not need to expend CEF
Why not? I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, but they have to manuever
in for the "shot" just like a fighter. It would make shepherding that last CEF
much more interesting as well. Do I manuever and hope I get the shot now, or
come around for a better go.
> Type Mass Cost Move allowance Endurance
What's the secondary move (I'm guessing 9")?
I'd consider making all the Missiles: MASS 4, POINT COST 12. This is equal to
an SMR. An SMR does 12.25 points of damage to an undefended target.
Your missiles do 7 points, but have a much better chance of hitting (2 or
3x?). On the other hand, defences are more effective against them. Going by
this, MASS 5, POINT COST 15 might not even be out of line.
The EMP missile seems too effective to me. You might want to alter it to:
1-2: No Effect
3-4: Roll a "6" threshold test
5-6: Roll a "5-6" threshold test
... and even then it's pretty darn devestating, particularly against the big
boys.
My personal preference is that any missiles used in an antimissile role roll 1
PDS dice per missile used; so a full SML salvo in antimissile mode would roll
6 PDS die against the target. Against MT missiles, a kill is 98% effective,
but you've also expended a potential 36 pts of damage. Against another SML
salvo, it's resolved as normal, but antimissile PDS is rolled before you see
how many missiles are on target.
eg. SML antimissiles attack an SML antiship salvo. 6 SML PDS results in 4
kills, the antiship salvo then rolls it's d6 to see how many missiles are on
target after ship PDS is allocated; it rolls a 3. Since there are only 2
missiles left, that is the maximum number that can attack. Ship PDS is then
resolved, killing the last 2 missiles.
The main effect of this is to reduce the maximum number of missiles incoming.
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
Cmdr Robertson - GCV Southern Skies
Fleet Admiral Doyle - NKV Vesuvius (La Fayette invasion force)
Gunslinger, Emperor & all-around demigod.
[quoted original message omitted]
> My personal preference is that any missiles used in an antimissile role
It would follow to use the same rules against fighters, and that doesn't
work so well - talk about overkill !!
That's why I like the 1 kill per warhead idea better. i.e. an SML used on
fighters rolls 1 die, killing that many fighters. This represents each "on
target" warhead rabidly overkilling 1 fighter.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
How about "each missile in flight takes up a FC." This is actually quite
realistic, as many naval ships today have the capability of launching a
lot more (semi-active homing) missiles than they can control. SAH
missiles are also the only ones where you can pretty much guarentee that
they'll hit the right target, rather than something in the target's general
vicinity, which nicely ties in with the difference between MT Missiles and
SMs.
An FC used for missile guidance may not be used for any other purpose. Since
by the sequence of play, most MT missiles are likely to be fired
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
It also has the great virtue of simplicity. Which IMHO is a very powerful
argument.
> How about "each missile in flight takes up a FC."
This works for me; on the other hand, as missile armed ships are likely to
dump and scoot, the 1 FC "firing" rate seems adequate. I can, however, see it
both ways. Comments from the rest?