This Weapon of the Week forum is for multiple weapons, actually, but the same
game mechanic: the EMP.
There are several EMP direct fire and other weapons in the archive so far.
Several make a case for beign viable direct fire EMP systems. Those rusty on
MT2/More Thust should remember that the commonality in all these weapons
is that they cause threshold checks rather than physical damage.
This discussion could evaluate each system independently or as a group. If we
could come up with a "most favored direct fire weapon, or a hybrid of several
of the presented ideas as a new system, that would be pretty cool. Since I'm
putting in several, some may get short changed on the discussion. We'll see
how a multiple system WotW discussion goes.
Noam
EMP Weapons:
=============
Ion Cannon [Dean Gundberg] (Star Ranger's Crossover Web Page)
Mass and cost same as Class 2 Beam. Symbol is Beam symbol with "I" instead
of number. Range 0-10" roll 2d6, 10-20" roll 1d6 - beam dice. Each "hit"
is not marked off the damage track but instead is the number of threshold
rolls the target ship must perform. All Ion Cannon hits from a firing ship are
resolved one ship at a time. The threshold roll number is the same as the
target ship's next threshold level.
Threshold rolls are made for the following systems in this order: Screens
Special Electronics (Sensors, ECM, etc.) Fire Controls FTL Drive Main Drive
(Back to top of list)
============
EMP Mine [Paul Wellman] (Sam Penn's Website)
Mass: 3, Cost: 10
These release an enhanced electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) on detonation,
and are intended to scramble a ships electronics and systems without causing
structural damage. Roll one die, and subtract 1 for each level of screens the
ship has in use. The final score gives results as follows:
1 - 2 No effect.
3 - 4 Roll for every system on the ship. Systems are knocked out
on a roll of 6.
5 - 6 As above, but systems are knocked out on rolls of 5 or 6.
The detonation range of a mine is 3" any enemy vessel that enters this radius
at any point in its movement will cause the mine to detonate. EMP mines are
strictly one shot weapons.
==============
on Pulse Cannon [Paul Wellman] (Sam Penn's Website) MASS: 16 (Capital ships
only), Cost 3xMASS
The Ion Pulse Cannon is a spinal mount - it can only be fitted to fire
through the F arc of ships large enough to carry it. The cannon has a range of
54" and does threshold roles to ships hit, as shown below:
Range To Hit Effect
0" - 18" 3+ Target ship makes a threshold roll
for every system on board. Systems are knocked out on rolls of 4, 5 or 6.
18" - 36" 4+ As above, but systems are knocked
out on rolls of 5 or 6.
36" - 54" 5+ As above, but systems are knocked
out on rolls of a 6 only.
The pulse of the ion cannon is powerful enough to overcome any screens the
target ship has, so screens have no effect against the blast.
Comments: (Noam) I suggest decreasing mass, and possibly range, and allowing
screens
to modify threshold rolls by -1/level.
(Oerjan) Yet another basic EMP gun; this time long-ranged. Mass and cost
for FT2, not FBx.
===============
Scrambler Pulse [Noam Izenberg]
MASS: 4+1/arc (max 3 arcs), Cost 12+3/arc
Range: 18" Effect: As EMP Missile. Can target Missiles and Fighters in
intercept mode
as PDS. EMP backwash on firing ship for targets within 6" - Roll 1d6, On
a 5 or 6, Firing ship Thresholds at 6.
Comments: (Oerjan) Another possibility for a "standard" EMP gun, instead of
using one of the various Ion Cannon mechanics.
===============
EMP effects:
Temporal Distortion Gun [Noam Izenberg]
MASS: 4+1/arc (max 3 arcs), Cost 3xMass
Effect: target ship takes threshold check at current level with range
modifiers. Failure means system is "slowed" and does not work for the rest of
this turn (if it has not operated yet) and next turn (Slowed Main Drive
produces ½ thrust next turn, but movement is completed normally this turn).
Range modifiers:
0-6" +2 to thresh level (i.e. thresh level 2 = thresh level 4 =
system slowed on 3+
6-12" +1
12-18" 0
18-24" -1
24-30" -2
30+" -3 (ineffective range; i.e. ship on last damage row still needs
a
7+)
Effective range is +2" vs. Screen 1, +3" vs. Screen 2
Comments: (Oerjan) Extra paperwork to keep track of which systems are downed
temporarily and will "autorepair" at the end of the *next* turn.
=================
Powerleech Missile [Noam Izenberg]
MT Missile version: Mass 2: Cost 8
Hit causes 1d6/2 system threshold checks, round up.
Up to 3 systems total can fail. threshold order dictated by firing
player -
stop check when total is reached. Even if no threshold fails, the threshold
level of the target is increased by 1. I.e. if the 1st row of boxes is
finished, roll threshold as if the 2nd row had been finished.
SM version:
Mass/Cost as SM-ER round, but range as standard round. Number of system
thresholds equals number of missiles that hit. Threshold level increases if 3
or more missiles hit.
Comments: (Oerjan) The MT version causes an *automatic* increase in threshold
level if it hits? That is very, *VERY* powerful, particularly against large
ships;
easily worth 15-20 pts of damage on a capital ship. The SM version is
considerably weaker.
Additional Proposal:
===========
Ion Pulse Weapon (IPW)
Mass: Same as Beam of 1 class larger (i.e. a class-3 would be 8 mass)
Cost: 3/mass
Class: 1+
Arcs: 1 (but may be any single arc)
Range: 12mu/class
Damage: None Effect: Roll dice as for a beam weapon [same number of dice as
class of
weapon; -1 per 12mu out]. The roll equals the maximum number of systems
that
can be damaged by this IPW attack. On a single die, a roll of 4+ on an
unscreened ship will add 1 to the total. A roll of 6 will add 2 to the total
(and roll again). Screens/Shrouds/etc. effect the roll as they would a
beam weapon (i.e. level 1 screen would cause rolls of 4 to be ignored; level 2
screens would ignore 4s and 6s would only add 1 to the total instead of
2).
Roll a threshold check until the number of system potentially damaged are
damage by the IPW attack or every system has been checked under this attack.
Threshold checks should be done in the following order:
1) Screens/Shields/Cloaking Fields/Shrouds
2) FCS
3) Sensors/ECM (if using MT Sensors & ECM)
4) Engines 5) Weapons starting with the most mass and going to the least mass
6) Bays/Hangers/Passenger spaces
7) Core (if 2nd hull row has no undamaged hull boxes). As with a Wave Gun, a
ship may not be screened in the arc through which it fires a IPW (but other
arcs may be screened).
Stealing the idea from Noam:
IPW may be fired in PDS mode with a range of 6mu by de-focusing the
pulse. Any fighters in the arc of effect may not attack this round and loose 1
point of endurance. Missiles/Pods/Plasma are effected the same as if a
number of PDS equal to the class of the IPW had fired at them. IPW may not be
used with ADFC. Ships (friend or foe) caught in the unfocused IPW attack
suffer effect as if hit by a class-1 IPW. A firecon must be dedicated to
the task in order to allow IPW to fire in PDS mode, and may not be used for
other purposes this turn. Obviously, if IPW fires in PDS mode, it may NOT fire
in standard mode in the same turn.
============
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9ADE0@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> This Weapon of the Week forum is for multiple weapons, actually, but
I do have some general suggestions for EMP type weapons, but those will be in
a separate post.
> EMP Weapons:
instead
> of number. Range 0-10" roll 2d6, 10-20" roll 1d6 - beam dice. Each
Hmm... atypical range bands - but that's not a major problem (could make
it 0-9 mu and 9-18 mu to match the proposed new Sa'Vas'Ku range bands).
I take it that the list is used as follows: 1st check is screens (if you
have level 2,does it count as 1 or 2 checks?), 2nd is sensors/ecm, third
is fire control, etc.
Hmm.. not sure about this one - needs more thought.
> ============
EMP
> mines are strictly one shot weapons.
Similar to slightly weaker More Thrust EMP missiles, but in mine form.
Question - is it 3 MASS per mine, or is it 3 MASS for a 3-mine rack
(c.f. the FT Mines).
Bearing in mind that a MT-EMP Missile is MASS 2, COST 6.
(General comment: I'd prefer having a 'standard' size of mine, allowing
interchangability in the same way as for SMLs.)
> ==============
Hmm... I'd modify the basic mechanics into something like:
Roll 1d6, -1 per full 12 mu of range.
On a result of 3 or less, the weapon has no effect. On a result of 4, the
target must make a threshold check, systems are knocked out on a roll of 6
only.
On a result of 5, systems are KO'd on a roll of 5+.
On a result of 6, systems are KO'd on a roll of 4+.
Core systems are not effected? The target may add the level of its screens (if
any) to the required
number to KO systems (ie. if the roll to KO a system is 5+, and the ship
has level-1 screens, then its systems are only KO'd on a roll of 6).
Ok, range bands are smaller, but maximum range is 60 mu.
> ===============
Has the advantage of using an existing mechanic, now, if we knew that
the existing mechanic was balanced.... :-)
> ===============
No comment :-)
> =================
I agree with Oerjan on this one!
> ================================================
For
> direct fire weapons, I favor the Scrambler Pulse, because its' the
Of course, I must add one of my own (sent a copy to Noam a few days ago, so it
should end up in the archives).
EMP Missile Salvoes (EMP-SM)
These are the same MASS and COST as normal missile salvos (and,
optionally, are available in an extended-range version)
They are treated as normal salvo missiles right up to the point when damaged
is determined, they do no damage, instead, the target ship must make a
threshold check, with a severity determined by the number of missiles that
hit, minus the level of screens. If more than one
EMP-salvo hits the target ship in that turn, sum up ALL of the missiles
that hit before consulting this table.
Number of missile hits Threshold roll 1 or less no effect
2 - 3 systems KO on roll of 6
4 - 5 systems KO on roll of 5+
6 or more systems KO on a roll of 4+
We need to decide whether Phalon Vapour shrouds have the effect of
level-2 screens against these or not, the PSB (water/ice mist) would
seem to imply not, but it might be better if they did work.
Symbol: as missile salvo, with small radiating lines added (I'll send
one in my next batch of symbols if I remember :-)
On the subject, I'm not totally happy with the EMP missile in More Thrust, how
about this revision?
Roll 1d6 - target screen level (as in MT, p.3)
1 or less = No effect
2-3 = Roll threshold for everything, KO on roll of 6
4-5 = Roll threshold for everything, KO on roll of 5+
6 = roll threshold for everything, KO on roll of 4+
If MT-EMP Missiles impact at the same time as EMP-salvoes, treat the
MT-EMP missile as 1d6 extra EMP-salvo missiles.
What does everyone think?
Some general thoughts on 'EMP' class weapons.
In general, these appear to fall into two main groups:
Those that cause blanket threshold checks (like the More Thrust EMP missile),
and,
Those that cause a limited number of threshold checks (like the Ion Cannon and
the Scrambler Pulse).
The 'problem' with the first group is that they are difficult to balance,
consider, a typical EMP attack will have, on average, similar effects on both
a corvette and a battleship (ok, this is not totally true, the MT EMP missile
is affected by screens, which on average means that it has less effect on the
larger vessels that tend to carry screens).
<Aside> Which reminds me, if we descide that, in general, screens protect
against EMP weapons we must be careful not to upset the screen/armour
balance, as armour does _not_ protect against EMP.
</Aside>
So this makes this class of EMP weapon hard to balance.
The second type are easier to balance, but require some mechanic to determine
which systems are affected, I've seen a number of ideas; 'Priority Lists' of
affected systems (Ion Cannon), Systems to be checked for chosen by firer
(Powerleech Missiles), or System Determined by
Random (none of the systems under discussion - but I've seen it
_somewhere_), you could also have a 'target chooses' option. I'm not
totally happy with the 'priority list' approach, largely because the list adds
more info that needs to be recorded, and I've yet to see a totally
satisfactory method of randomly selecting systems.
However, if we can decide upon a reasonable system for selecting the systems
to be affected, then I believe the second option will be a lot easier to
balance.
However, I have a third option:
If you assume that the additional mass of a larger ship will give its
components _some_ protection, but that an EMP pulse will have a chance
of affecting _all_ of a ships systems, then how about the following
method:
The EMP weapon generates 'damage' as a standard weapon system,
This 'virtual damage' is counted of _but_not_marked_off_ as usual, and
effectively exists only to determine if threshold checks should occur. The
threshold level remains unaltered for any further checks due either to damage
or further EMP attacks.
EMP attacjs are non-cumulative unless they are part of the same attack
sequence (ie. a number of EMP-Salvos, several EMP beam attacks from the
same ship).
Note that damaged ships are more vulnerable - I don't think this is a
problem.
These should be easier to balance, as a rule of thumb, an EMP weapon should
cost less than a 'normal' weapon with the same damage and other
characteristics.
Example Weapons:
EMP Missile: Does 4d6 EMP damage (say) EMP Salvo Missile: Does 2d6 each
Ion Cannon: Mass/Cost: As Beam of 1 less class (ie. Class 4 is MASS 4
+1/extra arc). EMP Damage is 1 beam die per class - 1 per full 12 mu of
range.
Well, what do you think - workable or not?
I've considered a similar mechanism for 'crew killing' weapons as well.
In message <006801c09529$faa21d60$65c1893e@inty>
> "Bif Smith" <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip intro]
> EMP Weapons:
instead
> of number. Range 0-10" roll 2d6, 10-20" roll 1d6 - beam dice. Each
EMP
> mines are strictly one shot weapons.
# Well, I'm guessing that like FT Mines you can drop these out the back
as pursuit deterrence weapons :-)
> ==============
# Hmm... actually wave gun is only MASS 12, also, as Oerjan notes, this
is a pre-FB weapon, and has the same MASS (including 'cpaital ship
only') as a pre-FB Nova Cannon, so read its MASS as being 20.
> ===============
# This is a bit esoteric - you could just use one of the other systems,
but with reduced MASS, increased COST, and a widely different PSB :-)
[almost OT] - how would any of you attempt to balance the Stasis Field
Generator from Star Fleet Battles (and Starcraft) - it KOs a ship
tottaly (if it works) - for a short time (probably 1 turn in FT) - but
renders the ship invulnerable while it is KO'd - I'm not even going to
try an cook up a point cost for it!
> =================
Re: Charles' idea regarding "EMP Damage"
This is extra record keeping, but may be adressable by marking EMP damage with
a small circle in the damage box.
If EMP hits are scored against undamage hull, and no thresholds are taken
until the EMP hits reach the end of a row, that could work really well.
Say a ship has 24 hull and takes 7 EMP damage. The ship takes a threshold
(6+) roll. Then next EMP hit continues going on the second damage roll.
When physical damage reaches the end of the first row, the ship thresholds (at
6+) again. If the ship's pysical damage reaches thresh 2 before the EMP
damage does, then it only takes the thresh 2 (5+) check from the
physical damage. If, next, it gets EMP damaged past thresh 3, it takes a
thresh check
at 4+. (EMP damage starts at the first undamaged boxthat has not also
received EMP damage.
This is a very different dynamic that I think requires some thought to
balance.
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9ADE6@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> Re: Charles' idea regarding "EMP Damage"
Actually, my idea was to only count EMP damage on the round it was
inflicted, for the purpose of determining thresholds only - and then
forget about it - this was largely to eliminate the extra record
keeping.
Modifying your example: The ship has 24 hull, and an EMP weapon hits for 7 EMP
damage. The ship takes a Threshold (6) roll. Later, the ship loses its first
hull row to real damage, and takes a threshold (6) again.
Say it took 10 real damage, thats the 1st row + 4 boxes of the 2nd.
An EMP hit of 6 causes a Threshold(5+) check.
Next turn another EMP weapon hits, for 3 EMP damage, however, after making the
last set of threshold checks, the EMP damage was forgotten,
so the ship makes another Threshold (5+) check.
Hope thats clear, and useable, I can see some potential areas of abuse though.
There's a problem once you get close to a threshold, as your example points
out. Over 2-3 turns, you only hit this ship with EMP & target your real
guns against another ship. After 3-4 thresholds, there won't be any
systems left on the ship.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
[snipped all weapons]
My basic problem with EMP weapons is that they are nearly impossible to
balance. The same gun that hits a scout, rolling a check for every system, is
VASTLY different than the effect on a SDN, particularly
for those weapons that suggest a 4-6 check on every ship system.
I could see an EMP weapon that affected a set number of systems as being
potentially viable (perhaps related to class), but the blanket "roll a
threshold for everything" is inviting the same unbalancing factors of the Nova
Cannon, etc.
> Ion Pulse Weapon (IPW)
[snip]
This is more like a workable system. It has specifically designed effects that
are able to be balanced, rather than the "everything" approach.
The cost sound ever so slightly light to me, but it's an excellent starting
point for playtesting!
<This is a roundabout way of saying I like Brian's suggestion>
G'day guys,
> Charles wrote:
I like the sound of it, though I haven't had chance to push and shove the idea
much yet.
> Brendan wrote:
But isn't this a problem with many of the EMP weapons being held up? OK there
are the few which specify how many systems are effected, but then you come
down to deciding which systems they are. Maybe a solution is to let
the firer designate the type of system being targetted (i.e. before roll
designate whether your attempting to knock out guns/PDS/screens etc). If
they get more EMP hits than needed they waste the difference, if they get less
then needed to attack all then either roll or make declarations be more
specific (i.e. for CT just saying guns would be enough, but for BB maybe
specify class 3 guns or something). Just a thought.
I think its what can make EMP potentially very unbalancing as it can knock out
so many weapons all at once. This doesn't mean you can't have them its just
going to be expensive I'd reckon.
Cheers
Beth
G'day guys,
> EMP Weapons:
instead
> of number. Range 0-10" roll 2d6, 10-20" roll 1d6 - beam dice. Each
I don't mind this idea as the potential is limited, but if we could replace
the need for a list somehow. The cost might be a little low though?
> EMP Mine [Paul Wellman] (Sam Penn's Website)
I'm not a fan of you hit you test all systems, unless there is some mechanic
mimicking how hard it is to get to a threshold check (like Charles' idea).
> Pulse Cannon [Paul Wellman] (Sam Penn's Website)
Bit long ranged I would've thought and again its got the hit everything issue.
> Scrambler Pulse [Noam Izenberg]
Don't mind the intercept idea, but its also got the effect all systems
question.
> Temporal Distortion Gun [Noam Izenberg]
I'm with Oerjan on this one.
> Powerleech Missile [Noam Izenberg]
I'd drop the automatic threshold increase bit, but the first bit sounds
promising.
> Ion Pulse Weapon (IPW)
I like this idea, though I'd make it more expensive.... and once again if we
could get away from the list I'd like it even more!
Just my 2 razoos worth
Beth
I'm writing up my initial responses, which hopefully will give another
perspective and address some of this stuff. Should have it done by after lunch
(busy here at work...)
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> Absender: charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk
[...]
> <Aside>
Yes, on the other hand, there are a number of weapons that do ignore
screens, but not armour, so the balance effects may not be too bad - see
the discussion on that subject a short time ago.
> The second type are easier to balance, but require some mechanic to
[...]
> However, if we can decide upon a reasonable system for selecting the
For randomly determining which system will be affected, how about:
Attacker nominates three target systems, numbering them 1, 2, 3 Defender
nominates 3 system (4,5,6). Throw a die to see which one is hit.
Cheers Karl Heinz
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> >Ion Pulse Weapon (IPW)
[Beth] I like this idea, though I'd make it more expensive.... and once
again if
> we could get away from the list I'd like it even more!
[Bri] I understand not wanting the list. The problem without a set way
to figure threshold checks (when we stop checking before all systems are
checked), is that everyone will start checking on the systems that are least
valuable at the time. I.e. if there are no fighters or salvo missiles, the
PDS would get checked for first, then the Class-1s, etc. This
effectively gives larger ships "armor" against this attack, as they would have
more of the less valuable systems. You could just state "from most massive to
least massive" or "from most expensive to least expensive", but then you would
have to figure out on the fly if that screen or Class-4 Beam is more
expensive on the SDN. I tried to make it a logical progression, but not have
the less valuable systems take the brunt of the effect. Perhaps the list
should be shortened: 1) Electronics and Engines (Screens, FCS, Sensors, etc.
and Normal and FTL engines) 2) Weapons & Point Defense
3) Bays/Hangers
and drop the Core checks.
> > =============
instead
> > of number. Range 0-10" roll 2d6, 10-20" roll 1d6 - beam dice. Each
is
> > not marked off the damage track but instead is the number of
When I first used this weapon, I had it with 15" range bands, and they were
too large and the Ion Cannons too powerful, so I cut them back to 10" bands
and they seem to work better now and they don't dominate the way they did,
though 9" bands would work too if that becomes a standard.
On an undamaged ship, the effects of this weapon are usually shrugged off as
the 6+ threshold is hard to rell and the ships usually have lots of
damage control left. As a ship takes a row or more of damage though, the Ion
Cannons get much more deadly. They damage more systems and with fewer DCPs
left, they tend to stay damaged and end up as mission kills floating in space
without fire controls and engines.
And to clarify, each system gets a check, so when 3 'hits' are indicated on a
ship with Level 2 screens, the first 2 checks are done on the screens and then
the 3rd check on special electronics (if any), if none, then on a fire
control.
As to why I did a special list in a specific order, in trying to simulate
ships from Star Wars, I wanted a weapon that fried electronics but left hull
and non-electronic systems whole (plus I feel that rolling for all the
systems is over the top). I did think of allowing one or the other player to
choose but did not think that would be fair so I created the lists of systems
I thought should be effected and put them in order with the systems I wanted
hit hardest on top. In use, the list goes pretty quick with the firing player
naming the next system type from the list, then the target says I have 2 (or
whatever) and rolls the dice to see if they are knocked out, then on to the
next system if there are any more 'hits' to be resolved.
> 1) Electronics and Engines (Screens, FCS, Sensors, etc. and Normal and
Continuing:
Ion Cannon: Like Beth, I'm not a big fan of the "damage list".Difficult to
balance (Mass and cost trades are discussed) Changing to needle like mechanics
changes the weapon's nature and is another can of worms IMO. The "List" could
be eliminated by either the attackng player chosing the order of system checks
(as in Powerleech) or alternating the attacking player and defending player
switching off, though that makes the record keeping harder.
EMP Mine: Id on;t like mines, so I'm not commenting.
Ion Pulse Cannon: Still think it should decrease range and have screens
shift effect one range band/level.
Scrambler Pulse: Possibly cheap for effect, Though I'm not really sure. I
certainly disagree with Brendan that it needs to be 8-10 mass. Most will
not
be able to fire more than a couple times/game, making them roughly equal
to MT EMP missiles. It can't fire unitil it's well within Class 2 beam range.
And don't forget it's got a Miss on 1-2. It would also be easy to reduce
effect 1 step: 3-4 All systems rol thresh 6+; 5-6 All systems roll
thresh at
5+.
TDG: Too complicated. Genre weapon for role playing effect.
Powerleech: I like Brendan's suggestion, but that's really an alternate (and
weaker) effect for the basic EMP MT missile. I'd rather drop the threshold
check altogether and just make the effect an advance of the threshold level.
(MT Missile:1-2 No effect, 3+ Ship's threshold level increases by 1; SM
round, Threshold level increases by 1 for every 3 (or 4, depending on balance)
missiles that hit in one turn).
IPW: I don't like this damage list, which is more complicated than the Ion
Cannon's. One example problem - the "weapons hit" still has room for
play -
it doesn't give you choice order between like mass weapons - I'd happily
risk a Needle beam for a class 2 most of the time. I understand Brendan's
dislike of "shipwide" thresholds, but they are much simpler than damage lists,
which have to be thought out to almost the same level of detail as
the dreaded SFB damage table. I prefer a weaker-but-shipwide EMP
threshold effect, or the choosing mechanic in the original Powerleech
("attacker chooses order of system checks" although "defender chooses order"
could work fine as well.).
EMP Missile: Reasonable transition of EMP MT Missile. perhaps weaken it a bit,
especially since the affect is cumulative for multiple rounds.:
1-2 or less no effect
3-4 systems KO on roll of 6
5 systems KO on roll of 5+
In message <p04320404b6ae3295abdb@[63.201.231.213]>
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker <s_schoon@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [snipped all weapons]
Which is the main reason I proposed my 'virtual damage' system -
although, as has been pointed out, it has its own problems.
I think the only reasonable way to attempt to balance 'Blanket Threshold
weapons' (like the MT EMP Missile) is to balance them against Capital
Ships (say an 'average' 200 or more MASS SDN) - which is probably what
they are likely to be fired at anyway :-).
Hmm.. - lets use a FB1 Komarov for an example - 88 hull = 22 hull per
row - to do a Threshold (6) requires 22 damage - thats the equivalent of
27.5 beam dice or about 6.3 dice where roll=damage.
Ok, as we're not _really_ doing damage, the cost should be reduced, even
so, it will be expensive, and the weapon will only be cost-effective
against large targets.
My system still uses blanket thresholds, but makes large targets harder to
effect.
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD47181C89D98@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> There's a problem once you get close to a threshold, as your example
Yep, I noticed that one as well, actually recording the 'virtual damage'
would probably get round this problem, but adds more book-keeping :-(
Yet another alternative (which I don't like that much), is to ignore any
damage on the current damage track, (or even count the ship as undamaged) when
determining the effects of EMP damage.
In message <14SdCW-1QUztgC@fwd02.sul.t-online.com>
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
[snip]
> For randomly determining which system will be affected, how about:
Hmm... Yes, I think I like that idea - gets rid of a need for a list.
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9ADEA@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> Continuing:
The
> "List" could be eliminated by either the attackng player chosing the
Or see K.H.Ranitzsch's suggestion, although that could slow thing down
if your checking a large number of systems (suggest - make sure these
cannot affect too many systems :-)
> EMP Mine: Id on;t like mines, so I'm not commenting.
I think Mines are an entire subject in themselves!
> Ion Pulse Cannon: Still think it should decrease range and have
Yup - we can leave it for the 'really wierd weapons' section :-)
> Powerleech: I like Brendan's suggestion, but that's really an
SM
> round, Threshold level increases by 1 for every 3 (or 4, depending on
A nasty 'softener upper' - hmm... now how are we goint to balance that?
> IPW: I don't like this damage list, which is more complicated than the
could work
> fine as well.).
Similar (and weaker) to my suggestion - could modify my EMP-SM mechanic
in the same way (if we don't switch to either 'affects limited number of
systems' or 'does virtual damage').
> > For randomly determining which system will be affected, how about:
Sounds interesting but you would have to almost write down or mark each target
system to prevent problems (I said a 4 was the FTL not the screen, etc)
I do suggest that someone run some games with these mechanics to compare them.
They may seem good or bad on paper but how they work during a game may differ.
> From an earlier message:
Well the Ion Cannons I have are used as a genre weapon so this may give them
some allowance to be more complicated, but I put the weapon info on the SCS
including the damage list. When and Ion Cannon scores some hits, the players
seem to stop any side discussions and pay attention to see what systems if any
go down, knowing it can strip screens from a ship making it a jucy target or
it could take out the fire cons so you don't have to worry about return fire.
G'day,
Karl suggested
> Attacker nominates three target
Yep I like that one too!
Charles commented
> although that could slow thing down
I think 3 or so was about the number of hits that had been mentioned which
isn't a problem, just roll 3 dice. If more than one happens to be the value
then roll for that system twice or whatever (assuming the first etc rolls
aren't enough). Occasionally you'll get wasted hits as the first one is
effective but if the SG/DS players can put up with this then I think the
FT players can too;)
> Dean wrote:
The only time that would be a problem I guess would be if a ship fired a
lot of them simultaneously and the players wanted to pick different sets of
systems each time. What to do in that situation probably requires some strong
handed wording of the rules or a little more thought.
> I do suggest that someone run some
Best idea yet!
Cheers
Beth
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] This is OK if you have knowledge of your opponents ship. But if
you are working against a custom design and you do not know what systems it
has, how do you designate what systems to have checked?
> Charles commented
[Bri] Speed of play is one of the reasons I suggested a limited number
of
threshold checks rather than a ship-wide check.
> Dean wrote:
> strong handed wording of the rules or a little more thought.
[Bri] Would not "strong handed wording" bring us back to the list you
did not like?
> >I do suggest that someone run some
[Bri] Yea, verily, yea.
> Cheers
My comment, above, marked by [Bri]
---
Karl suggested
> Attacker nominates three target systems, numbering them 1, 2, 3
Gan't say I like it much better. Aside from seeming somewhat needlish rather
than EMP-ish, every EMP hit lengthens the game significantly, since
_both_
sides have to make a new list depending on the target and its state of
damage, _after_ a hit is determined, and then another die is rolled for
the hit. If several hits are on the smae ship, one or both lists will have to
be modified for each subsequent hit.
I'd sure hate it if EMP weapons determined this way were the primaries of my
opposing fleet. The more I think about it, the less I like non-shipwide
threshold checks (even on my own designs) as a practical game mechanic. I
still advocate "Firer choses threshold check order" or "target choses order"
or (second best) "Firer and target alternate chosing order" if you really
want to deal non-shipwide EMP hits in a way that won't slow the game as
much.
Karl suggested
> Attacker nominates three target systems, numbering them 1, 2, 3
Noam said: Can't say I like it much better. Aside from seeming somewhat
needlish rather
than EMP-ish, every EMP hit lengthens the game significantly, since
_both_
sides have to make a new list
Yeah but if you have to roll thresholds for *every* system, that'll take
longer than picking out 1/die
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9ADEC@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> Karl suggested
Well, if we deside to limit non-shipwide threshold checks to 'Needle'
class weapons (where the threshold check is replaced by a 'To hit' roll), then
we just need to come up with a way to balance shipwide threshold inducing
weapons, we could probably cut the list down to a few standard systems:
'EMB Beams' aka Ion Cannon - these use a beam battery-like mechanic,
possibly using 'virtual damage' (my vote) or basing the thresholds done by the
number of hits scored. They affect 1 target ship per use.
'EMP Bolt' aka ION torpedo - use the pulse torpedo mechanic to determine
if it hits.
'EMP Missiles' either big MT types or salvos.
We _could_ consider area effect EMP weapons (based on plasma bolt or
wave gun or even WEF mechanics) - but these are going to be very nasty,
and hence, very big and expensive, and unlikely to see general use. (In other
words, lets not worry about them just now).
I think I still support my 'birtual damage' mechanic for the time being, on
the grounds that its probably easier to balance and a weapon that, if it hits,
causes a shipwide threshold with some set threshold number, although,
admittedly, it has its own problems.
Well, is this a way forward - or backward?
G'day Bri,
> [Bri] This is OK if you have
OK this stems from the openness with which we play our games, even with custom
ships we're allowed to see what the other guy has got.
> [Bri] Speed of play is one of the
That's why I made the suggestion of rolling three dice and taking your
lumps if its a double up - whether you're rolling twice for one system
and once for another or once for 3 systems its still much faster than rolling
once for everything.
> [Bri] Would not "strong handed wording"
Not necessarily. I was actually thinking of something more along the lines of
"all EMP weapons fired from a single ship onto the same target must use
the same 123 vs 456 for all of them" - obviously this is per turn and
the 123 etc could be changed each turn. However, I know this isn't going to
appeal to all and reflects my desire for these to be rare rather than main
weapons.
Cheers
Beth
G'day guys,
Noam stated:
> Gan't say I like it much better. Aside from
Why does it seem needlish? Couldn't it just be a reflection of the respective
technicians tuning pulses and hardening protection??
> every EMP hit lengthens the game significantly,
That's going to be true of any EMP method we come up with I fear, especially
if they're attractive enough to be used as primaries (which I
really don't want, but that's just me).
> since _both_ sides have to make a new list
Well that's why I was leaning toward "all shots from one ship use the same
list"... I can hear the grimaces and groans as I write this;)
> the less I like non-shipwide threshold checks
Now that WILL slow down the game significantly!
> I still advocate "Firer choses threshold
Just to be a pain...don't you consider that needlish?
Charles came forward:
> Well, if we deside to limit non-shipwide
These are both EMP options then right (or do you mean EMP should be an all
systems thing as the other is too needle-like)? We're not trying to get
rid of the "all systems" option then? OK I'm confused... so what else is
new? ;)
> I think I still support my 'birtual damage'
If we are going to have a "effects all systems" option, then I agree that this
would be the easiest to balance and the one I like the best.
Cheers
Beth
Just had another thought. Dean's "Ion Cannon" weapon is StarWars inspired, so
what about the following:
Hits force thresholds against only the screens/vapour shrouds. If there
are no active screens, then a core systems threshold against the bridge is
made; if the bridge goes down, it looses the opportunity to fire this turn,
but autorepairs at the end of turn. In simultaneous firing, Ion cannon are
considered "faster" than normal shooting so resolve as above only for the
bridge hits (screens are still considered active for the remainder of the turn
they went down).
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> From Beth:
> Gan't say I like it much better. Aside from
> Why does it seem needlish? Couldn't it just be a reflection of the
Nominating specific systems for destruction is very needlish. Firer choosing
the order of shipwide threshold is less so, IMO. Having the target choosing
the order is very un-needlish, and probably more balancing for EMP
attacks. This last is becoming my favored method for "limited check" EMP
weapons.
> >every EMP hit lengthens the game significantly,
> That's going to be true of any EMP method we come up with I fear,
Perhaps. Most people can, after a few games, roll thresholds on even big ships
pretty quickly, though, esp. if there's reasonable trust among players to do
it while the opponent is doing the next thing.
Charles came forward:
> Well, if we deside to limit non-shipwide threshold checks to 'Needle'
class
> weapons (where the threshold check is replaced by a 'To hit' roll),
I personally don't want to do that at all. Keep EMP and needle mechanics
separate.
As for the virtual damage system, that may work, but balancing "virtual" and
real daamge can be a big problem. Plus something that the mechanics of the
virtual system will create: A ship - especially a larger one, that's one
hull box away from a threshold might consider sabotaging the last box to get a
threshhold on itself (or friendly fire, or whatever) in order to avoid a
double threshold from EMP+real damage the opponent might deal. I don't
think I like that. I'd much rather set off a charge on one of my own Von
Tegetthoff's decks to force a 6+ threshold than have an EMP + a lonne
beam force 2 such checks.
Schoon said:
> 1) They should affect a set number of systems - not a ship-wide
I lean the other way, but would be OK with this on "defender chooses order"
> 2) They should have a clearly defined, simple list (did I mention
Lists that don't include every system beg for muliti- or
mis-interpretation
and abuse, and fully inclusive lists would be awfully cumbersome (Which
beams go first? Which class 2 beams go first? Which _arcs_ for class 2
beams go first?) I think "Defender chooses" reduces the power of EMP weapons,
can be very quick, and what argument could ensue? "That's not a system"? "That
system's already damaged"? "Hey, you chose something that wouldn't affect
combat effectivenss"?
> 3) They should cause a normal threshold, no exceptions. This keeps
This I agree with.
The Bells, said:
> The only plausible PSB for an EMP missile is that it generates a very
I don't buy that, especially if you extrapolate the EMP _game_mechanic_
to muliple potential PSB's as per the "generic" underpinnings of Full Thrust.
Examples:
1) Read "Stasis" for EMP. The pulse "locks-up" systems by affecting
their temporal state.
2) A "Phase Gun" a-la Trek. Systems hit by the efect are "out of phase"
and
inoperable until they can be re-tuned into the correct variance by
damage control.
3) Viral Nannites (delivered by missiles or "projection beams" -
short-lived
nanobots that physcally and electrically disrupt systems, but are easy to
kill.
Genre weapons and "Hard Sci Fi" conversions are one thing, bu I try not to get
wedded to a specific PSB when looking at a broad game mechanic.
> From Alan Brain:
> "Damaged" means inoperative until repaired.
Full Thrust, meet Magic the Gathering. :-)
There is either a written or house rule that says damage control can make 3
attemtps oin a system before it is considered "irreperable" at least for the
scenario. I prefer that.
> >Why does it seem needlish? Couldn't it just be a reflection of the
How about making up chits or cards or something. Draw three (or however
many "hits" there are). The chits each have a system on them. If there are
more than one of the system chit/card drawn, use the one in the arc of
the
attack and/or determine randomly. This seems a totally non-biased,
random
approach, and chits/cards are easy to make up. Just print a ship-bits
and cut out the symbols into small squares and put them in a cup.
In message <6B3C0EEAB4FED3119F5F009027DC5E9EA9ADF2@spacemsg3.jhuapl.edu>
> "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> As for the virtual damage system, that may work, but balancing
Eeek! I hadn't thought of that one!, hmm, perhaps if we use the 'virtual
damage' system where we ignore real damage - in other words, for _each_
emp attack, compare the virtual damage done to the _undamaged_ hull
boxes of the ship. i.e. - using that 24 hull box ship gain, regardless
of how much a pounding its taken - if the EMP does less than 6 virtual
damapge points (vDP), it has not effect, 6-11 cDP means a Threshold (6),
12-17 vDP means a Threshold (5+), and 18+ vDP means a Threshold (4+).
Ok, this does not take into account any damage the ship has suffered, but
OTOH, it does provide a mechanic that ensures that larger ships are harder to
affect than smaller ones.
Now, am I missing something here?
[snip]
Slowly catching up with this thread:
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> Ion Pulse Weapon (IPW)
[snip]
> Damage: None
[snip]
> Roll a threshold check until the number of system potentially >damaged
[I've already posted some comments to this in another post]
IME the above mechanics work fine on their own; no need to have a
specified order in which to check for systems - unless of course your
opponent is dishonest enough that you can't trust him even in normal threshold
checks (in which case I wouldn't want to play against him anyway!). Sure, the
defender is going to check for the least important
systems first - but unless the ship is already badly damaged, he isn't
all that likely to actually lose the first few systems he checks for.
Of course the value of the weapon goes down if the defender chooses freely
instead of sticking to Brian's list, but that's "only" a matter of adjusting
the Mass or Cost of the weapon appropriately.
> As with a Wave Gun, a ship may not be screened in the arc through
I *don't* like this. Don't like it for the WG/NC either, though.
> Stealing the idea from Noam:
Which means that a single IPW can work as a potentially infinite number of
PDSs, each with its own private ADFC. The potential risk to friendly ships is
far, far smaller than the potential benefit.
**********************
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> EMP Missile Salvoes (EMP-SM)
[snip - I've already discussed this with Charles both on- and off-list,
though it was some time ago]
> We need to decide whether Phalon Vapour shrouds have the effect of
Keep it simple. The rules say that "A deployed shroud acts like a
level-2 screen against all energy weapon attacks, ...", so unless you
describe the EMP pulse as not being energy <g> or the SM-EMP rule is
*very* emphatic that the shrouds don't work against it they should work
against it. (And even if the rule *is* very emphatic many of the
players will miss that and count shrouds as level-2 screens anyway...)
> On the subject, I'm not totally happy with the EMP missile in More
Argh. First he balances the SM-EMP against the *old* MTM-EMP, then he
wants to make the MTM-EMP weaker... <g>
But yes, both EMP missile types should use the same table. The MTM
balance is bound to change anyway if they're re-worked as a fighter/SM
crossbreed :-/
> If MT-EMP Missiles impact at the same time as EMP-salvoes, treat >the
Sounds reasonable.
> Some general thoughts on 'EMP' class weapons.
In relative terms, the big screened ship suffers less from an MTM-EMP
hit than the small unscreened one does. However, in *absolute* terms -
ie., the number of weapons knocked out and thus the effect on the
battle - the big screened ship is likely to lose *more* than the
corvette. As I noted in another of today's posts this is one of the very few
FT game mechanics which puts a restriction on effective ship sizes.
> <Aside>
Not a big worry. Remember, the subject which sparked off the entire WotW idea
was Karls' complaint that so many new weapons *ignore* screens that the
screens are becoming obsolete <g>
> I think the only reasonable way to attempt to balance 'Blanket
See my previous comments about how
> Hmm.. - lets use a FB1 Komarov for an example - 88 hull = 22 hull >per
Should be *37.7* beam dice. A Komarov has level-2 screens...
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Just had another thought.
As long as you only use it in Star Wars-universe battles, fine. In an
"open-tech" setting this is just as unbalancing as the kinetic shields,
and for much the same reasons (see Noam's web page if you haven't already).
Apart from the above, I think Noam has already voiced most of my
thoughts - whether intentionally or not I don't know <g>
Later,
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] True. I will concede the point. Allow target ship's player to
choose order. Following the thread, I would not even care if weapons were
taken out of the mix. But I would like to see engines, screens, and FCS stay
in the mix. I think that IPW weapons would be a favorite for Pirates, as the
systems/ships are not destroyed, but only disabled.
> >As with a Wave Gun, a ship may not be screened in the arc through
[Bri] OK. Drop the partial screen loss.
> >Stealing the idea from Noam:
[Bri] I did not think of it in those terms. Also, I did not think about
it combining with normal PDS. So drop this aspect as well.
> **********************
[Bri] So Pulse Torpedos are not energy weapons (ala Photon Torpedos)?
The
rules do not describe the P-Torp, so I guess it depends on the PSB you
choose.
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip]
> Later,
In message <200102151948.UAA07415@d1o901.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Slowly catching up with this thread:
[snip Ion Pulse Weapon]
> **********************
Sometime I'm going to have to dig that thread out of the archives, as my
copy got eaten by my hard drive :-(
> >We need to decide whether Phalon Vapour shrouds have the effect of
You know, it may be my memory playing up - but I'm sure someone else
raised that point, not me?
> Keep it simple. The rules say that "A deployed shroud acts like a
Actually this gives a better chance of _some_ effect (on a 2+ rather
than a 3+), but a reduced chance of the maximum effect (Threshold (4+)
on a 6, rather than a 5-6) - its just one of my personal foibles I guess
:-)
> But yes, both EMP missile types should use the same table. The MTM
Well, I'd like to use the same underliying mechanic (if we ever come up
with one) for all EMP weapons, if possible, and well, MT-Missiles are a
whole other can of worms :-)
> >If MT-EMP Missiles impact at the same time as EMP-salvoes, treat >the
Which is probably a good thing, now I think about it.
> ><Aside>
Yes, I forgot those - of course, they'd protect against the EMP weapon
as well.
> Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Bearing in mind the only Ion Cannon seen fired in the films was a
planet-based installation - although various technical references of
variable authenticity have them mounted on capital(?) ships as well.
> Apart from the above, I think Noam has already voiced most of my
In message <9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D100833@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
[snip]
> > [Oerjan]
The
> rules do not describe the P-Torp, so I guess it depends on the PSB you
<trek-tech hat on>Photon Torpedos are actually missiles<trek tech hat
off><pedantic>anyway, the vapour shroud acts as a level 2 screens vs. all
energy weapons, pulse torps are not affected by level 2 screens, so if they
are energy weapons, the vapour shroud has the same effect on
them that a level 2 screen would have, i.e. nothing </pedantic>but of
cause, in _your_ game, a pulse torp can be whatever you want it to be
:-)
[snip]
> Bell, Brian K wrote:
> [Bri] True. I will concede the point. Allow target ship's player to
Yep :-) I'd (currently!) prefer leave the weapons in the mix though.
> Stealing the idea from Noam:
IOW you're thinking like a reasonable gamer instead of like a rules
lawyer and min-maxer ;-)
> EMP Missile Salvoes (EMP-SM)
A deployed shroud *does* act like a level-2 screen against P-torp
attacks: level-2 screens have no effect on P-torp rounds <g>
'Course, it *could* be argued that the P-torps are governed by the
sentence immediately after the one I quoted: "Weapons normally
unaffected by screens, (K-guns, Pulse Torps, SMs etc) are unaffected by
vapour shrouds." ;-) That sentence is a clarification to the first one
though, not a list of exceptions.
The vapour shroud rule might be clearer if it just said "A deployed
shroud acts like a level-2 screen." without referring to energy
weapons - though no doubt *some* players would interpret that as the
shroud giving "level-2-screen-like protection" even against the
normally screen-skipping weapons :-/
Later,
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
At least one of the posts re-posted privately.
> We need to decide whether Phalon Vapour shrouds have the effect
Hm? It came either from one of your posts or from the weapon archive web
page... if the latter it *could* have been Noam, but I don't think
so. Probably your memory playing up ;-)
> On the subject, I'm not totally happy with the EMP missile in More
The average effect is reduced, unless the target has level-2 screens in
which it remains unchanged :-/
> Some general thoughts on 'EMP' class weapons.
> I think the only reasonable way to attempt to balance 'Blanket
Hm. Wonder what I had planned to write here :-/
[On Ion Cannon]
> As long as you only use it in Star Wars-universe battles, fine. In an
The B-wing fighters have ion cannon as well, and there are several
shots of B-wings firing in RotJ. 'Course, those ion cannon are much
smaller than the ground installation on Hoth so their impact is very
much smaller - you never see a B-wing disable a Star Destroyer with a
single shot ;-)
Regards,
In message <200102170925.KAA20561@d1o901.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
Got it, thanks!
> >>>We need to decide whether Phalon Vapour shrouds have the effect
Probably, happens all the time :-(
> >>>On the subject, I'm not totally happy with the EMP missile in More
I think I was objecting to the fact that, using the MT EMP Missile table
the missile either had no effect or did a threshold (5+) or a threshold
(4+). I just felt that there should be some chance of a 'glancing blow'
threshold (6).
> >>>Some general thoughts on 'EMP' class weapons.
Hmm.. but are the B-wings firing something that looks like the Hoth Ion
Cannon blast, or does someone say 'firing ion cannon' as they fire? I've
learned not to trust these various tech write ups over the years - but
they are still fun to read :-)
Hmm... back on track - What are everyone's views on the concept of EMP
or Ion Cannon Fighters ? :-)
I've been following the EMP thread somewhat this week. While I have no
problems with complex game systems, I do play FT because of it is simple yet
provides myriad tactical options. It seems that the EMP rules being proposed
are far more complex than they need to be. Something Beth reminded me about,
is the need to try and keep things to simple die rolls as much as possible.
Lists and such items only require more book-keeping, or additional
charts to the game, whose beauty is in its simplicity. Focus on the situation,
not the rules.
Now, my limited knowledge of EMP is that its an area effect affect. That
suggests creating a template of some given radius. Anything in the radius is
subject to the effect of the EMP.
The EMP effect, most simply, could be a threshold check on all systems. Those
that fail are down until DC brings them back online. Core systems are
shielded, so they are immune to all EMP checks. Shields are elewctronic
systems, so nothing suggests that they should be immune or grant immunity. EMP
wepons should:
1. Be expensive. 2. If an EMP weapon fails a threshold check, it should
immediatly apply its EMP area effect. This makes EMP weapons very dangerous to
carry, and could explain their rarity. If an automatic detonation is too much
to swallow, give it a chance to detonate, using some sort of mechanic like the
power core machanic. Each turn the EMP weapons is "down" there is a chance
that it will go off, subjecting the ship, and anyone else in the area to those
affects. Gotta keep those EMP weapons securly shielded and well-taken
care of.
Anyways, my two sense. I'd like to see a mechanic that introduces new tactical
options without increasing the complexity.
> 2. If an EMP weapon fails a threshold check, it should immediatly
I like this alot. If you combine this effect with a fairly hefty MASS (which
prevent people from making EMP "torpedo boats"), then I'm beginning to like
it.
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> The B-wing fighters have ion cannon as well, and there are several
IIRC they're mentioned, but I don't remember where I saw that reference.
Considering the size difference between the Hoth gun and a
B-wing I'd be somewhat surprised if the blasts look the same though -
it'd be like expecting fireworks look the same as a launching ICBM :-/
Later,
Schoon wrote in reply to stranger:
> 2. If an EMP weapon fails a threshold check, it should immediatly
Realistically speaking, the chance of an EMP weapon accidentally going off
when damaged is no larger than that of a normal weapon accidentally going off
when damaged. I can see that happen in ESU ships or those of very minor powers
(based on experience with the... very rudimentary
security features of some of today's Russian and ex-Soviet equipment),
but not with equipment from the other major powers.
OK, if you want to inflict 6d6 of hull damage on your own ship whenever you
lose an SMR (or SM salvo in a magazine) to a threshold check by all means go
for it... but don't expect anyone else to do it <shrug>
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
I've been playing X-Wing Alliance lately (tough, but fun). Starfighters
are so good against capital ships, you wonder why the big ships exist. That
said, even
a B-Wing has to concentrate its fire on a ship (big freighter, say) for
about 15 seconds to tear down the shields and disable the ship. That's three
ion cannon firing. Warships take longer, and do have pretty good point
defence. A flight of six with expert pilots should be able to handle an
assault frigate in one pass. And you'll likely lose a fighter or two doing it.
But...
The grandfather gun on Hoth would have done the job in one shot.