> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> and 6-row hulls are 1 pt/box.)
We have had no problem with, for example 3 x 3-arc B1 for 2 MASS. I
figure most gamers are competent with basic math. Often not so good with
spelling (blush), but hey, I'm an engineer, not a literature major
:)
> >2) If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
Taking B5 as the reference, the show often depicts a beam snapping on next to
a target ship then being adjusted onto (or through) the target, or hitting and
slicing across the target. We always interpreted a low die roll as indicating
that a portion of the beam was "wasted" before or after hitting the target,
while a high roll indicated that most of the discharge was into the target.
> Extending the range bands to 12 or 18 mu is unlikely to make the
We use 9 and 12 MU RBs when the heavy beam is *supposed* to scare the pants
off you, like the minbari (9), vorlons or shadows (12). Or the Ravashal Pulsar
(never played, but I'd say 18).:)
> 2) Another common player complaint about new weapon types is "Yet
> mechanic as it is currently written is ignores "screens" (ie. EFSB
Just because it ignores a physical, active defense system doesn't mean
that it has to ignore a passive, field-based system.
While B5 Interceptors are a dual-purpose CIWS-type system, screens are
not. If you interpret FT *screens* to be some sort of electromagnetic or
gravity field that deflects particles and wavicles (as they are in the GZG
setting, afew degrees can make a big difference), then why not
have screens apply a -1 per die per level of screens. This allows
screened ships a reasonable defense (1/6th reduction per level, similar
to standard batteries) without, as you say, crippling the weapon
completely against level-1 screens. This also moves to take care of
those who want a chance for no damage at short ranges, at least for screened
ships.
> 3) The EFSB heavy beam mechanic has a very heavy punch at close
> Thrust already has quite a few weapons with high punch at point-blank
> range but short effective range (B1, B2, Pulser-C, P-torp), adding
Since the KV primarily use a weapon category with the same to-hit and
range mechanics as the P-torp, and the Phalon are limited to 36 MU with
pulsars and PBLs, isn't giving the Hu'Mans another *scalable*, *long range*
weapon (they already have the scalable B#) tipping the balance in the other
direction? And dangerously close to the slippery slope of
GW "weapon/model of the month" syndrome?
> The larger grasers OTOH are the exact opposite to the EFSB beam -
Since they use the same method for number of dice rolled and same mechanic for
number of hits from those dice, how is it different from a same class standard
beam other than a scaler for damage and range band? Should be a similar damage
curve, just adjusted by scalers.
> >3) If we are committed to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the
> >affected by screens, and additional damage by allowing a
> This introduces new game mechanics instead of just recycling old
"Rereoll affected by screens" is not a new mechanic, just a twist on an old
one.
"Damage die natural 6 gives penetrating reroll" is also not a new mechanic,
just a stretch of an old one. We have been using this for
P-torps for years with no problem.
> makes the weapon even more wildly unpredictable than it already is (a
> feature several players have already complained/warned about),
Could be. Dunno. <shrug>
> and also changes the screen balance - the current graser mechanic
Again, could be. No Comment.
> I'm not entirely convinced that any of these drawbacks would be a
> of what the game mechanic represents, much less all three of them :-/
I am. :)
> >4) If we are committed to the "Graser" concept, how about a more
> You mean like "Pulse Torpedo", "Plasma Bolt", "Salvo Missile",
"Beams" is really flexible as I listed in another post. Although an obvious
reference to ST, "Pulse torpedo" is generic enough (and the idea common
enough) to be used for direct fire plasma, as well
as a number of anti-matter and undefined energy projectiles like Photon
Torpedo, Proton Torpedo, Ion Torpedo, etc.
"K-Guns" work well regardless of how the projectile is propelled; EM,
grav, hamster wheel, whatever, and have a number of SF variations: Gauss Gun,
Rail Gun, Mass Driver, etc.
"Salvo Missile"- and "SMP"-type weapons are also quite common. As
pointed out by someone else, SMs can be interpreted as Fisson, Fusion,
M-AM, BPL, or any number of other common options.
"PBL" is the toughest, but comes close to E-Mine.
> Weber - author of the Honor Harrington series - nicked it from
> of these types, particularly the "Salvo Missile" and "Sub-Munition
But "Beams" is already flexible enough to cover both laser and graser.
One might interpret DW's lasers as B1 & B2 and grasers as B3 & B4.
If Gamma Ray Lasers are seperate from "Beams", could we have a seperate
weapon system for X-ray lasers? UV lasers? IR? How about Masers?
What about particle accelerators? Neutron cannon? Molecular
Disruptors?* Phased harmonic tachyon emitters?* Warp-accelerated
delta-band lasers?*
J
*Treknobabble TM Paramount Pictures:)
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> I figure most gamers are competent with basic math.
So did I until a few years ago; I was very rudely surprised when I found
out just how wrong I was. Even players who claim to be good at maths -
including myself, of course - often surprise me by making very basic
mistakes :-(
> >>2) If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
...is unfortunately not relevant for those many players who dislike automatic
hits in their games.
> >2) Another common player complaint about new weapon types is "Yet
I'm talking game mechanics here, not PSB. It doesn't matter how well argued
your PSB case is if you can't come up with playable, balanced game mechanics
to model it on the gaming table.
> If you interpret FT *screens* to be some sort of electromagnetic
How I interpret FT screens PSB-wise is completely irrelevant to the fact
that applying a -1 per die per screen level cripples the weapon even
against level-1 screens. See below.
> This allows screened ships a reasonable defense (1/6th reduction per
The reduction is only 1/6th per level at point-blank range, and even
then only if your dice never roll anything else than "6".
An extra -1 DRM per die per target screen level reduces the damage
inflicted by EFSB heavy beams (including re-rolling any natural "6" that
caused damage, as per Jon's EFSB clarifications posted eg. in the FT FAQ) by
the following percentages:
Range: lvl-1 lvl-2
0-6 24% 44%
6-12 44% 60%
12-18 60% 71%
18-24 71% 79%
24-30 79% 100%
30-36 100% 100%
(If you re-roll sixes that scored 0 pts as well, the "100%" entries
become
"83%" instead. If you don't re-roll the damage dice, the non-"100%"
percentages all increase a bit.)
The only range band where this is similar to the standard beam batteries
(which are reduced 21% and 42% by level-1 and -2 screens, respectively)
is
0-6 mu, and even there the reduction is a fair bit more than the "1/6th
per level" you claimed above. Beyond 6mu range, the EFSB beam is indeed
crippled even by a single level of screens.
> Since the KV primarily use a weapon category with the same to-hit and
Take another look at the size and cost of these long-ranged weapons :-/
Yes, the Kraks and Phalons will hopefully get hurt while closing the range
against these weapons; that way they don't completely overwhelm the humies
once they get in close. The same goes for any of the FB1 forces, of course
- they too will get hurt while closing with the UNSC ships, but tend to
outgun them at short and medium ranges instead.
> >The larger grasers OTOH are the exact opposite to the EFSB beam -
So you're saying that a 25% gradient is the same as a 10% gradient - it
is after all only a matter of a scalar adjustment? Ever tried climbing hills
with those two supposedly "similar "gradients?
The very fact that the range bands are different gives the grasers a quite
different performance than the normal beams.
> >>3) If we are committed to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the
> old one.
It is yet another variant for the players to keep track of, and one many
players will forget about in the heat of battle.
> "Damage die natural 6 gives penetrating reroll" is also not a new
No, that's the one that increases the unpredictability of the weapon rather
massively. (Which is of course why none of the FB weapons allows
re-rolls
for D6-damage weapons - too many players dislike it.)
> >Makes the weapon even more wildly unpredictable than it already is (a
You haven't read the ECC7 AARs or other peoples' reactions to the UNCS beta,
then? Most of them expressed worries that a lucky graser hit would
have too much of an impact on a game. (FWIW there were similar complaints
about the EFSB heavy beam back in '97-98, and also about the FB1 Salvo
Missiles.)
> >I'm not entirely convinced that any of these drawbacks would be a
Then use a house rule to change it in your own gaming group. After all, you're
not the one who'll have to defend the rules against people who get their games
ruined by munchkins or people who can roll "6" at will <shrug>
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
...
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
<snip OO's argument against EFSB heavy beams v. screens -1 per die per
screen level>
All of the settings in which we use EFSB-style heavy beams use integral
armor rather than screens. What we use in these settings is -1 per
level per WEAPON, even if the weapon rolls more than 1 die. How would that
compare?
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> the humies once they get in close. The same goes for any of the FB1
Last summer there was a series of threads in which you argued that a
relatively small ship with T8 and a 3-arc B5 can stay out range of a
ship armed with B3's only while whittling the B3 ship over a long running
battle. If your arguments are correct (I never tested them in a game), then
the exact same argument can be made for any 18 MU RB weapon over class 2.
Although the *MASS* of the proposed grasers is significantly higher, the same
basic design scaled up to accommodate a
3-arc "G3" (max 54 MU) should, according to your previous assertions,
be almost assured of victory over a KV or Phalon ship (limited to 30 and 36
MU). So a force of these ships in the GZG setting should be able to shred any
KV force.
> The very fact that the range bands are different gives the grasers a
Same performance *per range band*, just longer RBs.
> >"Rereoll affected by screens" is not a new mechanic, just a twist on
Most gamers I know are fairly bright, and can keep track of a lot of
rules/variants. Where do you find knuckle-draggers who can't keep
track of a simple variant if it is explicitly spelled out in the main text
describing the weapon?
> a feature [unpredictable damage] several players have already
If playtesters have already complained about the 1d6 damage, how about having
damage per hit = class, i.e. class 2 does 2 points per hit, class 3 does 3
points per hit, etc.
> You haven't read the ECC7 AARs or other peoples' reactions to the
In http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00056.html Matt Tope found
them "to be balanced", "causing on average similar amounts of damage as
an equivalent mass of K-guns", and "at present the UN tech seems to be
in balance with the other systems, cost and mass wise". He again asserts this
in
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00241.html
Bail9672 says "the Graser looks to be a very powerful weapon."
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00240.html
These were the only ones who offered a conclusion or opinion before my post,
rather than just describing the events reported. Jon Leary's comments of 13
Mar 2004 aren't yet on the archive: "The mass cost does seem to be well done
and may provide the key to balance."
> (FWIW there were similar complaints about the EFSB heavy beam back in
> '97-98, and also about the FB1 Salvo Missiles.)
1) I wasn't on the list in 97-98.
2) In our group, we always found FB SMs to be *understrength* when we used
them, but then we also felt the FB PD suites to be pathetically weak. <shrug>
> After all, you're not the one who'll have to defend the rules against
> people who get their games ruined by munchkins or people who can roll
> "6" at will
If they really do roll 6's "at will", then this is called "cheating" or
"loaded dice". If they happen to be lucky, it may just seem that they are
rolled at will.
We have a player who rolls as much as 40% 6's for beams (we started
keeping track), but couldn't hit a planet with torps or k-guns, and
usually has his ships gutted on the first threshold check.
If the dice are honest, it all should balance over the 100's of rolls in a
game. If a player rolls 6's only when they need them, but never or only
average for thresholds, then it's the dice or the thrower. Make everyone use
the same dice and make them throw them in a box with Vegas craps rules for the
throw.
My cousin's mother-in-law is a demon at backgammon and parchesi, but
not when she has to roll from a dice cup rather than by hand:)
J
G'day Jared,
> If they really do roll 6's "at will", then this is called "cheating"
or
> "loaded dice". If they happen to be lucky, it may just seem that they
You ain't seen a real Teske field in place then... 6s everywhere an on any
dice you care to hand the boy.... And for those of us who are life time
members of the 1s R US club we can assure you cheating is not what's doing it
in our case;)
I should really stop rambling and go to bed now!!!
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> <snip OO's argument against EFSB heavy beams v. screens -1 per die per
You get the new average reduction percentages by dividing the average
reduction percentages in my previous post by the number of dice thrown, so
depending on how many dice you fire the screens can be anything from
crippling (1-2 dice, particularly outside range 12) to almost
insignificant
(4+ dice).
> Since the KV primarily use a weapon category with the same to-hit
As long as the B3 ship doesn't itself have T8 or (preferrably) stronger
engines, yes; the original discussion assumed that the Phalons and Kra'Vak
would use the designs from FB2, and those designs are all thrust-6 or
slower. Of course, if the humans start building custom-design T8
warships
with long-range weapons (there aren't any such ships in FB1) there's
nothing to stop the Kraks and Shellies from doing so as well, and a
B3/T8+
(or P-L/T8+ or K-gun/T8+) ship *can* beat a similarly-priced B5/T8 ship.
However, your question was "isn't giving the Hu'Mans another *scalable*,
*long-range* weapon (...) TIPPING THE BALANCE IN THE OTHER DIRECTION?"
(emphasis added), and the answer to that question is "no". It doesn't do
anything to remove the *existing* imbalance between custom-designed
human
ships and Fleet Book KV/Phalon ones, but it also doesn't make it any
worse than it already is; if anything the Grasers are harder to use for
extreme-range sniping tactics (since they're so much larger and more
expensive than similar-ranged beam batteries that the enemy gets a much
larger force to counter the sniper with).
> The very fact that the range bands are different gives the grasers a
This is the same as saying that a range 36 weapon with two range bands is the
same as a range 24 weapon with two range bands, or even a 12 mu weapon with
two range bands, as long as they all inflict the same damage in their
respective first and second range bands.
Sorry Jared, but that's bullshit and you know it. "Performance" is more than
just "average damage"; the range 36 weapon will have a larger area in which to
search for targets and will therefore on average get to fire a larger number
of shots during the game than the range 24 and range 12 ones
do - and the number of shots a weapon gets to fire is part of its
performance, just like the average damage it inflicts per shot it gets to fire
is.
> "Rereoll affected by screens" is not a new mechanic, just a twist on
At every gaming convention I've been to, and most gaming groups I've met
have one or more of these players as well. Having to refer to a rulebook
all the time to check which weapons used what rules variant is nearly as
bad as using the wrong rule, even though the exact effect is different
(slowing the game down to a crawl rather than upsetting the game
balance) :-(
> a feature [unpredictable damage] several players have already
Could be done, sure. IIRC Full Thrust calls that weapon type "K-guns" or
something like that :-/
> You haven't read the ECC7 AARs or other peoples' reactions to the
Doh. Sorry about that; I'm confusing this list with the playtest list again
:-( The detailed playtest AARs were posted there, not here. My bad.
> Bail9672 says "the Graser looks to be a very powerful weapon."
This was *before* he had used them in a game, though. As you've probably
seen by now, his reaction after actually using it in a game were...
somewhat stronger than this, shall we say :-/
> (FWIW there were similar complaints about the EFSB heavy beam back
That's precisely why I'm telling you about it. Your not being on the list at
the time doesn't make the complaints disappear, I'm afraid.
> After all, you're not the one who'll have to defend the rules against
or
> "loaded dice".
Could you please convince Glen Bailey (ie., bail9672) about this for me?
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >hit, class 3 does 3 points per hit, etc.
To plagiarize your own statement: "Sorry Oerjan, but that's BS and you know
it."
By that same logic, the argument against "Grasers" causing 1d6 damage per hit
is: "IIRC Full Thrust calls that weapon type 'Pulse Torpedoes"
and 'Salvo Missiles' or something like that :-/ "
> Doh. Sorry about that; I'm confusing this list with the playtest list
I thought that was the case, but I listed what I had read in case I missed
something and you could point me to it.
> Could you please convince Glen Bailey (ie., bail9672) about this for
1) everyone uses the same bunch of dice 2) roll dice from a cup, not
barehanded 3) roll in a box top with Vegas rules:
a) dice must bounce, not slide, off of bottom/table at least once
and b) dice must bounce off of far wall of box top
If you still get uneven rolls over the course of several hundred rolls, then
talk to Newton and Einstein, I can't help you:)
J