In preperation for our next Denver convention, Scott Field and I ran a small
test game with the Fighter Beta rules and have some questions. I looked for
the answers in the archives around the time of the original posting but didn't
find anything so I come to the list for answers...
Salvo Missiles Vs. Fighters. Salvo Missiles can't directly target fighters
correct? But in Fleet Book 1 pg 6 a Salvo missile that is destroyed by a
fighter has a small chance of taking the fighter with it. It this still true?
EMP Cannons/Ion Cannons cause the target ship to take a limited
treashold
check against non-weapon systems (and other things). What does an
EMP/ION
Cannon do to a fighter/fighter group?
I thought there was another question. Maybe Scott has it.
Thanks!
> Mike Stanczyk wrote:
> In preperation for our next Denver convention, Scott Field and I ran a
Yup. For every missile popped, you roll 1d6, and on a 6, a fighter got too
close to the blast and was killed.
> EMP Cannons/Ion Cannons cause the target ship to take a limited
They're handled like regular beam dice hits on a fighter. The EMP's enough to
fry all the systems in the fighter, so no chance to repair later.
> I thought there was another question. Maybe Scott has it.
Keep me posted on the dates. I'm in northern Wyoming, Denver is the closest
Con I know of.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
> >Salvo Missiles Vs. Fighters. Salvo Missiles can't directly target
Sylvester's answers are correct, I'm just posting to agree.
> >EMP Cannons/Ion Cannons cause the target ship to take a limited
An EMP Battery hit that can fry ship systems will mission kill a fighter, just
like a physical damaging hit from a regular beam weapon.
> From: Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@pcisys.net>
The other two I had written down were:
Can salvo missile attack fighters (other than by possibly taking some with
them when they go pop)?
When a ship must take threshold checks due to EMP/Ion beam hits, are
those threshold checks tied to the ship's current damage level? (Ie - if
they're on their last row of hull, do the EMP/Ion threshold checks start
at 3 or less?)
I *think* I know the answer to both those, but wanted to make sure.
> From: "Michael Brown" <mwsaber6@msn.com>
Next Denver con is Tacticon, which is normally the first weekend in September.
Don't know this year's dates off the top of my head, and they haven't updated
the website yet:
www.denvergamers.com/tacticon/generalinfo.asp
I'll post the dates when I find them.
Thanks all! Scott
> Can salvo missile attack fighters (other than by possibly taking some
Not unless you house-rule an anti-fighter missile warhead. I'd consider
that a waste of a salvo.
> When a ship must take threshold checks due to EMP/Ion beam hits, are
Hmmm....that's not exactly addressed, is it? I'd say the intent of the
rules is "no, the max an EMP can do is a 4-6 roll", but I could be
wrong.
LL wrote on 05/24/2006 08:47:25 AM:
> >Can salvo missile attack fighters (other than by possibly
House rule could be massaged, I'd think. How about the full number of
anti-fighter missles deploy into a squadron, and then each rolls to hit?
If that's BEFORE fighter defense, I'd think it might be worth including in a
large missle bay.
On the other hand, I don't have a lot of experience with fighters or missles.
> >When a ship must take threshold checks due to EMP/Ion
Star Ranger's Ion Cannons roll at 'the target ships next threshold level', if
this was considered for beta submissions. Do the beta versions hit individual
systems, and not, on each hit, roll against all systems? I think that's the
way Dean's work.
The_Beast
I said:
> Not unless you house-rule an anti-fighter missile warhead.
Doug said:
> House rule could be massaged, I'd think. How about the full number of
If that's BEFORE fighter defense, I'd think it might be worth including in a
large missle bay.
Generally a SM is overkill on a destroyer, and a fighter group is worth about
the same as a destroyer, which is why I say that shooting an SM at fighters is
wasteful. The other problem is timing. Fighters move after SM so you'll never
hit
the fighters--unless you mix the anti-fighter SM with a batch of normal
SM that the fighters are obligated to attack. You might force teh fighters to
burn an Endurance, but using a SM is an awfully expensive way to do that.
> On the other hand, I don't have a lot of experience with fighters or
However, I was sort of thinking about some shifting of the order of movement,
too, which just is WAY too complex to consider. Far piece to go
to give SML's the same flexibility as beam weapons. ;->=
Well, unless I get a chance to play soon, which is not an impossibility.
I guess my limited experience is that ships with large missle bays seldom get
to flush them, and the option of a good fighter killer in a pinch is worth the
risk. Killing a destroyer seemed worth an SM if you lacked other good targets.
*shrug*
Note, no numbers were crunched in this cogitation. I'll keep your benchmarks
in mind!
The_Beast
Chris wrote on 05/24/2006 09:25:39 AM:
> I said:
> I guess my limited experience is that ships with large missle bays
which is why I use SMR, not SML. And launching 4 SM at once is a lot better
than launching one per turn for three turns.
> and the option of a good fighter killer in a pinch is worth the risk.
Killing a destroyer seemed worth an SM if you lacked other good targets.
*shrug*
Those missiles ain't free.
> Scott wrote:
> Can salvo missile attack fighters (other than by possibly taking some
Not as the rule is written.
> When a ship must take threshold checks due to EMP/Ion beam hits, are
If you use the beta-test EMP beams from the ORC page, the EMP threshold
checks are *only* determined by the number of EMP hits scored.
There are many similar-but-different "Ion Cannon" variants available on
the 'net. Some of them tie the thresholds to the ship's damage; some don't.
Regards,
Laserball: a Full Thrust game in which the only thing blown up is the ball.
Equipment: Mylar ball, Flashlight lasers, 4mu wide goals, and Playing arena,
usually circular
Objective: score goals by using your laser to push the ball.
Use FT FB2 rules for initiative, plotting, and vector movement. The players
have Thrust 4 and can rotate 2 clockfaces per thrust expended.
Each player has an inherent skill level-- +0 beam dice for a neophyte,
+5BD for a pro--and a 5BD laser, reduced by 1 die per 6" range band.
There's a -1BD penalty if the ball is in your FS/FP arc, a -3 if it's in
your AS/AP arc, and -6 if it's in your A arc. Each hit on the ball
translates to 1" thrust away from the firing player.
If the ball hits a wall, it reflects off at the same speed it hit with. A
player will also reflect off, but may roll his skill to add or
subtract velocity and/or change direction. For instance, Tidus Jektson
rolls well on his 4d6 skill and gets 5 hits-- he can change his
reflection by up to 5" speed or 5 increments of 30 degree angle or any
combination.
Alarishi variant Three or more teams. All players contribute to a prize which
is awarded to the winning team. The winning team should decide how it is going
to split the prize among its members.
Each team must decide under what conditions it will accept a new
player--eg, unanimous vote, majority vote, captain's approval. A player
may at any time leave his current team and petition to join another team.
Teams may form and break alliances at will. In this variant, your playing
skill is helpful but your negotiation skill is key.
When the ball hits one team's goal, it counts as a point for ALL other teams.
Example: Red scores on Blue; Blue then scores on Red; Green sits on the side.
Red and Blue each have 1 point, and Green has 2 points.
Fair enough, but I think all/most FB designs use SML's, and the per
salvo
cost, while not free, is less, right? With the usual being 3-4 reloads
per launcher?
Definitely a different decision between locking an SMR into a AF salvo and
including it in a magazine.
But, I'll really have to cogitate further before trying to defend more.
The_Beast
Chris wrote on 05/24/2006 09:50:17 AM:
> >I guess my limited experience is that ships with large
> Fair enough, but I think all/most FB designs use SML's
Many, but not all.
> and the per salvo cost, while not free, is less, right? With the usual
The per-salvo cost is less if you don't include the launcher, and if you
assume the ship survives long enough to get off all its shots, and if you
assume the target is undefended. If you send one salvo at a time and PDS
shoots it down, or if your ship gets destroyed before you can get the 3 or 4th
salvo off, then your "cheaper" missiles have a lower return on investment.
> From: <laserlight@verizon.net>
I suppose there *could* be times when taking out a fighter squadron is a
higher priority, but in general I would agree. Plus as you note, all they
really would have to do is burn some END to get out of the way. The main issue
was whether or not fighters could "force" normal SMs to target them by moving
between the salvoes and the capital ships. Glad
the answer is no. ;-)
> From: Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
OK, so if a ship is on it's second damage row and takes two Ion Cannon hits,
it makes two checks for each affected system, system fails on a
1-2? (Or a 5-6 if you're using high-roll-fails.) What about on it's
last row? Fail on a 1-3, or a 1-4?! Sorry to be anal; just making sure
I've got it right.
Thanks again, Scott
Nothing to be sorry about it, but I've not played in Dean's Crossovers.
Actually, looking at the Rebel designs, he may have multiple interpretations.
You can check his site out, drill down to the fleet SSD sheets, and read how
he's got it, but I think he's pretty busy and may not be able to answer for
himself.
http://www.star-ranger.com/Home.htm
http://www.star-ranger.com/SRStuff.htm
and then to the individual Crossover games for links to the images of the
fleet sheets.
However, as Oerjan stated, the EMP rules for the ORC EMP use a really
different mechanic.
http://star-ranger.com/ORCpreview.htm
Good luck!
The_Beast
Scott wrote on 05/24/2006 12:04:21 PM:
> > From: Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
> > From: <laserlight@verizon.net>
It would be nice if SM's could attack fighters though.
Perhaps something like buying special "anti-fighter" SM's. Give them
double final attack range. If they reach a fighter group, they attack
immediately. Fighters may choose to ignore the missiles, or shoot at them.
Surviving fighters that ignored the missiles may attack or move normally.
Fighters shoot down the missiles as the current rules. Roll for number of
missiles that engage. Each missile that survives and engages, kills a fighter.
Anti fighter SM's attack ships normally, but only do one point of damage per
missile that survives.
If you wanted to increase fighter defenses, you could make them "half space"
SM's, so that two anti-fighter salvo's would fit in the space of one
regular salvo.
Outfit a carriers escort's with some of these, and they can break up the enemy
attack waves while the carrier conducts operations.
Go really nuts, and you could allow these SM's to attack regular SM waves as
well.
> > > >When a ship must take threshold checks due to EMP/Ion
As Oerjan posted, the EMP Batteries as posted on the ORC Beta page do not
change due to damage row and are only determined by the hits rolled by the EMP
Battery.
Before the EMP Battery rules, I was using some Ion Cannon rules that did roll
threshold based on damage row, but those old Ion Cannon rules also were
different in that each 'hit' rolled was a system that was lost. The new EMP
Battery rules are different and I think better so I suggest you use those
instead, even if you are using some of my old Sci-Fi Crossover SSDs that
had the old Ion Cannon rules on them.
Well, I thought Chris's last followup, intentionally or not, supported the
idea, as the last few SM's in most FB-design magazines(my beloved
Gorshkov is the only SMR I can find) are probably toast. Remember, he was
being generous when he said "ship gets destroyed" as a threshold hit is almost
as bad. As bad, if you roll damage control like I do.
However, I was thinking more of using the AF SM as an extra PDS, shooting as
the fighter attacks. Haven't thought about something like you've got
there. I'm scared of over-complication, but I'll give a think-through.
;->=
The_Beast
Grant wrote on 05/24/2006 12:29:16 PM:
***much snippage***
> It would be nice if SM's could attack fighters though.
Ok, which one of you came up with this:
http://www.thesheepmarket.com/
Come, fess up!
> From: "Star Ranger" <dean@star-ranger.com>
I would tend to agree - just wanted to check with those who have
playtested it more than I have. (ie - more than once!)
Thanks yet again, gang.
Scott [returning to lurk-mode] Field