Though we don't really have agreement from all parties on HB mechanics, I
think that we've settled on a playtest-able compromise, and can work
from there.
However, how HBs are affected by armour is another matter. As I see it, there
are two options:
(1) Just like Beams; splitting evenly between armour and hull
(2) As Noam's suggestion; 1st point of each die on armour, and the rest
penetrating
Option (2) would require a price increase due to increased effectiveness, but
I personally like the mechanic.
Opinions?
> On 7-Feb-00 at 13:09, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
No roll to hit, rolls d6's for damage, rerolls, ignores all but first point of
armor? Talk about your munchkin weapon...
> On 7-Feb-00 at 13:13, Roger Books (books@mail.state.fl.us) wrote:
wrote:
> > Though we don't really have agreement from all parties on HB
Ooops, forgot, also get's two rolls to stay up instead of one, thus is much
more survivable than SMs.
3) How about making it hit any available armour, with only rerolls bypassing
to the hull boxes (like not-so-heavy beam weapons) ?
> 3) How about making it hit any available armour, with only rerolls
Unfortunately, we've settled on the "no re-roll" option. I think that
re-rolls would have made the weapon far too powerful.
> On 7-Feb-00 at 13:33, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
No rerolls? I thought the opposite had been decided. OK, make that
no rerolls and 1/2 to armour 1/2 to hull and I would be quite happy.
Option 1 should read "just like P-Torps".
I prefer option 1.
Reasons: 1. Option 2 introduces a new mechanic into FT (not always bad, but
not necessary in this case). 2. It changes the balance between Armor and
Screens. 3. It would require yet an additional rule for use against Kra'Vak
(unless FB2 KV use ablative armor [which I hope they do]).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> No rerolls? I thought the opposite had been decided. OK, make that
Good heavens no. As I said, that would be over the top.
I'm not looking for an "uber-weapon" here, just a FT translation of the
EFSB Heavy Beam.
And as to the armour issue, that's what the poll is for.
> Option 1 should read "just like P-Torps".
[reasons snipped]
This is an excellent point, and the associated reasoning makes me now more
inclined to change my bias to Option 1
G'day Schoon,
> Though we don't really have agreement from all parties on HB mechanics,
I'd go for this one (I tend to see the HBs as the p-torps big brother).
Cheers
Beth
> From Roger:
> No roll to hit, rolls d6's for damage, rerolls, ignores all but first
> much more survivable than SMs.
Ahhh...No.
Auto hit at 0-6" vs. unscreened only. You think that's unfair, revisit
KV scatterguns. Brian sees those as unbalanced, probably because they're too
cheap for their power. I think there's zero wrong with autohit anywhere as
long as its paid for. And I still like the feel of it for the HBW.
D6 damage minus rnage modifier is less per die than P-torp at most
ranges, and cost balance is being worked in this excercise. No rerolls
(already covered). Each die scores 1 armor first, then penetrates, with
consumate need to increase cost. With two systems they're more vulnerable than
systems other than SMLs. SM's have higher damage potential per shot, and the
dynamic, which is a nice carryover from EFSB is also part of the cost balance.
Nothing munchkin about it unless you want to cost it like a Class 1 beam, and
no one is trying to do that.
> I know there seems to be great love for a single shot ship killer
> whatever a HBW?
If there is such a love, it's certainly not represented by the HBW as it's
being discussed. The weapon is simply not a ship killer.
> Or this:
Don't care for it, at least not as an HBW substitute. Perhaps as some mondo
spinal mount beam...
> I don't understand why the sudden interest in the uber weapon.
Becuase there isn't.
As for unified "to hit," I dislike that a great deal. I think that as long
as the system stays simple - and all the ways "to hit" are simple in FT
-
the more variety the better. I want something bland _less_ than I want
something overcomplex.
Here we go...
I prefer option 1. As has been stated, it seems to be the list consensus that
the FTFB HBWs are the younger big brothers of the pulse torpedo. It is simple,
an established pattern, easy to remember.
Bill
In a message dated 02/07/2000 12:09:01 PM Central Standard Time,
> schoon@aimnet.com writes:
> However, how HBs are affected by armour is another matter. As I see
I vote for the 50/50 Rule.
-=Kr'rt
> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:07:11 -0800
normally, our HBW count 100% armor and hull. although we are testing variant
HBW (see below).
i like the raking concept that B5Wars introduced with their heavy beam
weapons. the way it works in B5W is the total damage is divided into groups of
10. each group is applied to a random location, representing a beam slicing
across the ship's hull. the purpose of a rake is to damage several systems
enough to cause a critical malfunction. i puzzled for a while how to do this
in FT, but i think i had an idea last night.
how about this: armor affects a HBW, but damage to hull is applied
differently. for each damage point, mark the first hull box as destroyed and
skip the second one, mark the third, etc. when the end of the row is reached,
roll a threshold for one random system. goto the beginning of the row and mark
the first available hull. when the hull row is totally destroyed, make normal
threshold rolls. this attempts to simulate to behavior above. some HBW could
be more effective at causing an early threshold by marking the first hull and
skipping 2 hulls, etc. some HBW may not have this ability at all. it really
depends upon what your universe background dictates.
this IMO raises the cost of the HBW for this "raking" ability. we are
still testing this one for play balance/mass + cost.
HBW variants
------------
we are also trying out other variants to determine extra mass and costs.
normal: armor counts 100%, count damage normally. raking: armor counts 100%,
special hull damage & thresholds (above). (basic: skip every 2nd hull;
advanced: skip every 2nd & 3rd hull)
piercing: [basic] - ignore 1/2 armor (rd up); [adv] - ignore all armor.
sweeping: hit multiple targets with one beam. targets must be withing 6" of
each other. divide dice between all targets. penalty =
-1 damage/die for each target > 1, but only 1 FC necessary.
so
2 targets = #1 no penalty, #2 -1/die
3 targets = #2 -2/die, #3 -2/die
this is useful for higher dice HBW where the ship has few beams, like a Shadow
cruiser. mega beam: combine HBW to form a larger one (Vorlon). each HBW must
be fully charged. extra! cost and some mass.
anti-ftr/anti-missle: HBW1 already have this. larger HBW must have
+1 mass, cost.
EMP: extra threshold checks???
comments?
dave
heck, i forget to list the assumptions:
* no rerolls
* -1/die/6" range band (first ones have 8" range bands)
* shield-1 extra -1/die, shield-2 extra -2/die
* mass and cost about 2-2.5x equivalent FT beam of same class
dave
> normally, our HBW count 100% armor and hull. although we are testing
so
> 2 targets = #1 no penalty, #2 -1/die