A while back (not too long ago), someone posted a conceptualization of
the SV as a macro-beings who lived in space. I really liked it, and will
probably go on thinking about them in these terms when I play FT. That version
of the SV sort of removes them from DS or SG scale conflict, unless a reason
for such critters ever making planetfall comes up (e.g. rescue of injured
comrades from a planetary gravity well?) As mentioned when it was first
described, that concept of the SV requires more alien thinking than even the
KV.
If yer going to be an alien you should act like one. At least that's what my
mother always told me. That's how I learned to drink through my ears.
> At 01:24 AM 12/8/98 +0000, tom wrote:
Pretty nice! That must've come by when I was in one of my, "I haven't read
list mail for three days now... hmm... DELETE!" modes.
And you never know, some of those females might not be *that* immobile...
well, actually, they are, but they're just in long-term orbits, and the
females occationally get mistaken for comets.... ^_^
> none of the morphs described in my piece are really capable of making
Cool! Do they act anything like the Mycon, maybe with no-so-nice
planets,
or is that a bit too nasty? ^_^
> That's how I learned to drink through my ears.
Hey, marshmallows are easy. Chunks of Smarties, now those <ahem>
smart....
What, did I say that? ^_^;
<duck>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Aaron Teske wrote:
thanks!
> That must've come by when I was in one of my, "I haven't read
being a student, i am able to read list mail at leisure. however, there have
been times when a few hundred gems of wisdom were uncerermoniously flushed
unread...
> And you never know, some of those females might not be *that*
well, i suppose nothing is truly immobile, but the females are more or less
unable to maneuver, so orbit is all they can do. still, those long
orbits are a possibility - perhaps there is an SV archmother which
swings by terra every 513 years. in fact, the Bavarians know this to be so...
> >none of the morphs described in my piece are really capable of making
the which? never heard of no Mycon. a web search indicates that they are an
indian construction company. or some sort of biological spacefarers.
thermostable fungoids. i see what you mean about terraforming - they
burrow into human-habitable worlds (eg earth) and turn the into
mycon-habitable worlds (eg venus). i wasn't quite thinking along those
lins, but i can see what you're getting at.
since the SV live in deep space, they would prefer cold planets such as titanm
or europa, where they can get plentiful organic compounds, to hotter places
like earth. however, given what has been said about the temperature of space
this may change. i repeat my call for other people to write what they think
the SV are. my only lead in the literature so far is the sundogs from terry
pratchett's 'the dark side of the sun'.
Tom
Steven Arrowsmith US Internet HelpDesk
www.public.usit.net/arrowjr
steven@arrowsmith.net dredd@quake.usit.net steven.arrowsmith@helpdesk.usit.net
________________________________________________________________________
_______
Tact is just a way of saying untrue stuff
________________________________________________________________________
_______
I guess I have a different view of the Sa'Vasku. I see them as a
Shadow/Vorlon mix, they have not in my opinion made the transition to
beings of energy like the Vorlons, but have the same tech base to
grow/cultivate living machines, which they can inhabit, like the
Vorlons. I feel the Sa'Vasku bioships are manned as human ships, but have a
more symbiotic relationship with it. But not to the extent of the shadows, who
grow/ merge with their ships. Sa'Vasku should be able to leave their
bioships.
If humans ever saw a Sa'Vasku outside their bioship, I feel they would be
wearing bioarmour, smaller versions of their bioship. This could give them
some very weird appearances. Just Think of Sa'Vasku bioarmour and biotanks in
DSII..
I would like to thank those of you who replied to my last query about alien
races and systems available to get them to fit into the last fleet book. I got
alot of good information. I got some stuff for the Kra'Vaks but nothing for
the Sa'Vasku. Does anyone have any idea's or thoughts on them? I was thinking
a certain ammount of points per mass, but that is just a thought. Thanks again
for the responses. Andy.
Just a thought but if the Sa'Vasku can re absord fighters would it also be
possible for larger ships to absorb smaller ships in order to
repair themselves / reload their bio in order to create more fighters
etc, we tried this recently when a player wanted to launch more fighters than
he had bio for he absorbed a smaller ship and received its bio mass so he
could then launch more fighters, seems a bit of a waste but hey he wanted to
do it...
> Paul Owen wrote:
It strikes me that if taken to the extreme it could seriously outbalance the
Sa'Vasku. Why worry about damage to your sandcrab when you can have three
broodmothers well out of the fighting feeding you snacks to keep you going..
I'd say only ships that can launch drones should have the
ability to re-absorb drones.
TTFN
Jon
> It strikes me that if taken to the extreme it could seriously
It would seem to me that the ship would have to have a bay large enough to
contain the ship in order to reabsorb it.
> Jonathan White wrote:
As I stated in a prior post: All of the 'S' can absorb mass in STRATIGIC time,
brood ships can absorb 'S' fighters in TACITICAL time. This simple concept
keeps the 'absorb tactic' from becoming a game winner.
Bye for now,
> Paul Owen wrote:
> Just a thought but if the Sa'Vasku can re absord fighters would it
> repair themselves / reload their bio in order to create more fighters
> etc, we tried this recently when a player wanted to launch more
As long as the "womb" absorbing the smaller ship is at least 50% the
size of said smaller ship and you only absorb the bio-mass, you should
be OK.
Eg., if you want to absorb a Sa'An'Tha (TMF10) you need a womb which takes up
at least 5 Mass in the mothership, and you'd absorb only the 3
bio-mass and not the 7 remaining Mass. The Mass 3 drone wombs described
in FB2 can't handle ships larger than 6 Mass.
"Assembling"/"giving birth to" anything larger than a drone fighter
takes much too long to be done during a battle though, so the above
process is strictly one-way - you can *absorb* the bio-mass of a
smaller ship, but you can't use existing bio-mass to create a smaller
ship!
Later,
All
Quick question.
Would the Sa'Vasku replace their lost biomas overtime, both from enemy fire
and creating drones, presumably from consuming more organic matter ( example
aftre a battle the Sa'Vasku go round and consume all of the enemy dead) or
some other process.
Thanks.
NGarbett@STSSystems.com worte:
> Would the Sa'Vasku replace their lost biomas overtime, both
No-one except the Sa'Vasku themselves know that, and they aren't
telling :-/
Regards,
> On 16-May-00 at 14:24, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
That was helpful.:)
We've discussed adding Sa'Vasku to our campaign and are tossing around two
possibilities.
1. Stick them in an asteroid belt with some solar radiation and they
"heal".
2. They require special nutrient solutions to heal and thus must be at a
"shipyard" for repairs, just like a normal ship.
Both of course assume no womb, with a womb you just feed them fighters.
I would go for #1. For refueling (as opposed to repair), they could skim
hydrogen and other gases from any nearby gas giant or convert ice from a
Keplar <sp> belt object planet rings, etc. Repair would probably need heavy
elements (such as iron) provided by an asteroid field.
While Bugs Don't Surf (BDS) has not been written yet, I might suggest that
fleets with wombs, may generate creatures to forage for biomass on a nearby
world (think interface craft with aliens inside).
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> Brian Bell wrote:
I'd agree with that. The Sa'Vas space constructs are specifically designed to
be in space and you'd think therefore able to feed themselves there.
Now there are couple of ways they could forrage for food. Each construct might
be able to digest asteroids and suck directly. That way each ship, if alone
could sustain itself. another option is that ships with wombs produce drones
that predigest minderals into something that the constructs can absorb. There
could also be special food ships, like the sugar ants that store food for hte
hive.
Now a question I have is that it's aluded to that the constructs grow over
time, in a campaigne, should you allow ships to grow over time and would you
have to pay for the extra points from resource points if they're part of the
game. I've been playing around with the idea of having a "queen" ship that
births frigate to destroyer size ships that would grow up slowly to be bigger
ships. I'm working on how much a ship can grow in a given turn compared to the
construction capabilities of other races. Any thoughts on this?
> Nick wrote:
> Quick question.
Not if you think you're getting some advantage in the next campaign!
Incidentally, the Kra'Vak will be bringing some very strong pesticides to the
next battle!:)
Seriously, as the Sa'Vasku are organic in nature, they grow and thus i expect
they can probably regenerate given enough time.
Cheers,
I was looking at the the FB2 Sa'vasku designs and two things struck me. First,
assuming the SDN (for example), wants to manouver at say three or use
shields (depending if fighting kra'vak or Human / Phalon) and have some
energy for repairs or PDS it can't actually do more than 5 dice at class three
range or 20 dice at class 1 range, which is no more than a Human SDN would do
at these ranges. So the trick is not to let them get too close or too far
away, which is impossible with thier advanced drives which brings me on to the
next point...
Sa'Vasku dont pay any extra for thier advanced drives, just 2 points per tonne
as the other non advanced drive races, so I think the way to do it is to make
the Sa'Vasku drives standard so they can't do some of the mad manouvers that
they can at the moment and leave thier weapons as is.
This also makes Kra'Vak more evenly matached against them, who I think are
balanced against the other races except FSE and Phalon of course, cos thier
missiles and plasma bolts cant hit them for toffee:(
BTW has anyone tried the 8/16/24... ranges for Sa'Vasku? I have
witnessed a battle between Sa'vasku frigate and human frigate and found the
Sa'Vasku disadvantaged because the NAC frigate could fire on and damage the
Sa'Vasku ship before the Sa'Vasku could get into range to do any real damage
itself.
And in a a battle between a Sa'Vasku DDH, an NAC frigate and two Phalon DDHs,
the result was the destruction of the frigate by the Phalons as it tried to
flee and the annilation of the Sa'Vasku when it cought up with the chasing
Phaslons. One Phalon took armour damage.
G'day Mike,
> So the trick is not to let them get too close or
This is spot on.
> Sa'Vasku dont pay any extra for thier advanced drives, just 2 points
I haven't actually looked at this as one of the options I've been toying
with, but my gut feeling would be that it takes away their ability to go
hide once hurt. SV need to be able to get out of harms way damn smart because
they crumble faster than other races.
> This also makes Kra'Vak more evenly matached against them, who I think
Funny I have had someone tell me that PH would run over the KV and not even
notice the bump.... each to hsi own thoughts there I guess;)
> BTW has anyone tried the 8/16/24... ranges for Sa'Vasku?
I've tried 9/18/27 etc, was fun and worked well and made the SV damn
well earn those drives you want them to get rid of;)
Cheers
Beth
> Sa'Vasku dont pay any extra for thier advanced drives, just 2 points
Not strictly true. Try flying a Sa'Vasku ship without any power generators.
Part of the cost of the advanced drives is subsumed into the cost of the power
generators.
> --- Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
...
> I haven't actually looked at this as one of the
XXX A very reasonable idea, I like it! A suggestion, move the spicule power
from the 'A' pool to the 'D' pool. This move is a commitment
of power to a non-offensive pool. This does not
solve the ultra-range difficulties, but it does
make the player think about the possibilites of close combat. XXX
Bye for now,
I have not heard back any playtests, but I like the idea of making the
stingers equivilent to Beams based on power. Power to equivlent Beam is
2^(x-1) where x is the Beam Class number.
Power Dice at Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Range Band
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Range
1 1
2 2 1
4 3 2 1
8 4 3 2 1
16 5 4 3 2 1
32 6 5 4 3 2 1
64 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Comared to now: Power Dice at Range
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Range Band
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Range
1 1
2 2 1
4 4 2 1
8 8 4 2 1
16 16 8 4 2 1
32 32 16 8 4 2 1
64 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
This does not solve the problem of long range sniping, but does solve the
problem of being overpowering in close. Is will also encourage custom designs
to spend mass on multiple stingers as 2 shots from a power 8 stinger will do
more damage than a 16 power stinger at the same range.
And I agree, power for the spicule should come from the 'D' pool.
-----
Brian Bell
brian_bell@dscc.dla.mil
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
I don't know. It doesn't seem to me that the SVs are all that unbalanced.
Maybe it's because the more advanced players tend to want to play the new
races. Maybe it's because players are locked into old human tactics, that
don't work vs the SV. Maybe you just need to force them to move, so they don't
have enough energy to power all the weapons.
Given the charts below, this may seem like a stupid question, but I'd like
to confirm -- Do Sa'Vasku Stingers do increased damage as range
decreases given the same power allocation?
Our group had interpreted the rule as Stingers doing only 1D6 at all ranges
(which, admittedly, made the Sa'Vasku easily the hardest race to play
effectively).
[quoted original message omitted]
Yes. It is not stated directly in FB2, but is evident from Examples 1 & 2, in
the Stinger section on page 22.
Thanks. I guess I hadn't read those examples, either.
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
XXX Modify Brians chart slightly and you get:
Power Damage points at Range
XXX
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Range Band
XXX
Bye for now,
> --- Scott Jaqua <jaqua@centerlinewheels.com> wrote:
Scott, To force the 'S' to move, one must be in a
position to do some damage. The 'S' once moving
require only a minimal amount of energy to adjust course to maintain range.
The problem is stratigic in nature, the 'S' do not appear to have any
stratigic assets to
fight over. In tacticial combat the 'S',
once they are up to speed, have higher acceleration and longer range weapons
than any other race. This mean they cannot be 'forced' into combat on any
terms that do not favor an 'S' victory. However, if the 'S' can be forced into
close combat, it is likely the 'S' will be defeated or withdraw.
Bye for now,
G'day guys,
> I have not heard back any playtests, but I like the idea of making the
The problem is that the SV aren't built with that many stingers on board
(compared with human designs of about the same mass), so when they get to
close range they lose over half the dice compared to any other beam armed
race. Add to that the fact that depending on amount of energy given to the A
pool and range etc etc its actually better to buy to 2 class 4 and 1 class 3
rather than 4 class 3 at range y. So if the SV weren't screaming at their lack
of punch close in then everyone else is when the SV have just
spent half an hour determining exactly what the classes are the SDN is going
to fire to get maximum bite for its paltry punch. I'm not trying to sound
harsh, I initially like the sound of the idea too it just doesn't work at the
coal face unfortunately.
Cheers
Beth
Thanks for the feedback! As I said, I had not heard any feedback. Now we know
that it does not work.
> At 10:27 2000-08-21 +1000, you wrote:
How about this for a simple way to stop the Sa'Vasku from sniping, simply
limit their Stingers to 36 inches. This would also advantage the other races
as they would be more effective at shorter ranges against the Sa'Vasku.
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day
> How about this for a simple way to stop the
OK I'm confused here, you want to take away their sniping (adavantage at
long range) and let the other races have an advantage at short range... so
where exactly do the SV get a break then? Or have I misinterpreted something
here?
Thanks
Beth
Well you would leave the Stingers as is in the book but set a maximum range of
36 inches so you would still get the potential for lots of dice at close range
you would also have superior manouverability compared to all but the Kravak
which would be balanced out by the fact that the enemy could now hit you as
this seems to be the main complaint when i play against people with the
Savasku
[quoted original message omitted]
I prefer the 8MU rule or limiting the range to 48MU. Sniping with a 12MU to
18MU margin is not a sure thing. Sniping at 60 MUs from a highly maneverable
ship is something that you could sell to an insurance company.
Also I have been experimenting with Gun boat carriers. Carrying mass 8 speed 8
ships in by tug or cargo bay. The little boats use MKPs or submunitions packs.
They are probably crewless big missiles.
Andy A
[quoted original message omitted]
I have been using that same justification for my "expendable" smaller ships. I
can't justify the loss rates if they're crewed, but since we tend towards
larger capital ships anyway (DNs runn around 350 mass), nobody has any problem
thinking of them as beam or "scatterpack" missile pods.
[quoted original message omitted]
> I have been using that same justification for my "expendable" smaller
That's the general thinking behind my "cloaking submunition bombs" that wound
up touching off the huge thread on modular ships as well -- they're
AI-driven,
combustible ships that have little purpose but to fly up to someone and raise
hell.
> On Tue, 22 August 2000, "Andrew Apter" wrote:
> I prefer the 8MU rule or limiting the range to 48MU. Sniping with a
Beth has been doing some playtesting and has posted some stuff to the playtest
list (which isn't ready for general consumption yet). Preliminary tests are
showing that shortening the stinger range bands (with a couple of other
tweaks) brings the SV back into line with the other races. For the record, the
playtest group is favouring 9 MU range bands, not 8.
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> Beth has been doing some playtesting and has posted some stuff to the
Preliminary
> tests are showing that shortening the stinger range bands (with a
Well, bully for Beth. I've been favoring range bands in multiples of 3"
myself. My B5W conversions use 3" increments when upgrading pulse torps to act
as heavy lasers. And, by sticking with 3" increments, we can fit the standard
beams and
p-torps into the pattern nicely.
Say, woudl 9" range bands be an acceptable way of simulating older-style
weapons ? 9" bands for beams, 3" bands for old-style pulse torps ?
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Michael Llaneza
> <imperialdispatches@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Say, woudl 9" range bands be an acceptable way of simulating
Yep, that would work. In fact, that's kind of a cool house rule. Gives you a
bit more flexibility instead of saying "old style beams are class 1 and 2
only".
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 NGarbett@STSSystems.com wrote:
> How about this for a simple way to stop the
This would turn the S'V into pale imitations of humans, barely alien at all...
Besides, as Beth pointed out, you're removing every advantage the S'V have.
I doubt the S'V sniping is actually unbalaced, personally. It's only the very
largest ships that have enough power to throw beams a serious distance, and
it's rarely more than one or two die. They've come out about even in all the
games we've had them in locally.
Brian - yh728@victoria.tc.ca -
- http://warbard.iwarp.com/games.html -
> -----Original Message-----
I know that many people think the savas are not balanced. Is there a consensus
that if the range bands are decreased to 9mu that it fixes the problem? Having
played humans for years I want to go with something different and I like the
idea of the savas but unless I can get others to play and think it's fair
there's not much point;)
I have found that fair is not always necessary. Depends on how victory is
measured.
How about (off the top of my head) a holding action protecting slow, fleeing
freighters carrying colonists against an incoming Sa'Vasku invasion fleet? The
goal is not to destroy the invaders, but manage to get the colonists off the
board safely... you know, the old "I only need enough gas
for a one-way trip" kind of mission.
> Jaime Tiampo wrote:
> I know that many people think the savas are not balanced. Is there a
On Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:31 PM, Jaime Tiampo
> [SMTP:fugu@spikyfishthing.com] wrote:
Mostly fixes the problem. Check the archives for a full discussion, but the
only extra option that some use is to shift Spicules to defence and Pod
Launchers to repair. It forces much harder decisions on the player and doesn't
give the flexibility of all the power in the attack pool.
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
G'day Jaime,
> I know that many people think the savas are not balanced. Is there a
It solves a lot of problems, but I'd also suggest you use the other
modifications Brendan mentioned (spicules from defense pool, pods from repair
pool) as well. I'd also be very careful of having prelaunched drones... make
sure you remember to pay for the biomass (i.e. cross it off) before the battle
starts.
> Having played humans for years I want to go with something
Well these changes should help a great deal. If you're mates do still have
some qualms get them to email us (the list or look in the archives) and we'll
give them plenty of suggestions on how to deflate you....erm... the SV;)
Cheers
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> It solves a lot of problems, but I'd also suggest you use the other
I can understand the range limits, the spicules but I don't get the pod
change. Is it just to balance things more or is there reasoning behind it.
Pods, since grown come from the repair pool like drones.
> Well these changes should help a great deal. If you're mates do still
and
> we'll give them plenty of suggestions on how to deflate you....erm...
the SV;)
I don't think I'll have problems with my group here, I'm more concerned when
playing at conventions and stuff. I don't want people shuning the SV but want
them to agree that the points are just as balanced as any other fleet.
It's all part of the same dislike I have for atificial limits like no fighters
or just "cannon" ships. I think the SV have great potential in just being fun.
;)
On Wednesday, June 20, 2001 3:45 PM, Jaime Tiampo
> [SMTP:fugu@spikyfishthing.com] wrote:
For the pods, it's partly the biomass usage that suggests it should come out
of repair. It's more important when you have fighters and missiles flying
around. Does the SV keep some power available to launch interceptor pods or
try to kill the mothership? Leaving the pods in attack pool removes any
chance fighters/missiles have of getting in a meaningful strike.
As per FB2 rules, anyone can win with SV by simply allocating all power to
stinger nodes and simply outshoot the enemy. Making these minor changes
supplies a challenge to the SV player to overcome.
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2001 3:45 PM, Jaime Tiampo
If you want an [OFFICIAL] ruling to quote at people, then as far as I'm
concerned the changes that Beth and the others have outlined (reduce stinger
range band to 9", shift Pods to R pool and spicules to D pool) are about as
close to being [OFFICIAL] as anything right now. This will finally be
"confirmed" in the next book we put out (no, DON'T ask when that'll be....)
but for the moment consider them the "officially favoured option for further
testing".
[quoted original message omitted]
Personally, I would also limit the amount of power generated. Maybe based on
size of ship. Something like, no more then 20% of total ship mass can be spent
on power generators.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
AMEN brother, believe me, having the Sa'Vasku allocation all power to thier
stingers and out shooting you is no fun. Almost impossible to
beat......almost. I find this is much more of a problem with custom ships then
the ones out of FB2. The ones out of the book are actually a blast to play,
especially against Kra'Vak. Custom ships....well, it doesn't take a brainiac
to figure out the best tactic is a massive amount of power and a few stingers.
I think that these changes go a good way toward better balancing things.
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> --- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
... Custom ships....well,
> it
Two tactics that seemed to work pretty well on me were loads of leech pod
launchers and loads of Savasku fighter squadrons. I suspect there is more than
one way a customized Savasku ship can be made to be extra frightening. I have
also been skewered at extreme range by lots of power and stingers, but it
didn't make me feel as helpless as the other tactics did.
In message <20010620150513.15598.qmail@web10408.mail.yahoo.com>
> Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Personally, I would also limit the amount of power
[snip]
Well, I'd say raise that to at least 25% - otherwise it invalidates some
of the FB2 designs.
Personally, this does less to fix the 'giant SV cheese ship' problem
than you think - at say, 3,000 points, even with power limited to 25%,
the giant has a scary combination of manouvre capability and weapon range, and
will probably have huge reserves of biomass as well.
But then, huge superships of any design are a problem.
In message <20010620154007.58906.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com>
> David Griffin <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Two tactics that seemed to work pretty well
Well, I've yet to try playing Sa'Vas'Ku (or opposing them) - but Leech
pods do strike me as a bit sadistic.
I've though out two possible tactics,
firstly, use them to 'pin down' damage control parties - after you push
one of your opponent's big ships through a threshold (and they lose some
systems, preferably important ones) pepper them with leeches - they have
to use their DCPs to kill the leeched, and so don't repair until later.
secondly, this is a bit risky, and rather nasty; target smaller ships with 1
or 2 leeches, they probably won't have enough DCPs to successfully remove
them, and the leeches could well eat an entire frigate or destroyer in a few
rounds, as well as causing thresholds pretty well every round. Leave the ship
to suffer.
The risky bit is the ship does take a few rounds to die, and _can_
attack back :-)
In message <017f01c0f973$57828260$0f8056d1@oemcomputer>
> kaime@mindspring.com wrote:
[snip]
> In short, play them, not once but many times in many engagements, know
Well, he does have a point, we _all_ should give the SV more of a
try. If I could convince my local group to try them (well, if I could convince
my local players to play FT rather than B5W...) I think we should give them a
try or three.
(Although, I am in favour of the rule change that has the power requirement
for pod launchers being from the Repair pool rather than the attack pool, or
at least part of it, simply of grounds of PSB).
Also, their peculiar mechanics do open up certain options (and I'm not talking
about giant cheese ships, or SV arsenal ships).
> Jaime Tiempo wrote:
> > It solves a lot of problems, but I'd also suggest you use the other
Exactly. All other actions which use up bio-mass draw their power from
the R pool, so having the pod launchers *not* do that is inconsistent.
Regards,
G'day guys,
> Personally, I would also limit the amount of power
Personally I reckon this restriction will introduce a flaw rather than a
solution. If you limit the power generators to even 30% and your opponent
still wants to build a 3000 (or whatever) point monster then they'll end up
having HEAPS more biomass to soak up damage with. The best way to cripple an
SV is make them lose biomass (especially if they do it by over extending in
the drone or pod production area). Wounded SV slump fast. Thinking back to the
numbers I ran in May this restriction did make their cost for punch about the
same as humans but knocked their damage soak ability up so that an equivalent
human ship could only take about 70% in comparison.
Once you incorporate the suggested changes (9" range bands etc) the SV (even
the monster ships) are no more scary than home built human ships. A 2000 point
human ship can match range and hitting power of an equivalent
NPV SV ship. They can't match the speed obviously, but when they have exactly
the same range why bother, just sit and wait for him to come in. If you don't
wish to go that path then there are a heap of other options (lots of small
ships instead). OK this isn't what some of you are comfortable with,
unfortunately combatting aliens is gonna take us places we're unfamiliar or
uncomfortable with;)
I think the larger problem is "standard" safe anti-human tactics don't
work (much) against the SV (whereas you can get away with them vs KV or PH),
but then you can't play the SV like humans and pull it off often either.
Just my 2 razoos worth of rant;)
Cheers
Beth
[quoted original message omitted]
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>
> If you want an [OFFICIAL] ruling to quote at people, then as far as
> Alan Brain wrote:
> ..and may I also suggest that to put some limit on roll-your-own ships,
Because a single stinger can only attack a single target per turn. Never
been in a situation where you want to split your fire rather than spend
32+
beam dice on killing a single corvette?
And, of course, if you play Cinematic you usually want more than an
180-degree arc of fire. Sure, the SV are usually maneuverable enough to
keep any single stinger pointing towards the enemy (particularly if it is
offset-arced), but that maneuverability costs power which could have
been
used for firepower had you invested in another Stinger :-/
Later,
In message <4.2.2.20010621100052.00a2ec50@pop.hba.marine.csiro.au>
> Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> wrote:
Hi Beth,
> G'day guys,
[snip quotes]
> Personally I reckon this restriction will introduce a flaw rather than
Well, the rest of my comment did kinda say the same thing - if the
monster don't have all power, it'll have all biomass.
> Once you incorporate the suggested changes (9" range bands etc) the SV
> (even the monster ships) are no more scary than home built human
In message <002c01c0fa14$f90de060$4f4a56d1@oemcomputer>
> kaime@mindspring.com wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
Sorry 'bout that :-|