Rules Updates for turn 41

[Iron Mongoose]

I agree, and that's the qustion I have.  Would you propose a 75/25 split?  50/50?  What other than the 100/0 we have now?

There are a lot of factors in this, there can be no qustion.  Even looking at the Randis battle, had I rolled a bit better it might have been that 5 FP of defenders could have scored a kill on a warship confronted by 70 FP of attackers.  Is that reasonable, just because the attacker rolled a 4 on a warship save? 

Conversly, is it right that some ships should live while others die as a resualt of flotilla design, and not just the resualts of the dice?  Why should one of the Terran's Fox flotillas at 26 FP see a difrent outcome than a 6 FP Fox that is escorted by 20 FP of fighters in a difrent flotilla?  The last thing we want to do is punish people for having designed their flotillas under older rules and then springing something on them that make some work good and other work bad.

I think a better rule might be to limit the perportion of damage over the entire force present that can go to stricken ships. Is it even concevable rationaly that one could bring a force like the Butler or Sudeten fleets to battle against a small force, but then by warship damage rules every single point of damage would go to one or two warships, with no damage at all to anything else?  This I think is Holt's point, and I agree.  But to spread it out too much brings us back to making warships invincable.  How could one ever get a kill, if the damage was always spread out evenly?  If four warships went into battle and lost all but 1 FP of their force, the player if given a choice would still be left with four .25 FP warships.

[Jeyar]

Yeah, but what about those that would TAKE the warship outright? I know that after the hilarious battle a few years ago when a force entered a game out-gunned 2 to one left with nearly twice the power ended up making the rules change so that it is harder to do, but it is still a viable method (if just barely) - and what if they take the vessel but the other side decides to detonate it while it isn't fully staffed?

There should be some way of calling that damage WITHOUT the crits rolls, since there are valid in game-mechanic methods to do that very thing.

[JediBear]

So i was thinking that the standing rules of resolving damage on a warship unit are kinda faulty. What i propose is that damage to the warship unit be determined proportionally between the actual hull and its attending ASF/DS.

In practice there's no reason this should be the case.

Ask any AT2 player. The inability of fighters and dropships to provide effective protection against same is notorious.

In reality, the present rule is entirely appropriate, actually canted a little in the direction of Warship survival (which there is normally no way to ensure,) given that we're already assuming BV has anything to do with the combat capability of AT2 units (which is an absurd conceit, but one we seem bound to.)

I agree, and that's the qustion I have.  Would you propose a 75/25 split?  50/50?  What other than the 100/0 we have now?

How about we consider the concept of levels of failure/success?

i.e. a 2 gets you 100% of the incoming fighters (deployed your screen the wrong direction,) a 3 gets you 50%, and a 2 gets you 25%?

Or we could just assume that under normal circumstances, Warships get damaged last. That's an absurd conceit (see above) but works for thematic reasons.

Conversly, is it right that some ships should live while others die as a resualt of flotilla design, and not just the resualts of the dice?  Why should one of the Terran's Fox flotillas at 26 FP see a difrent outcome than a 6 FP Fox that is escorted by 20 FP of fighters in a difrent flotilla?  The last thing we want to do is punish people for having designed their flotillas under older rules and then springing something on them that make some work good and other work bad.

Flotillas in their original conception seem to have little or no bearing on present rules. I'm half-inclined to suggest abolishing them entirely and just going back (admittedly before this FGC) to individual ships and flexible pools of dropship/fighter units.

Is it even concevable rationaly that one could bring a force like the Butler or Sudeten fleets to battle against a small force, but then by warship damage rules every single point of damage would go to one or two warships, with no damage at all to anything else? 

Absolutely. Fire gets concentrated all the time on the AT2 board and in real life, and it doesn't matter if you have two ships or a hundred, you can put all your fire on a handful of targets. The weapon ranges are huge, the accelerations relatively low, and stacking limits nonexistent. Take it from me, this is not only a conceivable possibility but in practice a near-certainty. If large enough forces meet in battle, Warships die. The only real quirk of these rules is that their chances of survival is a consequence not of their armor and SI (real survivability) but of their BV -- a number which is dimensionally non-comparable to the relevant value.

Yeah, but what about those that would TAKE the warship outright?

Speaking from experience, boarding an active Warship borders on the impossible. The difficulty of doing so is a function of the comparative maneuverabilities of the target ship and the boarding craft, and most importantly will take time. Boarding is far more likely to happen as opportunities arise in battle, and is actually served adequately enough by the salvage rules (which have no analogue in AT2. Ships that die in AT2 just go away.)

There should be some way of calling that damage WITHOUT the crits rolls, since there are valid in game-mechanic methods to do that very thing.

Sure. I'd say you should have to take some extra damage to force fire concentration, like double damage from the enemy to put half your fire on a target or something, but it should be totally doable.

[Fatebringer]

Natural defensive measures for fighters against warships is to pray that they don't have much in the way of close air support and get your butt right up next to them. Aside from actaul non-capitol weaponry, only Naval Lasers can bracket to function as AA guns while most are also limited on the amount of missles they're using. The other systems are limited at close range.

[Dave Baughman]

Rules Errata in conjunction with the ASF rebalance

Clan battle taxis are no longer magically twice as good as IS models. Battle Taxis are worth 0.25 marine FP no matter what faction is using them.

Clan formations with battle taxis do not lose any FP; the number of ships is doubled (if the carrier has capacity for them) or the FP can be used for other purposes (like increasing marine FP or whatnot).

[Dave Baughman]

I'll just leave this here...

=MROUND(((VLOOKUP(D3,A252:G362,4,FALSE)/15000)+(VLOOKUP(H3,I252:O282,2,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(I3,I252:O282,3,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(J3,I252:O282,4,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(K3,I252:O282,5,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(L3,I252:O282,6,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(M3,I252:O282,7,FALSE))+(N3*0.25)+((O3*'Equipment Tables (template)'!G73)/15000)+P3),0.25)

Fun stuff!!!

[Dave Baughman]

Naval MP auto-calculation is in.... looking good so far.

[Dave Baughman]

Auto-calculation of Fighter, Dropship, and Small craft capacity plus auto-tally for flotilla validation is in.


EDIT -> special note for TC... support for Snowdens and TiG-15s is present

[Dave Baughman]

Movement length validation is in - the sheet not only knows how to pay for LFB "fast moves," but it will also kick back an "INVALID" message if you enter a distance that is too long for your movement class.

[Jeyar]

EDIT -> special note for TC... support for Snowdens and TiG-15s is present

Thanks! That is awesome! *scratches off one question* 

[Fatebringer]

Movement length validation is in - the sheet not only knows how to pay for LFB "fast moves," but it will also kick back an "INVALID" message if you enter a distance that is too long for your movement class.

And that will keep in mind the new movement bonus for RS's you've implemented?

[Dave Baughman]

Movement length validation is in - the sheet not only knows how to pay for LFB "fast moves," but it will also kick back an "INVALID" message if you enter a distance that is too long for your movement class.

And that will keep in mind the new movement bonus for RS's you've implemented?

The formulas will be updated if/when the RS functionality is changed.

[Dave Baughman]

Rules thread has been updated. Also, the eratta for the nuclear terror rules that was discussed during 40 has been implemented (no more non-rules-compliant "planet only" terrors listed).