You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by PSYCO829
Looks right to me as well.
Most of the ships I design receive a comment about their cheesiness, so that fits perfectly.
Groan! My nephew is very creative and very resourseful...
When we play, it is rare for him to lose. I admire his designing ability, and have watched my ships get pulverized over half the time by his ships.
Never-the-less, Bravo!!! 8-)
:oops: :oops: :oops:
Alright, thank you guys.
Lets imagine I have the following as a dual mode weapon
Shatter Shards, Range 30 2/3+/1/1
Inverted ROF, Piercing +1, Minimum Range
Shatter Shards - Scatter, Range 30 2/3+/1/1
Range Based ROF, Piercing +1, Carronade
In short I have 1 weapon that acts as both a close range and a long range weapon. Now with dual mode, I need to choose which mode it will be before moving my ships, so I will need a bit of foresight. Here is how my sneaky mind thought a way around that.
Let us imagine I would have 6 of these things on a ship. Would I be allowed to place this weapon in both slot W and slot X on my ships weapons, and have 3 of each in there. If I am not sure what my opponent will do, I can have one choose one option, and the other battery choose the latter.
Would this be illegal, just frowned upon, or simply considered smart thinking? (I'm leaning more towards the first two, but I thought I'd check).
I like the way this looks, is this only for Dreadnoughts?
We use range 30, but honestly I would rather drop the range down to 18 or so, make maneuvering useful and all those points spent on carriers actually worth something.
Hence the drones, the screens wouldn't work well vs it. And with 24 packs of drones, it can take a few ships with it. But yeah, the fast ships would be effective, the problem would most likely be simply slowing down after that to try dealing the finishing blows while I repair myself.
But I think your strategy would be the most effective one vs this, expecially with the sheer amount of small ships you can get with 9000 points
My uncle made a cheat sheet, I have it somewhere around the house. I'll see if I can get a copy and post it here after work.
All other things being equal, if you have ships with Starship Exclusive weapons and I don't, you get 20% more points. So, you'll probably win more often than not.
On the other hand, all I have to do is bring a few fighters, and the balance shifts back into my favor. Even if you give your weapons an anti-fighter mode, each turn you are fending off my fighters is a turn you're not attacking my ships.
True enough, but how useful are some weapon traits that they use on capital weapons vs fighters anyway? A 1/2/3 or a weapon that does Continuing Damage or Extra Hull or such are useful vs Starships, but nearly useless vs fighters, so why not slap on Starship Exclusive and have another battery for fighters? Now I just lowered the cost of my weapons of which I was simply not going to use against fighters anyway.
I don't think it's too powerful, I simply think it is unnecessary, since the only weapons it will see use on odds are wouldn't be used against fighters anyway.
GamingGlenn actually had evil ships with nothing but level one shields and armor plating, since piercing had no effect if they are level one, the points on it are wasted. You would not believe how many ones you can roll til you play against this.
PSYCO829 wrote:Its possible that I also overdid it, the weapon in question was a 1/3+/3/3 that shot to 30 with Piercing +2, Continuing Damage, and Starship Exclusive. <.<
Considering this, I think it would be premature to blame it all on Continuing Damage...
Having said that, the fact that the Continuing Damage weapon always does a hull hit would suggest its multiplier should be at least x2. I should have kept my notes as to why we settled on x1.7...
Armor Plating might be why, i personally have found that Armor is a thorn in the side of Continuing Damage, since 2/3 of the hits are NOT eventually going to do hull. Just a guess.
PSYCO829 wrote:Continuing Damage is undercosted in my experience, being able to burn an opponent's ship hollow at an increase of only 1.7 is a bit much.
Having been the recipient of a few similar guttings I would tend to agree. Maybe I'm just sour-grapes because I din't use it on my opponent
Erik
Its possible that I also overdid it, the weapon in question was a 1/3+/3/3 that shot to 30 with Piercing +2, Continuing Damage, and Starship Exclusive. <.<
Continuing Damage is undercosted in my experience, being able to burn an opponent's ship hollow at an increase of only 1.7 is a bit much.
So it is ok to fire in regular mode and then fire in overload mode the next turn, it is just that after that I need to spend one turn reloading, and this is the standard for any weapons that has slow firing in one of the two modes, correct?
Thanks...
Again, two thumbs up for the game...
Francisco
The weapon did not have slow firing when you fired it, so it can fire next turn.
Need to wait til our local game store gets it in stock 
Agreed with the low tech idea, my friends that I game with and I went from having +2 tech in everything down to 0 tech in everything. You would not believe how much I needed to rethink my ships....
It does require a lot more thinking and planning, and it also makes sense, you can improve your technology as the campaign goes on rather than starting at the top.
Equipment: Long Range Jammers: Hex containing ship counts as an asteroid field for shooting modifiers. (I wouldn't mind it working to hurt both sides. Would be kinda cool actually.)
I think we already have countermeasures which basically create the same effect.
Equipment: Chaff Mine Factors: Creates an asteroid field instead of a mine field. (Shoots in end phase, so not as awesome.)
This I like, except have it create disruption instead of a minefield, leave it up to the players to decide what type of effect it creates.
Fighter option: Decoys: Hex containing flight counts as asteroid field for shooting modifiers. (Now this is a screen. Almost too good. Actually, pretty definitely too good. But no weapons at least.)
Sounds like the jamming option fighters used to have, I think we would be better off with the option you made of the disrupting mines.
Weapon option: Must Shoot Closest: Can only target the hex with the closest enemy object. Choose on ties. (I like 0.9 discount modifiers.)
Would be an interesting option
Seems like a cross between Re-Roll Misses and a minor Area Effect, also reminds me of Swarm LRMs from BattleTech.
I like the idea, would be interesting to see how this would work and what the cost would be,
I'm a little lost, it hits the hex the target is in, then one extra?
Or a flock of geese... space geese.
I can see the argument against having it, it would necessitate you to have piercing to deal with these uber ships.
Honestly, all my main weapons use piercing, so I personally would not have the massive problem, but I can see people's point about it drawing out the game.
More options would be interesting, but I keep thinking about things like what happened with Ionic Shielding and Ignores Shield:
1. It gives options that overly complicate the game.
2. It creates a "one up" sort of idea, such as weapons that ignore Ionic Shielding.
The sonar idea I like with cloaking, as well as the mine design, but adding too many options can make the game a bit x.x for simple people like myself.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by PSYCO829
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
