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 → Starmada → Starfleet Battle plasma torpedoes in Admirality
I think I am one rule short of a plasma torpedo. Damage fading over time for a Seeker. Something like...
Fading: In each End Phase, reduce the flight's strength by 1. Cost: x0.9.
Then I could do a...
Seeker Size 8 (hitpoints, not individual missiles), Speed 5, Attack 3+, Defense 0, Extra Hull Damage, DMG x3, Fading
and have a wicked plasma torpedo.
What do y'all think?
Fading: In each End Phase, reduce the flight's strength by 1. Cost: x0.9.
I would love to see plamas ala SFB. Do you mean that the size is reduced by 1 each end phase?
I would love to see plasmas ala SFB. Do you mean that the size is reduced by 1 each end phase?
Well, that's the impression I'm getting. There's nothing that says that seekers have to represent groups of projectiles.
I think I am one rule short of a plasma torpedo. Damage fading over time for a Seeker. Something like...
Fading: In each End Phase, reduce the flight's strength by 1. Cost: x0.9.
No reason why this wouldn't work. I might even knock the modifier down to x0.8.
No reason why this wouldn't work. I might even knock the modifier down to x0.8.
I was worried making the cost less than .9 because then you could add it to everything that you planned to have hit in one turn. (Although, hitting with plasma on the first turn launched is how you do it in SFB.) Just worried about flavor vs Munchkin-ability.
Come to think of it, if you were a twink you'd max the speed and use Fading and get a pure size bonus. Maybe the fade needs to be "Roll a die per hex moved and lose a strength on each 6." Would still feel like plasma.
Dude, this forum rules.
I was worried making the cost less than .9 because then you could add it to everything that you planned to have hit in one turn. (Although, hitting with plasma on the first turn launched is how you do it in SFB.) Just worried about flavor vs Munchkin-ability.
Actually, you're correct. I'd forgotten that the fighter trait mods are applied AFTER the square root. So x0.9 would work fine.
Come to think of it, if you were a twink you'd max the speed and use Fading and get a pure size bonus. Maybe the fade needs to be "Roll a die per hex moved and lose a strength on each 6." Would still feel like plasma.
Nah, no need for an additional roll. Remember that the base calculation for weapon value is (Range + Movement). So giving your seekers a low movement in order to reduce their cost is the same as reducing the range on a direct-fire weapon. No abuse there...
Just sort of thinking out loud, so to speak. The Launch Maximum is how many torps you could launch in a turn. And launch tubes would raise that number. Shouldn't there be a "negative launch tubes"? I'm having a block on a good name for it. Something like "Inefficient Launch Deck"? Perhaps it would limit launches to the recovery maximum. And would obviously not be available to Hull Size 1-3 ships.
Overcrowded Hangars'? Basically you've tried to cram too many fighters in such a small space and the result is time-consuming launches
IMO, reference to "flight decks" or "hangars" hints at fighters. To keep the integrated feel of the small craft rules, traits like "Limited Launch Capability "LLC" or the like should be used instead of terms that hints towards narrower uses for the trait.
I was reading this thinking "yeah, that'd be cool, something where a small craft's strength can decrease over range representing a dissipating energy weapon." Then I read that the intent it for these weapons to hit the turn they're fired. Umm... why not use regular weapon batteries for that then?
Not that a "Dissipating" trait isn't useful for seekers/drones, likewise an "Intensifying" trait would be desirable as well, you know, as options.
--Flak Magnet
IMO, reference to "flight decks" or "hangars" hints at fighters. To keep the integrated feel of the small craft rules, traits like "Limited Launch Capability "LLC" or the like should be used instead of terms that hints towards narrower uses for the trait.
I was reading this thinking "yeah, that'd be cool, something where a small craft's strength can decrease over range representing a dissipating energy weapon." Then I read that the intent it for these weapons to hit the turn they're fired. Umm... why not use regular weapon batteries for that then?
Not that a "Dissipating" trait isn't useful for seekers/drones, likewise an "Intensifying" trait would be desirable as well, you know, as options.
--Flak Magnet
The intent isn't to hit in one turn. There was a worry that putting too large of a discount on Fading would be exploitable for a speed 15 Seeker. Mr Cricket seems okay with it because yeah, a direct fire weapon would be cheaper.
But speaking of exploitable, Intensifying would have to have a cap of increasing to original strength, or you could hide a fighter group until they were size 20. With that addition, I think that power is an awesome idea. A regenerating Tyranid bio-torpedo, or Necron self-repairing fighters. Just a 1.1 unless people find they have half-wounded flights with a chance to escape all that often.
Dissipating ought to be easy to cost because it's finite, a weapon would dissipate until it was "gone".
I agree that Intensifying will be a challenge to establish rules for that protect against abuse. Something that reaches a set limit before the effect stops OR the small craft/missile goes "poof" and leaves the table might be quantifiable and thus cost-able.
An unlimited intensifying effect would be a bad idea in the extreme.
--Flak
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Starfleet Battle plasma torpedoes in Admirality
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.