Author Topic: community rules changes - ideas/direction  (Read 8360 times)

Elessar

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Number of Times Thanked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2017, 10:14:53 am »
It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...

Perhaps it is so efficient because it is an illegal % of points spent on non-Core models?

Amiral X

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Number of Times Thanked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2017, 10:18:05 am »
It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...

Perhaps it is so efficient because it is an illegal % of points spent on non-Core models?

Are you shure ?
IMHO :
Savannah (180) + B72 (120) = 300 pts
40% of 800 MFV = 320...
But I may be wrong...


Elessar

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Number of Times Thanked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2017, 01:50:32 pm »
Yeah, I apologise, I have no idea what hungover maths my head was doing - but it isn't an illegal %.  It is sufficiently large an outlay that the rest of the fleet must be pretty slim - but that wasn't the issue I presented.

The issue with small games generally is that things that seem broken in them aren't necessarily scaleable.  For instance, if I take 800 points of FSA with:
Enterprise (Shield, Kinetic)
Annapolis (Shield) x2
Guilford x3

Then my list would be an incredibly tough nut for, say,
Kiyohime (Stoic) + Kitsune
Nakatsu x3
Nakatsu x3
Sui x3
Sui x3

But not for:
Ika
Ika
Ika
Chita x2
Chita x2
Zarigani x5
Onryo (Disruption)

Basically, and I wish I had just written this now instead of working those lists out, it exacerbates the inherent paper-scissors-stones elements of any wargame.

CDR-G

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Number of Times Thanked: 5
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2017, 04:38:47 pm »
It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...
So there was basically no defense against these attacks- no SAS or Aerial hunter units? Basically if you succeed in the Rock/Paper/Scissors of force on force composition, yeah you can sweep. I get the point of Stratospheric providing an advantage to keeping the carrier intact, but that is just part of the picture. Placement, distance to targets, aerial air hunters all play into it. If you can get two sets of rockets or good guns hitting on 5s and 6s, for example, one could hurt the carrier points to mitigate. I almost always take a Heavy Bomber just to have a counter. An enemy Superfort- one with actual guns, would be a better. (Yes its 6 carrier vs. 8/9)
Your situation seems similar to taking a Dreadnought in a 800 point game. Superfort on one side and no effective air superiority on the other.

Amiral X

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Number of Times Thanked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2017, 04:55:44 pm »
The difference bitween savannah and enterprise, or more generaly bitween skyfortress and dread, is the price range. The skyfortress is in the same price range as a battleship not a dread, therefore it should not take the game out of balance by himself alone, not more than another model of the same price range...
I would really be interested in your feedbacks. Do you manage to bit skyfortress list using list without one, or list without carrier ?   

Elessar

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Number of Times Thanked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #50 on: September 16, 2017, 07:54:34 am »
Your point about the points cost of Sky Fortresses is a good one, and one that makes no logical sense to me unless the theoretical opportunity for true Sky Dreadnoughts was being left open intentionally - guess we'll never know.

I don't play at 800 points, for the reasons above - games that are too small remove tactical ability as a determining factor.

In general, if I'm playing against a Sky Fortress, the aim will be, depending on the rest of their force, either to damage and then ignore it in favour of winning by killing other stuff, or it will be to bring it down asap (preferably by prize-ing) if they have too few other scary elements to worry about, or too many resistant to damage from range perhaps.

Either way, I rarely don't have an answer, largely because I play with Volley Guns.

CDR-G

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Number of Times Thanked: 5
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2017, 11:07:40 am »
The difference bitween savannah and enterprise, or more generaly bitween skyfortress and dread, is the price range. The skyfortress is in the same price range as a battleship not a dread, therefore it should not take the game out of balance by himself alone, not more than another model of the same price range...
I would really be interested in your feedbacks. Do you manage to bit skyfortress list using list without one, or list without carrier ?
My point being there are combinations that mean one side has a big advantage. The Stratospheric height level changes do add to that, but I don't see skyfortresses as OP now. Those with multiple weapons systems- like the Tourbillons  suffer from occupying Stratospheric and bring one 5 SAS to the fight with six carrier points, really valuable, but not OP. In order to get the SAS cycle into play the carrier has to close or be closed upon the enemy.  They can't get out of LOS. They a a big threat and need to be targeted. But, you can get to 5s and 6s against them, its just harder now.
That said, being able to do carrier operations at two height level difference doesn't sit right with me. If that were to change to one height level I would endorse that.
As for the bombing threat, it suffers from height level basic to hit effects as well, including Area Bombardment.

Amiral X

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Number of Times Thanked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2017, 12:10:48 pm »
As for the bombing threat, it suffers from height level basic to hit effects as well, including Area Bombardment.
Sorry, I don't agree whith you.
rule book p130 : "Area Bombardment is considered to be an Indiscriminate Attack, with a ‘To Hit’ Number of 5 or (RED) 6, and may only ever Target the Surface Height Level."
The to hit number is not relatated to heigh level, so you can use area bombardment from stratospheric heigh and hit on 5+.

CDR-G

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Number of Times Thanked: 5
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2017, 10:26:57 pm »
The difference bitween savannah and enterprise, or more generaly bitween skyfortress and dread, is the price range. The skyfortress is in the same price range as a battleship not a dread, therefore it should not take the game out of balance by himself alone, not more than another model of the same price range...
I would really be interested in your feedbacks. Do you manage to bit skyfortress list using list without one, or list without carrier ?
My point being there are combinations that mean one side has a big advantage. The Stratospheric height level changes do add to that, but I don't see skyfortresses as OP now. Those with multiple weapons systems- like the Tourbillons  suffer from occupying Stratospheric and bring one 5 SAS to the fight with six carrier points, really valuable, but not OP. In order to get the SAS cycle into play the carrier has to close or be closed upon the enemy.  They can't get out of LOS. They a a big threat and need to be targeted. But, you can get to 5s and 6s against them, its just harder now.
That said, being able to do carrier operations at two height level difference doesn't sit right with me. If that were to change to one height level I would endorse that.
As for the bombing threat, it suffers from height level basic to hit effects as well, including Area Bombardment.
You may be right as it is specified-sort of. I don't you are right that height doesn't matter. See page 100:

The ‘To Hit’ Number for Indiscriminate Attacks
Most sources of Indiscriminate Attacks will specify the ‘To Hit’ Number they use. If they do not, they use the Basic ‘To-Hit’ Number as determined by the Height Level - see the table on Page 127.
Is there an Indiscriminate attack from Stratospheric that isn't an Area Attack?  Ramming?

Amiral X

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Number of Times Thanked: 0
    • View Profile
Re: community rules changes - ideas/direction
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2017, 03:54:09 am »
The rule p100 is perfectly clear : Area bombardment is an Indiscriminate attack that specifies its "to hit" Number (ie : 5+) so, as the rule on p100 says, you don't use the basic "to hit" number defined by heigh level.