---

Quote:

You guys are kidding me, right??

A zero-energy, EW-immune, every-turn weapon that does more damage than a phaser-1 at range 5?

This is sick, evil, horribly twisted, and broken.

I'll take ten. No, wait...make that a dozen.

---

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 11:51 pm: Edit

I wasn't entirely joking about drone armed Lyrans. It's just another possible approach to reduce the disconnect between Lyran ship doctrine ("no true Lyran would ever use a drone, have that man flogged for even mentioning such a thing") and Lyran fighter doctrine ("take away our drones! Are you mad?").

The ASM sounds pretty butch (far superior to my HADD, which you'll have on another bit of yellowing paper). I hope they're expensive.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 12:01 am: Edit

I wasn't joking about Carriers and escorts being Drone armed either...But with a mix of Ph-1s, Ph-3s, Disruptors and G-racks to carry their fighter group around, I think, we've just created Kzintis.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 02:29 am: Edit

SVC: the ASM looks just too good to be true.

Let me see...

Engaging a monster or ADD-armed opponent, I send six Superiority Fighters carrying an ASM on one of their plasma-D rails; they fire at range 5 (outside MCIDS/ADD range and beyond optimum point-defense phaser range); hitting with an average of four ASMs; doing 8-48 total damage or an average of 28 points damage; HET away and return to the carrier. It gets even better when the improved fighters arrive.

Why would I bother carrying any other one-shot system for engaging large targets? (I would hang onto phasers for close work, or finishing crippled targets, though.)

I would suggest either:
1. reduce the damage vs targets larger than SC5 to only 1D6 per hit; or
2. strictly limit the purchasable numbers for this weapon (perhaps no more than one per fighter, or a limit based on the size class of the carrier).

I would also suggest making each ASM cost heavily - say 2 BPV per drone or plasma-D replaced.

On the other hand, how many can I order from the factory? (I'll take as many as I can get my grubby little mits on!)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 10:09 am: Edit

MJC:
• It costs no power to arm but is far more successful at inflicting it's damage than a Type I drone.
REPLY: You mis-spelled it's, which is the contractual form rather than the possessive form.

• It inflicts almost as much damage as type I drone but can not be offset with phaser fire.
REPLY: Photons cannot be offset by phaser fire. Neither can disruptors or hellbores or fusions or phasers.

• It can't damage fighters. Dust clouds can damage fighters but these things can't. And it can't damage drones.
REPLY: Dust clouds are very big. This is one thing that is hard to aim. You don't have to aim dust clouds.

• Its R6 range limit doesn't help against Hydran R8 Stinger-II sniping.
REPLY: Who said anything about this being the solution to such a problem?

• As an ADD it still suffers from the complete nuetralisation of its damage by any ESG it might fire through, with-outany degradation of the ESG feild.
REPLY: Nature of the beast.

• It's a hellova lot like my Super-ADD...maybe if my super-ADD did 1 point of damage to ships, it could be a workable weapon.
REPLY: I cannot say I have seen your proposal. There are lot of proposals every day. I don't read them all in real time.

• It'll be used by every drone using race ( and plasma apparently ) as the only weapon of choice.
REPLY: Not really true as the variable damage makes it a crapshoot..

• It'll make fighters the only weapon of choice for any race that can get ASMs.
REPLY: Not really true as the variable damage makes it a crapshoot.

• I think you're pulling someone's leg with this ( having invented the Super-ADD ) unt I think said leg might be mine.
REPLY: You're so vain, I bet you think this conversation is about you.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 12:14 pm: Edit

SVC:

It's a crapshoot, but with better odds than any other heavy weapon.

I really don't think drone races need to be improved even more. They already fair better-than-average against plasma chuckers.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 12:40 pm: Edit

A BPV cost might clear some things up. It cirtainly has the potential to be very powerful if these are easy to get in terms of availability and cost. On Fed fighters I would likely have a couple on each. (That said without playtesting)

One things for sure, it had the desired effect of changing the topic off the Lyran thing.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 12:47 pm: Edit

SVC. I disagree about the crapshoot. 5/6 of the time, it will be between 4 and 9 damage if it hits. That fact alone makes them the best fighter weapon this side of gats (and for damaging ships, better than them).

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 12:58 pm: Edit

I have to agree, the ASM as it stands has too high a chance of letting luck rather than skill determine the outcome of a battle. If a defending player did everything right, killing most of the fighters from an attacking strike wave, leaving perhaps 3 fighters out of 11 left, they could still (if the opponent got lucky) be facing 36 points of damage (very unlikely, but possible).

2d6 seems to be too much. 1d6 might be better, or alternately, simply have them do 3 points of damage (or damage based on the drone they replace). And they should not, as a direct fire anti-ship weapon, be immune to EW. Conversely, as they are bigger than a ADD, they should have some impact on an ESG. Perhaps they hit ESGs automatically, reducing the ESG strength by 2 points per hit, but as long as there is one point of ESG strength left, it has to be knocked down before the ASM can target the ship. So if an ESG had 5 points of strength left and was targetted by 4 ASMs, the first three would hit automatically (doing 6 damage to the ESG), taking down the ESG, but doing no damage to the ship, and the 4th would roll to hit and damage the ship normally.

So how about this:

Anti-Ship Missile

Range	0	1	2-3	4-5
To hit	-	1-2	1-3	1-4

Damage based on size Drone normally carried:
ASM VI: 3 points (2 points to ESG)
ASM I: 6 points (3 points to ESG)

One shot, mounted in place of of equal space drone. Carriers may designate certain drone reload capable shuttle boxes as ASM capable instead, but may not load both from the same box during the same scenario (i.e an ASM box can only load ASMs).

I confess to not being 100% up to speed on fighters, but I recall some carry Type VI (1/2 space) and other Type I (1 space)?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 01:13 pm: Edit

So how many Commander's Option Points be for one of these ASM?

Lets say 2 each, and are a 'limited' item maybe for fighters?

So if you have 12 fighters, with 2-Type 1 each. 10% would be 2 ASM's.

Then figure 3 reloads each fighter, the Carrier would be carrying 6 of them total maybe?

If you take 10% of 200 drone spaces of a carrier, that would be 20 of them, that would be too gross for a carrier's opening volley from it's fighters.

By Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 01:18 pm: Edit

This weapon is too good to limit availability-wise. Why would anyone not manufacture these as the primary fighter weapon? If this ASM is added to the game, it should be general availability.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Stephen W. Fairfield:

No, you are not up on fighters. Existing rules establish that a drone of any type a given fighter rail can carry can be loaded onto a fighter from a ready rack configured for that fighter. Thus in the case of a Z-2, the ready rack can be configured to load two pods onto the fighter's "pod" rails, and two type-I drones onto its drone rails. Or the ready rack could load two pods onto the "pod" rails and type-VI drones onto the type-I rails. Or it could load pods onto the "pod" rails and RALADS onto the type-I rails. Or it could be configured to load Pods onto the "pod" rails and pods onto the type-I rails. Or it could be configured to load pods onto the "pod" rails and and a cluster bomb (a special ground attack munition found in module M) onto the type-I rails.
Or it could be configured to load some combination of the above (a type-VI on one type-I rail and a RALAD on the other type-I rail, and a cluster bomb on the "pod" rails) depending on the mission and what munitions/pods are available.

Thus an ASM is simply another "drone" to be loaded onto the rails of the fighter. It cannot be loaded onto a type-VI rail (from what I gather), but simply slides into place on the fighter's type-I rail.

See (J4.23), (J11.12), (J12.12), and (E20.36).

Additional comment. ASMs will be 'direct-fire' munitions, and as such will at the very least come under the restrictions of (J12.23), i.e., the fighter, no matter how many it is carrying, will not be able to fire more than one in a given impulse. Being larger, there may be a greater restriction.

Further, given their inability to be used against opposing fighters, fighters carrying them will be at a severe disadvantage in trying to fight their way through "normally-armed" fighters sent to intercept them. Full strike groups of these weapons are unlikely, at the very least tactically infeasible in open space battles versus an opposing enemy with his own fighters until "space fighter supremacy" is obtained. It is not a "free ride", but it does put the fear of a "fighter strike" into ship captains outside of the pointblank phaser-G maul. (Not counting Hydrans in this since they usually show up in much larger numbers than other fighters, enabling their range-10 firepower to have a devastating effect).

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit

SPP: Thanks for the clairification. So in revision, I suggest the ASM do 6 points of damage (3 to ESGs), be loaded on a Type I rail, loadable from any drone-loading shuttle box.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Stephen W. Fairfield:

Not a problem, just seemed needed. It is a big rulebook, and not everyone uses fighters or operates carrier groups even if they do use fighters. And some that do use fighters are actually not aware of all the rules that pertain to them. I will NOT name names as I am saying the following as examples and not to cause any embarrassement:

Not to long ago we got an article from someone who thought that fighters could receive lent EW from a carrier 15 hexes away [actual max lending distance is 10 hexes (J4.921)].

A player submitted a term paper based in part on the launching of drones by the fighters while they were under erratic maneuvers. This is illegal under (C10.511).

A player thought that fighters simultaneously benefited from the small target modifier (E1.7) and erratic maneuvers. This is not so as per (C10.48).

A player thought that any fighter armed with drones could launch every drone it could carry during a single impulse even if it was not a scatterpack. This is not so as many fighters have restrictions on their drone launch ability as given in (J4.24).

A player thought that any fighter could use multi-warhead drones at any time after multi-warhead drones became available. Rule (J4.26) says no.

A player thought that fighter squadrons could be reorganized outside of the carrier at will. Not so, they have to land (J4.465).

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 03:34 pm: Edit

My suggestions for an ASM.

1) Fills the same space as a type I drone.
2) Hit or miss for 2d6 damage. (ESGs take 3)
3) May not be fired for eight impulses following any of: Erratic Manuvers, Firing of another ASM, or HETing.
4) Targets size class five and larger units only.
5) Counts against drone launch rate restrictions.
6) Effected by EW.
7) Hits on a 1-4 at range 4-5, hits on a 1-3 at range 2-3, hits on a 1-2 at range 0-1.
8) Requires the launching unit have a control channel available on the impulse launched.
9) FA launch only.
10) (Optional) Fires in second Hellbore phase, which lets the ship have one shot on the range 5 Ph-1 table before it gets fried.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Thinking some more, I am not terribly worried about fighters using the ASM. Playtest might suggest some tweeking necessary (like its damage potential), but I think the ASM can work out pretty well.

The best thing about the ASM is that it allows fighters to finally have some chance against PFs. Most PFs will cut through fighters without much shield damage. The ASM makes the PFs work a little harder.

My concern is with use in ship (or PF) mounted racks. The ability to have these 360 degree, zero energy weapons that can freely mix with normal drones is just a bit scary. I could be completely off-base here, (have to see how playtest works out), but being able to do 14 pts of damage per three racks a ship has, every turn, is a bit intimidating.

Those Klingon F-racks start looking a little more relevant now ...

By Ken Rodeghero (Ken_Rodeghero) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 03:52 pm: Edit

I would say do as Doug suggests and make the ASM FA instead of 360. Especially on a fighter.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Since ASMs seem to be a direct fire weapon, I whole heartedly agree that they should be FA only.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:13 pm: Edit

A couple suggestions on ASMs...
1) Cannot be loaded into a drone rack. Avoids the whole "360°, good damage at R5" problem
2) Cannot be loaded into a scatter pack. I'm not so worried about a Kzinti with one of these. Imagine these in a SP set to pop at R5 from the target!
3) Fighter cannot turn in the 4 impulses preceeding firing. They need to line the target up.

I'd still rather see SVCs phasers pods...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:23 pm: Edit

ASMs mounted on fighters would be FA only.

I think it obvious that it could only go on a type-I or a "special" rail.

Douglas E. Lampert:

I think you do not understand how the hellbore firing option works. All fire in a given direct-fire step is fired simultaneously. The announcment is effectively when it was fired. Enveloping hellbore damage is simply resolved, as part of that fire, differently resulting in more volleys of damage. This means that if I fire an ASM on the same impulse you fire your phaser-1s, they have BOTH ALREADY FIRED THAT IMPULSE. Whether or not your phaser-1 shot destroys my fighter is irrelevant, you still get hit by the ASM it fired.

The REASON the firing point on the ASM matters is the SHIELD STATUS OF THE TARGET.

If ASMs were resolved BEFORE ALL OTHER WEAPONS, then it is likely that all the ASMs under Mike Raper's rule would be degraded by the intact shield.

If the ASMs are resolved AFTER the first Hellbore Option, then it is possible that they will strike a weaker shield or a shield whose reinforcement has already been removed. Same if they hit after any other direct-fire weapons resolution segment.

Resolving ASM hits WITH other weapons (say in the general damage pool with phasers, disruptors, photons, bolted plasmas, etc.) is a problem, and why they would (under Mike Raper's rules) HAVE to be in their own separate damage step, i.e., before all other direct-fire weapons in the damage pool, but after PPDs, or after all other damage, because determining the shield status would be impossible (it was a ten box shield, do we resolve the 8 points of photon torpedo damage before we determine how many ASMs are degraded by the shield, or do we resolve the three ASMs before we resolve the photon, in the former the ASMs will do a heck of lot more damage under Mike Raper proposal than they would in the latter). This is what makes it critical to determine when in the step they do their damage.

And why I asked Mike Raper to define it, although apparently he still did not see the specific problem.

And General Shield reinforcement counting as shields or not has to be defined because Annex #2 [See Step (6D2)] allows Shield reinforcement to be raised in response to each separate damage resolution step, i.e., you can decide to raise it after the First Hellbore Option rather than having to raise it before all possible damage.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Nah, let them load on an drone rack, just give them the same limits I gave in my suggestions, except that ships can fire 360 degrees. Clairify maximum one shot per impulse to give the 8 impulse delay per unit teeth for ships and PFs. One shot in any eight impulse interval will not seriously unbalance the game.

Also let them load on a scatter pack, same limit to one shot every 8 impulses. Which since a scater pack fires once and then goes inert means you can fire one, which will be effective only if within 5 hexes of the target.

I think the restriction I proposed on EM is much better than restricting turns at limiting these things, and makes more sence, a nice gentle turn is not going to throw your aim off as badly as EM.

DougL

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Ken Rodeghero, Stephen W. Fairfield:

Existing rules on drone racks make it impossible to declare them to be FA only. Or are you suggesting that Klingon D7s and D6s can only fire them RA only? I am sorry, but not everyone (such as the Federation) mounts their drone racks in mounts that can be assumed to have an FA facing.

Mark Kuyper:

I would fully agree that ASMs cannot be mounted in scatterpacks, any sort of scatterpacks, but for one small problem. The ADD launcher of an MRS-scatterpack (J8.331). If the MRS-scatterpack can aim its ADD, then a regular scatterpack could probably be set to aim ASMs. I would note, however, that such a scatterpack would clearly only be able to engage a single target, i.e., no "random targeting", and probably would not be able to use "Ballistic Scatterpack Targeting (F4.4).

Beyond that, I am not sure I can justify any turn restrictions on the fighter to launch these things. At most, a modifier perhaps (as the RALADS has), and then only if the fighter is using erratic maneuvers (J12.24). RALADs already establishes that a fighter can be doing all of its normal fighter things, and yet successfully launch a RALAD at any enemy fighter (a much smaller target than a ship). As such, I just cannot justify the ASM having any restrictions if it is, in effect, just the one-space drone version of the ADD, which is itself just a half-space drone.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick, you are correct that I have always assumed hellbore and Aegis fire damage to be sequential, i.e. a weapon eliminated before it did damage was eliminated except for plasma launchers.

Thank you for the clarification that fire anouncement is the key moment.

I am tempted to suggest cutting the ASM range down by one to a maximum of 4, the five range ph-1 is a significant fighter killer on closing units in my experience.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Douglas E. Lampert:

See my previous.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 04:49 pm: Edit

SPP: My comment was only intended for the fighter carried ASMs (I can see how it might seem like I was agreeing with Ken. I was writing my message before he had posted J). I'm not sure I'd support the idea of ship-carried ASMs. I think they'd be better kept as fighter-only weapons.