With regards to the EM, I was specifically referring to it inteferring with using phasers for drone defense (aka to absorb the drone wave aimed at breaking up the fighter strike). EM always produces 4 ECM for all targets of the unit doing EM. But fighters have 2 built in ECCM, thus even under EM only have a +1 shift when firing at drones. Other targets are another matter.

In general, I'm undecided about the effects of ASM on fighter operations. My gut reaction (without any playtest data) is that it is balanceable if only available on fighter rails (even with the original hit table). It is probably a wash for drone fighters since they have to close to use them as opposed to sitting out beyond range 20 launching drone waves (and now have a maximum firing rate of 1 per turn). They definitely give plamsa fighters a boost, but they could use it (unless J2 already gave them a massive boost). My biggest concern in the fighter department is that ASM make DF fighters like the A10 or Z-D or DAS completely obsolete (as opposed to just being specialized).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 02:03 am: Edit

All your logic about the ASM seems fitting until you consider the one thing you forgot. You can't just compair the ASM to a disrupter or fusion beam and say it is more powerful because it requires no power.

I dare say I can. Look at a CVA, it has what!?!...45 Warp Engine Boxes, so to power up 11 single fighter Disruptor shots, would cost 22 points of power, leaving just 23 points, and disruptor fighters can hold IIRC 2 shots.
That a whole lotta DAMAGE that could have been stopped by that power as Sheild Reinforcement...therefore all energy armed weapons have an effective ( even if only slight ) reduction in the power output compaired to energy free weapons.

Perhaps I should have selected an energy weapon that consumes a drone rail, such as a Ph-2 pod.

Why the hell not? Because you don't replace anything to fire a disrupter or a fusion beam. You see anything capable of firing a ASM has had it's BPV balanced for launching a drone or a plasma-D. Things of VALUE unto themselves. So when you fire a ASM you are paying BPV for it PLUS forfeiting the use of another weapon. You don't have to give up a drone launch to fire a disrupter or fusion beam.

If I understand correctly, the BPV paid for on the fighter is for the fighter including her launch rail but not the drones...I must pay 1 BPV for a Type I drone, 1.5 for a Type II, 1.5 for a type IM and 2 BPV for type IF...I therefore am not paying for the drone's BPV when I buy the fighter, only the launch rail.

The power issue still stands ( not just because fighters can have pod mounted Ph-3s that require recharging at the carrier ) because the carrier pays power that could have been used for other more important purposses, like, movement, sheild reinforcement, recharging phasers, tractors, transporters, etc.

Also at that cost, it is a one time shot. Either of the other weapons keep firing. Particularly the Disrupter which fires every turn. Ya, a ship could fire ASMs every turn but it will be firing them at a larger force because you will pay through the nose for them. Three BPV is a lot to count on and just miss two thirds of the time (at R5). ANd if you get closer for a better shot, you are getting pummeled by that larger force.

I'm not really sure about the one time, weapon, the disruptor may get two shots but the Fussion gets 1 R10 shot or IIRC two R3 shots and the Photon gets one shot...and then the fighter goes back to be recharged by the carrier.
Well drone and ASM armed fighters, fire, and then go back to the carrier to be re-armed.

The thing is that ASM armed fighters should be either REALLY expensive ( to be armed ) or should be markedly weaker than energy weapons.


As for ASM armed drone racks...well, you're only paying 2BPV for the ASM because you get 1 BPV for pulling the type I drone it's replacing out of the rack.

Ask yourself this;" Is it better than a type IF MW drone and by what percentage", then ask yourself this, "Is it more expensive than a Type IF MW drone and if so by what percentage".

Once you've got those two done, you'll have a much better idea of how to price the ASM.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 03:05 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Attacks on Size class 5 will need a second roll even if the attack was sucessful due to the small nature of the target.
Roll 1D6, If a 3 or less then PF is hit. If a 2 or less then an interceptor is hit ( if it was the target ).

Size class 6 are even harder to hit because of their small size, and so if the roll above was a 1 then another 1D6 may be rolled and if resulting in a" 1" then the fighter or shuttle is it.

Size class 7 targets are even harder to hit an if the roll above was a "1" then 1D6 may be rolled and if another "1" is rolled then the drone is struct.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 03:06 am: Edit

Dkass: OK. Agaist drone waves, yes, because the range is likely one and the p3 is not effected much by a +1. Gotcha.

MJC: I must appologize. Primarily I was thinking rack mounted ASMs compaired with ship mounted disrupters and fusions. Fighter mounted ASM do compair with fighter mounted disrupters and fusion and I blew it for not reading your post in that light. Duh.

Funny how you can look at something with a preconcieved notion and not see the point. I was spraying laquer today, must be blurring my reading comprehension.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 06:29 am: Edit

the ASM is kind of like a twelve pack of hyper velocity rounds that fires like you would fire a shotgun round.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 06:29 am: Edit

MJC: the cost of fighters does include their drones or plasma-D.

See (FD2.22) and (FD2.245) for drone-armed fighters. It is only the upgrades in endurance and speed (from the basic speed-8 type drones) and special payloads that cost you extra.

Plasma-D was always speed-32, so the only things that affect plasma-fighter BPV are swapping to K-torps and the possible sabot refit.

By Andrew C. Cowling (Andrew) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 06:36 am: Edit

Speaking for myself (and not wanting to roll lots of dice after I hit the target - except on the DAC), I would not mind seeing how the ASM tests as a flat-damage weapon, as a comparison to the highly-variable model.

Keeping the to-hit probabilities unchanged, would it be a more or less effective weapon if the damage on impact was, say, a flat 5 points (equivalent to a point-blank D-bolt)?

(Presumably, if the 'flat rate' was 7 or more, it would definitely be a 'nastier' weapon than the the currently proposed 'Anti-Shipping Lottery', but how much lower than average would we need to look to keep it fair?)

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 09:19 am: Edit

MJC & LK,

But you can continue to recharge disrupters, photons, fusion beams, hellbores, and plasma Fs carried by fighters as long as your carrier is still there. Also, they are range 10 weapons (12 for photons). ASMs are a drone or plasma D replacement. Presumably, they will have, like drones & plasma Ds, a limited supply that can run out. That too should affects their cost and usability.

I understand that it is expensive during a game to rearm fighter energy weapons, but you don’t have to do it all on one turn (unless you like parking in front of the enemy).

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 09:21 am: Edit

Has there been any discussion on availability levels for ASMs? Will they be limited or restricted availability or (shudder) general availability?

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 09:45 am: Edit

This listing was done independent of ADB, and if something is listed wrong, it’s all my fault… so:


Fighter Based Anti-Ship Missile (FASM)

Range				To-Hit:
Range 1	=			1-2
Range 2-3	=			1-3
Range 4-5	=			1-4
Range 6+	=			NA

Availability: FASMs were a slightly smaller version of the ASM and developed in Y175 by the Kzinti to attempt even more powerful fighter strikes. By the next year, virtually every race in the Quadrant were experimenting with the weapon – even the Eastern (plasma) races.

Operations: FASMs can only be launched by fighter / bomber rails that carries a one-space or larger drone or type-D plasma.

FASMs cannot be loaded on drone racks, plasma racks, drogues, captor mines, or DefSats.

FASMs cannot be placed on scatter packs.

FASMs cannot be used from Bomber / Heavy fighter internal bays, though Bombers and Heavy Fighters may carry FASMs on drone rails.

Fighters firing FASMs must have their target within their FA arc.

FASMs on fighters / bombers are treated as Direct Fire weapons, therefore they are active in 8 impulses.

The maximum rate of fire is 1 FASM per fighter per turn.

FASMs cannot be fired within 8 imp of the last ASM launch from that fighter.

FASMs are effected by EW.

Limitations: FASMs cannot fire at any target smaller than Size Class 4.

FASMs require the use of a Seeking Weapon control channel on the impulse it is fired.

ESGs: FASMs impacting an ESG would be destroyed immediately. Each FASM that hits an ESG field reduces said field by 3 points of damage.

Cost: Cost to replace drone, 2.5 minus cost of drone.
Cost to replace plasma D: 1.5
Cost to as commander's option as extra round: 2.5

Damage (if it hits): Proposed: 1D6+2 or 2D6-2


Assumptions:
I lowered the cost for this (slightly) weaker version (0.5 BPV).
I lowered the impact damage on ESG fields (1 point).
Currently the firing rate is unchanged, but if there were an ASM published, the FASM would (presumably) have a fast launch rate than the standard ASM (Otherwise why built it?).

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 10:18 am: Edit

I think the FASM should still affect size class 5 units. PFs are considered ships for most functions and, like larger ships but unlike fighters, have the shields to take a hit or two. With the lower damage, I don't think they would be completely overwhelming to PFs.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 10:37 am: Edit

Q: am I correct in thinking that this will be the first weapon in the game to require both a roll to-hit and a roll for damage?
A: Could be. I don’t keep track of what is in Omega or Triangulum or Magellanic.
Q: what's the technobabble justification for the two seperate rolls?
A: Do we need one?
Q: if there are two rolls shouldn't EW affect both of them?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: I see . . . and the Hydrans, Lyrans, and Tholians will get????
A: Well, Lyrans get what Klingons have. The rest are SOL.
Q: I just thought of another way to limit the ASM if needed. Give it a myopic zone. Can't fire at range one or zero. So fighters have to be just a little more careful not to get too close.
A: I am not sure that this is a serious tactical drawback.
Q: ask, in general, what should be in J3?
A: Good question.
Q: Holes that already exist in the fighter universe-- some races don't have that frigate carrier.
A: obvious variants can be used as filler.
Q: Beyond that, I have to confess being at something of a loss.
A: ground attack fighters, stealth fighters, armored fighters, more like the F7, etc.
Q: It is pretty hard to discuss what else should be in J3 when none of us have yet seen J2.
A: I did post the table of contents.
Q: Various comments by Ben M about improved anti-fighter defenses.
A: Logically, anything added should produce a new dynamic while maintaining balance.
Q: Charles wants to reduce number of die rolls.
A: I don’t, but then nobody listens to me anyway.

By Paul Rae (Soapyfrog) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:02 am: Edit

How about a Plasma Kamikazi?

The fighter attempts to ram the target while simultaneously detonating it's plasma load-out and overloading it's phasers...

Could do some lovely crunch damage. Maybe more appropriate for remote controlled fighters depending on the regard in which each plasma race holds the sanctity of life.

Of course, I suppose any race could conceivably use suicide tactics.

I know this has been brought up before, but how about allowing plasma fighters to bolt? Maybe give them an extra penalty becuase they are not a very good firing platform for such a large DF punch, or maybe auto-cripple the fighter after it bolts.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:05 am: Edit

Rather than auto-cripple after bolting plasmas, let's just give them four damage points per plasma-D, six per plasma F, two per plasma K.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:16 am: Edit

RE: Plasma Boys

What about a late-war plasma that can be shotgunned from a fighter?

Take a normal F-Plasma Fighter, and allow it to be shotgunned into 2 D-plasma, or 4? K-Plasma.

Some technobabble about the plasma torpedo itself is now made up of 4 K-plasma warheads (and is loaded as 4 K-plasmas) and the pilot has the ability to choose how they are launched from the launcher. As either 1 big, 2 medium, or 4 small torpedos.

It would give a "what is that plasma assault fighter going to do..." thought.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:20 am: Edit

How about a special 'pellet load' for an F torp. Instead of mounting 1 F, it mounts a canister that contains smaller plasmas (say 3 Ks). When fired all 3 must be launched similar to a plasma shotgun. Gives you good options vs drone defense while not unbalancing vs ships.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:48 am: Edit

The Romulans could modify the Plasma F stasis chamber to hold a mauler charge, and put it on a large fighter chassy. No mauler cannon on the fighter just a stasis held mauler discharge and a aperature to point it at someone. Say 15 points of energy. Max range is 5 hexes. Damage is at normal mauler damage rates. To add a drawback the fighter unit only has power to maintain the stasis field for 2 turns. Then it explodes doing 8 points of damage like a mine in the hex it is in.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:58 am: Edit

As requested, 1 (one) Outlandish Weapon for Plasma Fighters J.

Fusing Fighter Launched F Torpedoes

1.0 Fighters capable of launching Plasma Fs may be equipped instead with Fusing Plasma Fs.

1.1 Fusing Plasma Fs must be launched on the same impulse by fighters in the same hex to use the fusing ability. Otherwise they behave as normal F-torpedoes. The Fusing F Torpedoes merge into a single, more powerful torpedo based on the following chart.

# Of Fusing F-Torpedoes Launched	Resulting Torpedo
2	G-Torp
3	Enveloping G-Torp
4	S-Torp
5	Enveloping S-Torp
6	R-Torp
7	Enveloping R-Torp

Disclaimer: I have no idea if anyone can deploy enough F-torpedo fighters to use this!

1.3 Vague tactical justification: Gives plasma fighters a longer range strike capability.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 12:35 pm: Edit

One outlandish plasma weapon. Plasma Repeater. Loads like a shotgun and you get the same amount of plamsas but the plasmas are D sized and you can fire them at a single target (or more). Sort of a machine gun mode for the plamsa torp.

Hey, you said quick. Right off the top of my head. Of course this isn't really a fighter weapon. Sorry.