Flying in the face of rule (FP1.62), what if Y2C plasmas (X and non-X) were given the ability to damage each other?

Basic rule: 1) A player may deliberately target an opponent's plasma torpedo with his own in order to reduce its strength. 2) If the "fratricidal" plasma hits, all of its warhead strength at the moment of impact counts as an equivalent number of phaser hit points against the targeted plasma for purposes of (FP1.611-612). 3) The "fratricidal" plasma is destroyed at the moment of impact, but operates under standard plasma rules until impact (e.g. suffers phaser damage, can sabot, etc.).

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 04:29 pm: Edit

It would change plasma vs plasma fights completely. You'd never get a useful hit except at very short range.

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Or rather it'd seriously cripple the old Warbirds.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 05:51 pm: Edit

This is a joke, right?

By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 09:43 pm: Edit

It isn't a joke, SVC. It's just thinking outside the box. Fodder for thought.

I never claimed it was practical. Consider the energy cost, arming time, popping off a perfectly good plasma that could be fired at an enemy ship, etc. This is a desperation tactic, where crunching a plasma torpedo would be better than not. One that's currently prohibited by an existing rule so it's not as if anyone's going to go do it.

Of course there's the plasma bolt aspect as well.

Gedankenexperiment.

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 02:53 pm: Edit

I see a HUGE potential issue with this:
If the damage ratio is less than 3-1 (3 damage done = 1 warhead reduction), Plasma-D racks become the ultimate plasma defense power-to-damage-wise, and anything greater than 2-1 makes a plasma-vs-plasma defense a waste of good plasma for anything bigger than a D-torp.

By Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Interesting points, Tim.

What if fratricide defense was limited to bolting? No seeking plasma shots. Is it better or worse? Conversely, "fratricidal" plasma can't bolt. Better or worse?

As for D-toprs, for the sake of argument assume D-torps are limited to a 3:1 ratio (I can't think of a realistic reason for that limitation, but just assume it). Alternatively, D-torps can't be used for fratricide at all; only "regular" (three-turn) plasma torpedoes can.

Or... only D-torps can be used for fratricide defense (at whatever ratio). (Bearing in mind there are only so many a ship carries in battle)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 18, 2010 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Generalize plasma fratracide heavily favors the ISC with its scads of spare F-torps.

Even limiting the effect to D-torps favoers the ISC because D-torp fighters can screen the big ships against retaliation.

Don't the ISC have a DD refit that replaces F-torps with D-racks?

By Tim Longacre (Timl) on Monday, January 25, 2010 - 06:27 pm: Edit

I concur with John about that ISC. Plasma Torps are SC7 units, and as such they would be fair game to the rear-firing F's.
IMO, bolting would be worst as you are turning an "auto-hit" weapon into a one with a chance of missing in an effort to reduce the damage done to you or an ally. Even then, what would be the ratio of damage-to-warhead reduction if it hit? If it's 1-1, that's just about the same as 2-1 for launched plasma (depending on range and the plasma bolted). If it's "phaser damage" as you state above, it's a waste and I'd rather fire my plasmas at my enemy after they've shot their wad.
I could see limiting the plasma used for defense like this to "regular" (non-D or K) plasma on the basis of the fratricidal plasma has to be "tuned" to the specific plasma it is intended to "kill", but that would also require the defending unit to have a plasma on rolling delay, and successfully IDing the incoming plasma in time to intercept it. as noted before this will make for a *very* long game.

If I may ask, what would be the reasoning behind such a development? In Y200+, who would have been in a position after all that everyone had been through to afford the R&D to develop it?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 25, 2010 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Presumably, anything deployed in Y200 would have been under development during the General War/ISC pacification program/Andro War