Someone had to do it.

PPD Proposal: Arming energy: 6+6 for standard. OL for +6, gets +2 additional pulses. Fastload option remains the same, just energy costs are changed to account for the 6+6

alternate overload function: Pulses stay at 4. For the +3 overload, the last 2 pulses use the overload damage chart. For +6, all 4 pulses do. Usual ISC rules concering overloads and exiting OL range or going into the myopic zone apply.

There's some talk of OL range going back to 8. A range table for that eventuality is included.

Chart:

OL = R10	0-3	4-10	11-12	13-18	19-24	25-30	30-36	37-40
OL = R8	0-3	4-8	9-10	11-15	16-20	21-25	26-30	31-40
Hit(2d6)	-	9	9	8	7	6	5	4
damage	0	2+5+2	2+5+2	2+4+2	1+4+1	1+3+1	1+2+1	1+1+1
Alt	0	5+4	5+4	4+4	3+3	3+2	2+2	2+1
OL Damage	0	3+8+3	0	0	0	0	0	0
OL Alt	0	7+7	0	0	0	0	0	0

This may be a little powerful, but we're going to 6+6 arming (up from 4+4)

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Hellbore Proposal

Main hellbore damage is unchanged, but the hellbore gains an optional "Leading Burst" mode of fire. If the hellbore is armed for 4+4 instead of 3+3, The hellbore gains small amount of added DF damage that always impacts a ship's facing shield during the first hellbore step. The damage is equal to roughly 1/5 of the enveloping helbore damage.

A hellbore armed in leading Burst mode hust be held using 4-point rolling delay. The hellbore will accept a 3-point rolling delay but loses the Leading Burst component and becomes a normal Hellbore. Leading Burst mode requires a second turn of arming to use. It may not be used with one-turn fast-loads. A standard hellbore may be convered to Leading Burst Mode any two cosecutive turns it is held using 4-point Rolling delay.

Overloading a Hellbore armed in Leading Burst mode costs an additional +4. +3 may not be paid.

Revised hellbore Chart:

Range	0-1	2	3-4	5-8	9-15	16-22	23-40
Base Burst	4	3	3	3	2	2	1
OL Burst	6	5	4	4	0	0	0	0
Base Damage	20	17	15	13	10	8	4
OL Damage	30	25	22	19	0	0	0	0

If a Leading Burst hellbore is fired as a direct-fire hellbore, the burst damage is added but it is not halved. The full burst damage is added to the DF damage.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 05:00 pm: Edit

If R10 overloads become standard, revise the HB range brackets to:

0-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-22, 23-40

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I'd even go so far as to say you could double the arming cost, and fire it as a DF, all-on-one-shield weapon. So, at R0-1, you could nail someone with 20 points on one shield, provided you paid the extra cost. Figure no holding, either, and no overloads.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

I'ld rather take a more natural progression with hellbores.

They arm as 3+3 and 3+6 for the standard and the 50% overload.
In X1 they can also be armed as 6 for a one turn standard.

I think we should just make X2 have 6+6 ( in addition to that which has gone before ) to build a 100% overload, doing double the normal damage of a standard or being launched as a standard in a single turn if fired early.

Then we can just balance it out with other weapons through the use of having proportionately more hellbores.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Mike,

That's an awful lot of damage. That would have to be lmited to overload range.

Besides, you get that effect by combining DF with the Leading Burst because the burst damage doesn't cut in half for DF.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Yeah, it is. My thought, though, is that 2X hellbores are going to be mighty rare; you won't find four or six of them on a cruiser. So, giving them that option might be a possiblity...I'm just woolgathering, and tossing out ideas.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:16 pm: Edit

I would consider MJCs idea here provided if they fired a double OL they be required to have a 1 turn cool down period. You could minimize the down time effect if you fast loaded it but that would cost you 12.

And I do expect to see four HBs on a XCC. It's the fusions that might go. The Ph-V is so good I would think they would leave more room for those.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:35 pm: Edit

L.K.

No I didn't mean that a one turn Double Overload could be manufactured, and I though quite opposite.

If we gave Hellbores a 12+cooling arming cycle for double Standard damage, then that would be a massively power weapon, if hellbored need to massively powerful then perhaps that is athe way to go, but it really depend on two things; how power the other heavies are and whether we're willing to mount more than four HBs on a cruiser.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:43 pm: Edit

MJC: Could you edit that. I'm having difficulty understanding your massage.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Mike,

Why wouldn't I find 4 HB's on a cruiser?

Expereince with X1 showed that the HB's were the weapons that allowed Hydran Cx's to stand up to other X1 ships. Fusion CXs were great against GW-tech but failed against equal tech.

Why would X2 be any different?

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 09:51 pm: Edit

L.K.:

The double standard damage overload in a single turn ( costing 12 points of power ) followed by a turn of cooling is an increadibly powerful upgrade.

I was merely puting forward a double standard damage overload as a two turn arming weapon that could be a rapid arming standard that didn't find a firing opportunity and so went to the hyper-overload. That is has an arming cost of 6 on the first turn and 6 on the second.

Which weapon is the best Hellbore really depends on what we do to our Disruptors and Photons.

---

Quote:

Why wouldn't I find 4 HB's on a cruiser?

Expereince with X1 showed that the HB's were the weapons that allowed Hydran Cx's to stand up to other X1 ships. Fusion CXs were great against GW-tech but failed against equal tech.

Why would X2 be any different?

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Question about the leading damage:
Is the leading damage applied before or after the "weakest shield" is determined?

If the 2-3 points are applied before figuring the weakest shield, it eliminates most of the "keep your shields equal to defend against the hellbore" tactics and makes the hellbore a lot more difficult to defend against.

If it's applied after, then you basically have a hellbore plus a ph-3 for 4+4 power.

Mark, I have to disagree. While the fusion boat can be SCARY, if most X2 ships are zipping around at 26-31, it's not going to be that difficult to defend against.

A 4 hellbore ship, though, is a cruiser with true heavy weapons.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Jeff,

It could easily resolve before the weakest shield is determined. That's certainly what I intended.

The Leading Damage resolves during the first hellbore step, before mainline DF weapons. If the player chooses to have the mainline hellbore resolve after that point, either with or after DF weapons, then by definition the enveloping hellbore would resolve afterward the Leading damage.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

The "Lead Damage" is an interesting concept. I would recommend that if the Hydran chooses to fire a Lead Damage HB or OVHB, that it MUST be fired in the first HB step. That is the price of the added firing flexability and damage potential, and still gives a chance (albeit a smaller one) to defend against the HB.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Why?

Most X2 weapons we've discussed here are getting better upgrades than this without such a limitation.

Remember, this is not GW tech or even X1 tech. It's X2. The Next Big Thing.

With 3- or 4- point batteries, defense against a Leading Damage isn't as problematic for an X2 ship as it would be for a GW-ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 03:53 pm: Edit

NEW TECHNOLOGY: Hydran Focused Fusion Beam

Unable to improve the power of the Fusion beam, tradition-minded hydran researchers only managed to add ECCM-shift targeting technology until they hit upon an additiona component: They added a magnetic focus to the beam, which gave the Fusion two new firing modes.

To use either of the new firing modes, the Fusion beam must be allocated a third point of power either at EA or from reserve power. That point of power may not be used to overload the Fusion beam or do anything besides power the magnetic focus.

Tight-Beam Firing Mode
The Fusion becomes a hit/miss weapon whose damage is equal to a roll of a "2" or "3" at the apprpriate range. EW affests the roll to hit, not damage.

Range	0	1	2	3-8	9-10	11-15	16-30
Hit (1d6)	6	5	4	4	3	3	2
Damage (Std)	10	7	5	3	3	2	1
Damage (OL)	15	10	7	4	0	0	0

Wide-Focus Mode
The beam is dispursed, autamatically hitting all units in any single range-1 hex the fusion can fire into and any units in the fusion ship's hex that are off the shield corresponding to the hex, but at a great reduction in damage.

Use the 3-10 bracket to figure range-0 damage
Use the 11-15 bracket to figure range-1 damage

range	0	1
1	4	3
2	3	2
3	2	1
4	1	1
5	1	0
6	0	0

If the narrow salvo rules are in play the fusion player may choose to roll one die and use the result for all units hit, but must roll for each fusion fired. Otherwise, a separate damage die roll is required for every unit hit each time it is hit by a Wide-Focus Fusion.

Example: The fusion ship fires into the Hex in direction F from it. All units in that hex are hit, as well as any units in the Fusion ship's hex that are off the fusion ship's Shield 6.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:38 am: Edit

Like the fluting of a shotgun...I'ld still rather have a random damage...

Say roll 1D6 and use the table below to determine what result of die roll you shall use on the table ( modifiers to Die rolls modifying this Die roll rather than the result that will be applied to the table ).

Focused Beam	Regular	Wide Angle
2	1	1
3	2	2
3	3	2
4	4	5
4	5	5
5	6	6

That way it is a little more like the fluting of a shotgun...constrained or unconstrained but still pretty random.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 02:13 pm: Edit

The fusion damage tables naturally have all the randomness we need, IMHO.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Unfortunately, the wide-angle beam is an area-effect weapon, which puts it on the auto-reject list.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The fusion damage tables naturally have all the randomness we need, IMHO.

---

---

Quote:

Unfortunately, the wide-angle beam is an area-effect weapon, which puts it on the auto-reject list.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I am aware of the auto-reject list. That's why the damages are as poor as they are and the ranges so limited. The limitations would, IMHO, form a reasonable "exception that proves the rule."

After all, the defense mode for the Jindo Warp Rail Gun is also area-effect weapon and it was allowed. It's just most area-effect weapons lack sufficient counterbalances t keep their power in check. A working range of 1 or 0 only seems a pretty hefty restriction to counterbalance the potential power of area-effect weapons.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 09:56 pm: Edit

IIRC, the only specific mention of area-effect weapons on the auto-reject list are drones that carry or act like mines, damaging an area, or maulers that damage everything in their arc. I don't see why this wide-angle fusion beam couldn't be at least considered for 2X.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Back to the PPD.

Wouldn't it be more flavourful for the PPD to do the damage it does now (possibly extended to R10 overloads), but fire for, like, ages?

So it would fire 6 pulses on standard loads, and 10 on overloads, for the usual 2 power per shot. This would be a bit of a pig to use (especially the OL), but would be a mizia massacre on anything that took the whole package.

Yes, I know an overload does 60 damage total, but you are paying 20 power for the ability to fire that, and hoping the target doesn't WW or come into R3.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Jim,

I went the route I did for game balance reasons. It's often difficult to maintain range during most fire opportunities. The enemy is usually closing with you.

This runs into a major problem vis the PPD's rather large myopic zone because the longer a PPD pulses, the more likely the enemy is of being able to slip under your guns before you're done. I decided that it would be better to upgrade the damage done by each pulse instead of an extended firing.

I am not opposed to an extended firing of standard pulses, it just seems like it would have too may pitfalls.

If we did stay with the standard GW/X1 PPD pulse damage, a 6/10 standard/overload schedule is an excessive advantage. A 5/7 or 5/8 schedule is the most we could allow and keep X2 reasonable.