The part that says IS REPORTED.

Now go read H5.5 and see what else he has said.


Personnly I don't see how one can justify that 4 Point BTTYs aren't broken but 5 pointers are.


What are you really saying that X2 ships volleies are going to be so weak as to have an extra 4 points ( 16 points Verse 20 ) of damage being stop, will make the critical difference?

That for an X1 cruiser to tractor ( scuiside tractor ) an XC2 cruiser that those extra 8 points of power that the four 5s can generate over the four threes, "is going to break the bank", like the X1 engines can generate that much power!?!

Even if I have four 5 point BTTYs and am tractored by a GW cruiser, the 20 points of Neg tractor I can generate can be beaten by 30+ points of power of the GW cruiser and thus tractor stunts will work.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:58 am: Edit

MJC,

No, I am saying that people I find credible have said SVC has nixed 5-point batteries and that exceeding those bounds are therefore likely to be a waste of time.

If I have a game-mechanic reason for questioning a proposal, I put it out there for you to deal with.

Speaking personally, I have no problem with 5-point batteries.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 04:05 am: Edit

yeah, but Andros should still be special, and the Batts are one of those specialties.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:16 am: Edit

He did indeed state that no galactic race would ever get five point batteries. I don't remember the thread or even the conversation in which that statement appeared...but I do remember it. I personally have no objection to five point batteries, with a few caveats. One, they can't store warp power. Two, they aren't treated as seperate groups for mauler ops the way Andro batteries are. Other than that, I don't mind them. I'd prefer four, but that's me.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 08:35 am: Edit

Sometimes even Steve gets backed into a corner by what is printed in the rules. As MJC points out H5.5 states "Second Generation X-ships (XH5.1) have batteries able to hold 5 units of power each. These batteries can hold 'warp power' for multiple turns."

This is printed in BS99 and has not been officially disputed with the issuance of an errata. SVC has all options open to him. X2 could have 3, 4 or 5-point bats and to say one of these options is less valid than another due to hearsay and off-the-cuff remarks doesn't make it true. When Steve gets around to designing X2 I trust that he will take the holistic view and create what should be irregardless of any positions that may have been taken in the past.

Since I’m in the ‘give X2 ships exactly the power they should have’ group it doesn’t matter if its 3, 4, 5 or 10 until I roll on the DAC.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 11:57 am: Edit

Batts variation; keep X2 at 3 power but allow them to hold 1 stale power when destroyed.

And to stay on topic, I'm still in the ships have to be limited to speed 31 camp. Balance and SFU rules and background supports this.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Bats that hold and discharge power when destroyed but cannot be recharged until repaired.

If X2 bats remain 3 points but gain the ability to store warp power over the turn break then they will have improved in a significant way.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:35 pm: Edit

If we do anything else besides straightjacket ourselves into Old X2's bettery system, then (H5.5) has no relevance to the debate. You can't halfway follow a rule. We either follow all the way, and batteries are 5-pointers that hold warp over or we discard its referece to Old X2 as an anachronism and built our own.

My vote's "build our own."

To that end, what SVC has said two years ago seems more relevant to me that what he wrote into the Basic Set 10 years ago.

Besides, (H5.5) does not govern X2 batteries. it does not spell out what an X2 battery does in the detail necessary to make for a playable rule. The rule is there to inform the reader that other types of batteries exist besides the 1-point batteries presented in H5.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 02:43 pm: Edit

I would prefer a max speed of 31 or 32.

As for Batts, I think the 3 points, with the ability to keep reserve warp over the turn break would be great. This would be fabulous for the Feds.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

The BS quoted was the 1999 edition. Had it been an earlier edition I would have ignored it too.

We will do whatever we will do. I'm not limiting which ideas I like based on (H5.5). I'm just saying we have a reasonable justification for 3,4, 5 or even 3 upgraded to 5 and oppose any amateur who claims one of these options is patently out of the question.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Warp held over the turn break in bats is a photon upgrade. Other races will not benefit nearly as much as the Fed.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:53 pm: Edit

That depends. Is it just "warp" or "warp movement" capable energy being held across the turn break?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:57 pm: Edit

I would prefer to go with the old standby that power held over the Turn Break remain Battery power. And not count as Warp or Imp.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Kenneth: Why?

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Because Carrying over Warp power would seem to give 2X ships an even bigger advantage over GW ship's. Don't they have enough Reserve Power already? X1 already has more power than you can really easily deal with.

Also not even the Andros can store Viable Warp power over the Turn Break. And if we say that 5pt bats are Andro only. (Maybe maybe not.) Why would 2X tech which doesn't match theirs be able to do something they can't.

I know it's just a gut feeling. But I think it would have drastic balance effects if implemented.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Would it affect balance more drastically than 4 or 5-point non-warp-holding batteries?

It's important you make those gut feelings explain themselves. You may be onto something and holding warp over could be a bad idea.

Personally, I like it better than 4 or 5 pt batteries so if it is a bad idea I'd like something I can change my opinion over.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 07:48 pm: Edit

Perhaps reserve warp holding would be a Fed only improvement, and held over warp is not available for movement. That would keep things interesting while giving the photon yet another upgrade path.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 08:44 pm: Edit

John here are a few of my reservations about carrying over Warp Power.

1. No other Tech level can do it. Not even Andros.

2. Isn't there some concern already about making sure 2X ships have to slow down to a high battle speed already. IE28-31(32).

3. It will mean that on T2 a Ship with 45 Warp (generated). With 3 3XBATS will have 54 WARP carrying over for Movement.

EX. 30Move+6EM+5HET=41. Which is 4 LESS than what the ship Generates already. So why do you need to save More? It gets even worse with 50-52 generated and 4 or more Batts.

4. Battery can power almost everything now. You can even have a 9pt reserve warp already. Is keeping it till next Turn needed.

5. You would need to add an extra line to the EAF to display WARP power carried over from the previous Turn. Instead of just listing powwer which is already there.

Anything which requires extra lines to the final stage of the EAF should be looked at VERY carefully before implementation.

It would just seem to me that these factors would mitigate against Holding over the WARP power.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

No, I am saying that people I find credible have said SVC has nixed 5-point batteries and that exceeding those bounds are therefore likely to be a waste of time.

If I have a game-mechanic reason for questioning a proposal, I put it out there for you to deal with.

Speaking personally, I have no problem with 5-point batteries.

---

---

Quote:

yeah, but Andros should still be special, and the Batts are one of those specialties.

---

---

Quote:

He did indeed state that no galactic race would ever get five point batteries. I don't remember the thread or even the conversation in which that statement appeared...but I do remember it. I personally have no objection to five point batteries, with a few caveats. One, they can't store warp power. Two, they aren't treated as seperate groups for mauler ops the way Andro batteries are. Other than that, I don't mind them. I'd prefer four, but that's me.

---

---

Quote:

Sometimes even Steve gets backed into a corner by what is printed in the rules. As MJC points out H5.5 states "Second Generation X-ships (XH5.1) have batteries able to hold 5 units of power each. These batteries can hold 'warp power' for multiple turns."

This is printed in BS99 and has not been officially disputed with the issuance of an errata. SVC has all options open to him. X2 could have 3, 4 or 5-point bats and to say one of these options is less valid than another due to hearsay and off-the-cuff remarks doesn't make it true. When Steve gets around to designing X2 I trust that he will take the holistic view and create what should be irregardless of any positions that may have been taken in the past.

---

---

Quote:

Warp held over the turn break in bats is a photon upgrade. Other races will not benefit nearly as much as the Fed.

---

---

Quote:

Because Carrying over Warp power would seem to give 2X ships an even bigger advantage over GW ship's. Don't they have enough Reserve Power already? X1 already has more power than you can really easily deal with.

Also not even the Andros can store Viable Warp power over the Turn Break. And if we say that 5pt bats are Andro only. (Maybe maybe not.) Why would 2X tech which doesn't match theirs be able to do something they can't.

---

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 12:01 am: Edit

What difference does it make if the ship has 3 5-point batteries or 5 3-point batteries?

It's not like they're going to be filled when the ship starts taking damage.

If they get damaged, then they're already empty. And these ships are NOT going to have enough power to run 31, charge weapons, AND fill 15 points of reserve.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 04:08 am: Edit

Apart from the fact that there is a tiny amount more pencile work...

There is the 7D Center warp Engine boxes, the 7E Shuttle boxes, the 7F APR boxes, the 7G Lab boxes, the 7H non underlined phaser boxes, the 7J probe boxes, the 7K Aft Hull boxes and lest we not forget the 7L ANY WEAPON boxes.

However deep into the DAC the Alpha strike goes, the 2 extra BTTYs will always help save a whole bunch of ( if only just 2 of them ) boxes that are pretty important to the battle.

Sure Labs wont be all that important because the Bridge as Special Sensor and full Aegis of the X2 ship will blow out the need for lots of labs through their massive ability to ID drones, and who needs shuttle boxes to build SP or WWs since both you and the other guy are likely to have the rapid pulse ability to deal with an SP with ease and who needs AWR and APR so long as you aren't playing with critical hits.

But what about the Alpha strike the turn after next, the one that will eat into your 7H square on the DAC, you'ld much rather keep those 2 Ph-5s by having the BTTYs die in their place all those turns ago, wouldn't you, ( and it's not like they can't die because their not in arc, not with the 7H result)...I know Tos would!

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:35 am: Edit

Does this mean that a ship with 5 3-point batteries is 2-3 BPV HIGHER than a ship with 3 5-point batteries?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 11:48 am: Edit

Yes.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 03:45 pm: Edit

What difference does it make if the ship has 3 5-point batteries or 5 3-point batteries?

Think about it...

At any rate, how about 3 3 point batteries.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 11:31 am: Edit

The difference is that if we're looking at the number of points PER BOX, then we're going about it the wrong way.

First, we should determine how much reserve power a ship class should have. Then, find a way to divide it up. Keeping in mind that FEWER points per box makes the ship MORE damage resistant.