Starting this topic in conjunction with the new addition of X-maulers in SFB Module X1R.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Some ideas for uses of X-Maulers...

What if X-maulers could:

1. Be used to maul NON-X-ships in the support echelon as if they were ships in the formation bonus slot? IOW using the 50% discount of (308.45).

2. Be used to ADD mauling damage to other X-ships (or another mauler) ALREADY using their x-mauling effect (say up 50% of the effect)? IOW Klingon FX is using its x-mauling effect for 9 points; a Klingon X-mauler then contributes 4 (9 x 50% = 4.5 rounded down to 4) additional mauling points to the directed damage attack. An X-mauler doing so must roll for shock (die roll 6).

3. Be used to dial any amount of mauling effect up to its maximum? They only roll for shock if they use more than 10 points of mauler effect (die roll 6).

4. Be used like a non-X-ship mauler even if it is crippled? (No shock rolls required -OR- if a shock roll is reqired then the X-mauler is destroyed if it shocks?)

5. Be used to freely absords 2 points of a directed attack on itself if the X-mauler is NOT used as a mauler in a battle force (only 1 point if it is a CW-hull based mauler). IOW it used its batteries to absorb damage instead of mauling.

6. Be used under (308.47); only one X-mauler per round NOT using its mauling effect may make its own capture die roll on NON-X-ships only?

7. Ignores (523.33) and uses its full mauling effect on enemy X-ships? An X-mauler doing so must roll for shock (die roll 6).

8. Be used as a rescue tugs under (537.2). CW-hull based X-maulers are treated as LTTs.

9. does NOT require consorts verses any enemy fleet that does NOT contain any X-ships it its battle force.

Premium costs for X-maulers could be paid with non-XTPs (2EPs for full sized and 1EP for CW-hull based X-maulers).

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 04:45 pm: Edit

1. No. That would eliminate DB for the Alliance.

2. Useless. Just use the mauler. Unless you're saying that it's doing this from the formation slot.

3. Yes. This is what I've been suggesting. The 6 (or 5+6) shock rating is up to SVC.

4. Yes. This is a good one. Kill it in one shot or suffer it during pursuit where it will not take up a uncrippled ship slot.

5. Yes, sort of. Only if it is the ship being directed on.

6. Maybe. Depends on what other things it is getting.

7. Yes. It is an X-ship anyway and subject to the "X-ships using their mauler effect are not reduced". It just so happens that they actually ARE maulers rather than just playing one.

8. No. They are not tugs and don't have the special warp fields for this.

9. Yes.

10. No premium. Straight cost in XPs.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Here is an idea.

How about just treating X-Maulers as Maulers and X-ships. They have higher compot as discussed, and use all the rules of Maulers and X-maulers.

See how that pans out then use that to set a surcharge and production limits if any.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 05:36 pm: Edit

I'm pretty much with Michael Parker. Give X-maulers about +2 uncrippled ComPot over the base hull (no bonus to crippled compot), and they can X-maul for 10 at no shock (just like any X ship) or full maul for a shock roll of 5-6.

I don't see any need for any actual special rules or surcharge at all. The ships are moderately useful (both as a ComPot boost and for the occasional 16 point Maul to one shot a SB or PFT) and have a moderate cost (higher repair cost and easier to direct out of existance than expected for the cost).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Doug that sounds simple enough.
I agree we should use the KISS rule here.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 09:04 am: Edit

Point 5 - So what happens if the X-Mauler is defending (lets say a 15/7 hull and not in Form - Rules not with me, I do X-Ships get Form bonus for 'free' - if so - modify damage done.. )

Alliance do 44 damage, and have no X-Ship (or captured mauler) or DNT there.

They elect to direct on the X-Mauler - which would kill it.

The Defender can then Maul (and lose the X-Mauler) - or 'prevent 2 damage'.

What happens if they prevent 2 damage? One saved X-Mauler - excess damage(i.e. 2 prevented, plus 30 to cripple - what about the other 12?)

Far too many complications - plus I can see problems (what happens if there is 2 X-Maulers in the defending battle line etc)

Douglas - I am trying to thing what could be a balancing rule for multiple numbers of '16 point Coalition Maulers' - and can't think of anything sensible.

The more I think about it, the more I think X-Maulers are just a bad idea - either they arrive too late (last 2-3 turns of the game) meaning the rules and counters are under used - but the required balancing rule does not need to be as major - of they are around for 6+ turns, the required balancing rule would need to alter the game for the vast part of the game.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 10:47 am: Edit

I'm in the "get them late, not as much balancing" camp.

Here's what I'd propose.

Ramp them up 50% from normal maulers, just like all other x-ships. (That would make a FALX something like a 15/5, FHFX would be 15/7, D6MX would be 15/6. All of these would be quite expensive to repair.)

Keep the same mauler limits and say that a mauler conversion to x-tech counts against these limits.

YIS for the Roms is Y183. Klingons and Lyran get Y184.

Reduced (or eliminated) chance of shock.

-2 to capture if used to capture in pursuit (-3 with a PT onboard.)

No consorts needed.

Still only able to maul with one ship (x-ship or mauler) per battle line.

5 XTP to convert from x-cruiser hull. 15 XTP to build directly. Maybe something like 8 XTP to convert from an existing mauler.

I specifically hate the "use me as a damage sponge" idea. The Klingons already have penal ships for that, and are getting x-penal cruisers in X1R.

But, if you want balance, start thinking about the goodies the Alliance might be getting:

The Hydrans have a CAVX with 6 heavy fighters and 9 stinger-X.

The Feds have a new CSVX for use with A-20 fighters. What are the factors for a X-ship CVBG of GVX, CSVX, NCAX, NCAX, DDX, DDX? This sounds something like 10-12(9) + 10-12(10) + 6-12 + 6-12 + 5-10 + 5-10 or a 5 ship (for command purposes) group of 42-68(19). That's a pretty good CVBG and it has x-scout functions too.

The Kzinti get a real x-escort. So their CVSX with 3 FEX might be something like a 15(8) + 3x 6-7 escorts or a 33-36(8) 4 ship x-carrier group.

X1R doesn't just have goodies for the coalition. There's good stuff for everybody.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Reference my proposed point 5...

X-maulers only absorb the additional two points (or one) if you direct an attack on THAT X-mauler ONLY. Should the X-mauler be on the defensive (ie defender resolves last) and chooses to use the now 'destroyed' mauler the in a counter-attack then those absorbed points are 'returned' and treated as 'plus points' for the next round.

The proposed point is NOT suggesting that any X-mauler absorb damage to the fleet -- only directed damage toward it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 01:44 pm: Edit

The more I think about it, the more I think X-Maulers are just a bad idea...

"Bad idea" or not SVC said they will be part of the SFU. Since SVC decided to include X-maulers in F&E somewhere, we now have a duty to present ideas to SVC for his consideration. He may or may not choose to include or modify our proposals but they may be helpful in the process.

Far too many complications - plus I can see problems...

Whatever 'complications' you may feel, I know that I can fold-in the new X-mauler processes ADB comes up with into the SoP.

As to balance, I think things will work out as I know SVC has always worked hard to achieve it so far...

By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Perhaps a production surchage (3-4 XP) and a 15-18 AF (mauling) is best. Treat the things against existing mauler/x-ship production limits. They'd still shock at 33% and in all other ways be a mauler... on an X-hull.

Minimal additional rules. Realistically, how many X-maulers could the late war Coalition field?

It's the ISC and Andros who will bear the brunt of X-maulers.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 03:21 pm: Edit

In techno babble how does a mauler work. Then what makes an X-mauler different. X-phasers and X-disrupters are nicely explained.
Being able to upgrade a mauler to an X-mauler does not feel right as looking at a mauler SSD the entire ship is tied into the mauler system. About all you would retain would be hull and auxilery systems. Better to build the x-mauler and keep the old style maulers for harassing unguarded planets.

From a SFB point of view maulers are an exactly dialable damage weapon. The damage being a direct formula of power and distance no random element at all. [sucking eggs I know]

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 03:48 pm: Edit

SVC:

Do you have any idea if X-maulers are going to be introduced as part of the ISC Wars F&E module or another module?

Will they to be introduced in Y185F or later?

What are your thoughts as to a time period of introduction?

Thanks.

V/R,
Chuck

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Q: Do you have any idea if X-maulers are going to be introduced as part of the ISC Wars F&E module or another module?

A: I don't know why you think this would be in the ISC module. I have never said a single word about having non-ISC ships in that module. We will probably introduce them in Tactical Operations or in AndroWar, depending on decisions not yet made.

Q: Will they to be introduced in Y185F or later?

A: See previous vague mention of "decisions not yet made".

Q: What are your thoughts as to a time period of introduction?

A: Haven't really thought about it. I would not regard their introduction in Y183 to be significant to F&E balance as the time period is short (only a few would be built, and they'd be prime targets, so whatever they do, each would do it only once, rarely twice) and there are zillions of other things going on (heavy DNs, PFs, etc.). Therefore, it's just not important if their introduction date is Y183 or Y187 (which means SFB can do what it wants and you guys can flip through X1R at Origins and go from whatever it says). It in entirely possible that if their introduction date was Y187 they would be available in Y183 as unbuilt variants. You guys are panicking about six months too early and wasting a lot of nervous energy on something that can be discussed after Origins. I'm too busy now to pay any attention to this topic so you're just going to have to do it all over again after Origins.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Not to put too fine a point on it, this entire topic is a total waste of your time and my bandwidth until you see the SSDs. The ships could end up being 102 battery points with a firing limit, or 36 battery points with "other systems", and each of those options would require a totally different presentation in F&E. Until SFB makes a decision, F&E has nothing to base anything on.

So, you're just wasting your time discussing this NOW. You're just panicking for nothing.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 12:28 am: Edit

*ow-ie*

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - 01:35 pm: Edit

As an adjunct to the X-mauler discussion over on the SFB side of the BBS, I wanted to note a couple of potentially relevant background details for those hulls of this type presented in SFB Module X1R:

KLINGON:
MD7X - YIS Y185; lone ship of its class, fielded just in time to take part in the last battles of the General War on the Kzinti front (so Spring Y185, perhaps?). It destroyed at least one ISC base as part of a Klingon X-squadron, and was later used against several Andromedan RTN nodes. Was seriously considered for use in Operation Unity, but was ultimately kept in the Alpha Octant. Deactivated and placed into reserve in Y207.

ROMULAN:
Falcon-X - YIS Y186; no records of one actually being built. Could potentially have been built on a Freight Eagle hull, as no Falcons remained in Romulan space at this time and the yard which had built them was lost at Remus.

KRMX - YIS Y186; none built historically. Note that this is a (would-be) conversion of a K7RX hull, rather than a (would-be) upgrade of a KRM hull (none of which remained in service by this time).

FlameHawk-X - YIS Y185; lone ship of its class, converted from a FlameHawk too late to take part in the General War (so Fall Y185, perhaps?) Was in the hands of the Republic during the Civil War, though it missed direct action in that conflict. Was used against a few Orion bases, at least one ISC base, and against several Andromedan RTN nodes (particularly from Y196 onwards). Retired from active service in Y208; still awaiting final disposition at last known report.

LYRAN:
Saber-Tooth Tiger-X - YIS Y189; lone ship of its class, commissioned by the Emperor for use in the Marshall's fleet, assigned to several different squadrons from Y196 onwards in its anti-RTN role.

Single-Tooth Jaguar-X - YIS Y189; first ship built by Foremost Duchy (intended for use in a "corrective action" against the LDR, an action which was pre-empted by the Andromedan invasion), with four others built from Y196 onwards (it is unclear as to where these ones were built) for use against Andromedan RTN nodes. All five had to be built from scratch, as no Lyran CW maulers had been built on "peacetime construction" hulls before this point.

It should be noted that those X-maulers used in anti-RTN roles would be attached to "follow-up" forces, which would race to the site of an Andromedan base which had already been uncovered by an RTN-hunter (such as the Romulan FireHawk-EX Admiral Centius). The exact mechanics behind this would be worth exploring in greater detail once Andro War is placed into formal development.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - 04:01 pm: Edit

We must remember that under the current X-rules, the very existence of X-ships on a battle line enables a mauler effect for said force...

---

Quote:

(523.31) X-MAULER EFFECT: If there are one or more uncrippled X-ships in a battle force, the battle force is treated as having a mauler with 10 attack factors. (This does NOT add ten attack factors to the battle force.)

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Chuck,

See my thoughts and data on X-maulers versus non-X maulers. I think there's adequate justification for a 16 point factor for a "cruiser mauler" hull such as the D6M-X or KRM-X. The Flamehawk-X would be 17 or 18 points.

In my opinion, the X-mauler rule should simply state that the player may use 523.31 *or* may use the printed attack factors on the X-mauler for the mauler effect. The decision is made at the moment directed damage is performed.

Note that such a rule gives the player with an X-line with significant flexibility. He may elect to perform a 10 point maul with no possibility of shock to the mauler under 523.31. Such a result is entirely justified given that the X-mauler has extensive batteries and the power curve to refill them reasonably quickly. Alternatively, the player may use the higher value of the X-mauler (say, 16, or whatever number is selected). However, in this case, the player must roll for shock for the X-mauler. The shock roll might be selected to be only a "6" to indicate the improved systems on an X-ship.

I would not recommend allowing a mauler effect beyond 16-18 (depending on the mauler). Already that dramatically increases the probability of direct crippling a SB in one shot, or destroying an entire carrier group.

In fact, in terms of play balance, even though it could make sense to support a mauler value of 16 for a standard "cruiser hull" mauler, it may be wiser to use a 14 attack value (i.e., 2 points higher than a standard X-cruiser, just as a non-X mauler is 2 points than a standard non-X cruiser). Something like the Flamehawk-X could go as high as 15 (maybe 16).

Finally, I would not undervalue "a few points greater than the default X-ship mauler effect." Each point of mauler effect that is allowed increases the probability of doing devastating damage; i.e., one-shot crippling a starbase or destroying a carrier group. Such a possibility is going to be substantially increased when X-maulers are available due to the availability of very high compot lines in 186-189 when the maulers appear.

I think just giving the mauler player the flexibility to choose 523.31 versus the slightly higher X-mauler printed factor is reward enough. Basically the player can decide whether it's worth a couple of extra points to risk shocking his X-mauler on a "6".

To quote Forrest Gump: That's all I have to say about that.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - 05:00 pm: Edit

OK, I was wrong.

That being said, I would support some of your other ideas as well. EG: rescue tug, doesn't require escorts, etc.

I would not recommend allowing an X-mauler to attack units in the form box or scout box.

I also like option 7: X-mauler may be used to maul X ships, with the shock proviso.

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Chuck,

See this.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 05, 2019 - 11:19 pm: Edit

1 no
2 no
3 maybe, not required
4 no
5 no
6 meh, maybe
7 maybe
8 no
9 no basis for this

I would suggest the staff review this when resubmitting the x mauler rule that UNCLE rejected and shredded. In any event, download or archive ASAP and delete.