View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
junior Captain
Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nerroth wrote: | *When firing through a down shield, separate volleys would have individual rolls on the DAC, which is what would be the case in SFB (especially if the weapon is intended to strip weapons off an enemy warship - all the better to 'pacify' them).
|
While it allows you to simulate the old Mizia effect, the FedCom table doesn't at all resemble the old SFB table. The old table also was much more favorable to the Hydrans with their massive Center Hulls which would end up getting a good chunk of the initial damage pumped into them (since the Forward and Rear Hulls were located at rows 6 and 8 in the first column on the table). The new table means that the firing ship doesn't need to worry about dumping all of their fire into otherwise useless boxes on the target (especially if the targeted ship has a small number of Lab boxes).
So unless you plan on reviving the old DAC, then I say NO to Mizia-style micro-volleys. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmt Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 394 Location: Plano, TX
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Micro-volleys are useful in depleting your opponent's energy more that Mizia effects. Long range sniping makes your opponent burn energy to reinforce his shields or to repair shields in the next turn. _________________ jmt
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
junior Captain
Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Only if your opponent is reckless enough to burn all of his or her energy doing shield reinforcement. How many good players out there do you know that would happily blow all of their energy doing shield reinforcement instead of arming weapons and the like?
Allowing it "because poor players will burn all of their energy doing shield reinforcement" isn't much of an argument for implementing it, imo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DNordeen Commander
Joined: 05 Apr 2007 Posts: 564
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Besides, I don't think it's fair to allow someone to reinforce against the PPD to such a degree. That would in my opinion unbalance the PPD making it less effective than other weapons. _________________ Speed is life; Patience is victory
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bolo_MK_XL Captain
Joined: 16 Jan 2007 Posts: 836 Location: North Carolina
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Depends on whether you rely on the PPD as primary or secondary weapon ---
With Plasmas on board, I personally would see it as secondary ---
How I used it in games I did ---
It becomes the equivalent of a drone -- dare your opponent to reinforce, or accept weakened shields -- used at the right time, it becomes a damned if you do, damned it you don't event ---
I would probably see it differently when I get to fly an ISC with 2 or more PPDs --- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kang Fleet Captain
Joined: 23 Sep 2007 Posts: 1976 Location: Devon, UK
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something else too - a) does the PPD qualify for Directed Damage, and, if so, then b) can an overloaded PPD do directed damage?
My point would be that it's not so much that the individual power of each pulse is stronger like it would be with a photon or disruptor or whatever, it's just that there's simply more pulses. Each pulse is identical whether fired from an overloaded PPD or a non-overloaded PPD.
However in the interests of simplicity, it may well be best to keep the no-directed-damage rule for an overloaded PPD, to keep it in line with all other overloaded heavy weapons. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mjwest Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As the rules current sit, a) Yes; b) No. _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
junior Captain
Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 803
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iirc, the Hellbore lost the ability to do directed damage in DK (I need to doublecheck this, however). If so, then imo the PPD should lose it as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
OGOPTIMUS Captain
Joined: 10 Nov 2006 Posts: 980
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is the purpose of Rule 4M2c?? Since you have to add energy during energy allocation only, how can you even begin to think of reloading a PPD on a turn you've fired it?
I'm getting this from the Booster 0 version that SVC posted earlier in this thread. Is this rule removed in the Reference Rulebook version? _________________ O.G. OPTIMUS
Newest Page | Newer Page | OLD Page |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mjwest Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, that rule was dropped for exactly that reason. _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
storeylf Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 1897
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Talking of rule 4M2c.
In the reference rule book that is the start of game pre-load rule. Is there a typo here, it says that you don't have to lose moer batteries than the cost of normal pre-loading and gives an example of 2 PPds only costing 4 batteries. But the normal cost of preloading is 4 power per PPD so shouldn't that be a cost of up to 8 batteries if you have that many? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mjwest Commodore
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 4075 Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*sigh*
Yeah, that'd be another typo ... _________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|