Sensor proposal

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:03 am

When considering the effect of scouts on seeking weapons, the Aegis rules must also be considered, because a force may have both a scout and an Aegis ship under BoM rules. If you have a DB ship that has drone racks & special sensors (e.g. E7D), and an Aegis equipped ship (e.g. E5E), then you will be able to stop a LOT of drones.

Also, if the proposal to enable ADDs to fire offensively goes through, you'll see Klingon, Federation, and war-class Kzinti ships getting better at drone defense. (IIRC the proposal is that ADDs can fire at drones during the Offensive Fire Phase with a Range of 3 and a to-hit of 1-3)

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:22 am

What? Never heard of the ADD thing. I can't see why that is needed.

I'm not sure the aegis and scout thing is an issue per se, if you have spent points on both aegis and scouts I'd certainly expect you to be able to drop a lot of drones.

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:34 am

It's needed because ADDs are pretty useless right now, they typically get one or two shots off and then are disabled.

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:06 am

Not sure I agree with the ADD thing (i've been playing with them long enough and not felt them useless), but again that is not really relevant. If the game allows 3 anti drone mechanisms and someone turn up with all 3 then they are going to be tough as nails vs drones.

If there is a balance issue there I'd say it was with the propsed ADD change, scouts and aegis are generic and available (once the ship cards are out) to everyone. Not everyone has ADDs, and that should be borne in mind when altering them, if it is felt that Add/Scout/aegis is too potent then hold back on the ADD change rather than nobble every one else.

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:16 am

Scouts and Aegis will be Borders of Madness. A change to ADDs would not be. The empires without ADDs don't face drone-armed opponents historically, or have their own ways of dealing with them (ESGs, Gatlings).

I think a change to ADDs is relevant, because we don't want drones to be nerfed too badly. Just enough that they are not overwhelming in fleet battles (which I think they can be now).

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:54 am

terryoc wrote:Scouts and Aegis will be Borders of Madness. A change to ADDs would not be.

fair point.

I think a change to ADDs is relevant, because we don't want drones to be nerfed too badly. Just enough that they are not overwhelming in fleet battles (which I think they can be now).

We can agree to disagree on the ADD bit and finding drones overwhelming, it's not really relevant to the discussion here.

However good ADDs are, the basic point is that there are basic anti-drone weapons (ADD, ESG, Gatlings) and BoM would have 2 extra systems that happen to be fairly good at anti-drone, aegis and scouts. IMO it is not an issue thata fleet with all 3 anti-drone mechanisms is swatting drones down by the bucket load. I'd expect no less from such a fleet, he paid for it, and it makes sense it is rather good at drone defense. As the other player what have you brougt to the battle in place of the scout and aegis ship. Another scout to nobble his direct fire power (and probably prevent the anti drone useage as he counter jams instead), and an extra combat vessel to help overcome the aegis ship, or even kill the aegis ship?

Sneaky Scot · Post by **Sneaky Scot** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:03 pm

The ADD thing is new to me too. Is there a thread or proposal to look at?

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:41 pm

I had thought the ADD proposal was discussed before, but I don't remember where.

In summary, the change is this:
- ADD retains existing function as is.
- ADD can be used in Offensive Fire phase to fire at drones and shuttles. Range 0-2, To Hit 1-3, kills drone, does 1-6 to shuttle.

Sneaky Scot · Post by **Sneaky Scot** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:43 pm

Thanks Mike!

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:05 pm

So, to be clear, it'll only be able to do that shuttle damage via offensive direct-fire, or will it be able to do the same (to suicide shuttles) via defensive fire?

(ADDs treat Tachyon Missiles as shuttles, so I'd need to clarify this aspect of the change.)

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:16 pm

Nerroth wrote:So, to be clear, it'll only be able to do that shuttle damage via offensive direct-fire, or will it be able to do the same (to suicide shuttles) via defensive fire?

(ADDs treat Tachyon Missiles as shuttles, so I'd need to clarify this aspect of the change.)

OK, I simplified things. Defensive fire ADDs can now zap suicide shuttles, too. So that is a new thing to its old function. (But *that* should have always been there ...)

gar1138 · Post by **gar1138** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:05 am

What about adding the ability for ADDs to engage previously impacted drones that are held in a tractor beam? I always thought it seemed odd that you could only use ADDs on the impulse of impact, but phasers could be used on future impulses. Thanks,

Garrett

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:21 am

mjwest wrote:I had thought the ADD proposal was discussed before, but I don't remember where.

If it was, I'm pretty sure it wasn't on this forum.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:42 am

Getting back to the main topic for a moment, a quick update ...

The "6" for a drone miss couldn't be added to jamming because of how it works in the HA rules. Remember, when jamming with the HA rules, it only affects weapons for that impulse, not the rest of the turn. As such, there is no real way to get the affect for seeking weapons.

On the plus side, the (5S4) Direct-Fire Defense rule can be used for to help a friendly ship, to self-protect, or for offensive jamming of an enemy ship. All three modes provide the same +1 shift. (This makes the jamming more versatile.)

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:34 am

Thanks for the clarification on the ADD.

(Sigh, I had a feeling I'd have less of an excuse to skip trying to take another look at that SRC translation...)