Federation Commander

Ok, so I have just looked at the rules for the Ion Cannon [IC] in Communique 35. It's time for another discussion

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this weapon is simply a less efficient photon torpedo?

A suitable analogy would be the Phaser-1 vs Phaser-2 argument....

The arming cycle and holding cost is the same as the Photon. The damage is three-quarters that of the photon, but it has a prox and overload function.

But wait! It also has a better to-hit chance [so much for any 'lowest-bidder fire control' argument, then!], and one that is less subject to EM and stealth in a similar fashion to the Hellbore and PPD weapons. I fact I would say that the weapon is possibly better than the photon in this aspect.

I would certainly agree with the statement in the Communique that if the Prox function is included for the IC, then it should also be in for the Photon.

But there are two important points here. Firstly, I have had this discussion on these forums before, and it was stated something like that the Prox photon was missed out because it would unbalance the Disruptor rules, which IIRC have some of the SFB advanced fire control already built in to the charts.

And secondly, this would also be an addition to the rules, where there were supposed to be none. Unless of course we put in in the CRUL and then in Rulebook 5.

Don't get me wrong, the Prox Photon is on my Wish List; always has been . Of course, I don't want to see it unbalance the game, but then again it could be just what the Feds need.

While we're at it, can we have Phaser Capacitors back? There's already a similar precedent in the Ion Pulse Generator and the Plasma Carronade arming systems; these can store energy [if necessary] from one turn to the next AND have it added at the moment of firing, and can fire every turn; but not like the ESG which has to be charged during Energy Allocation.

As an aside, I would point out that the damage in the Ion Cannon weapons chart looks a little suss, since it's fixed damage but it actually says 2-6, 2-3 and 12. Should this not be 6, 3 and 12 respectively?

I don't believe phaser capacitors will ever make it into Federation Commander. On the off-chance that they might, however, then the amount of shield reinforcement should not be restricted by the number of batteries.

These two items will never happen, though.

They would both extend the energy allocation and change the game. They would make it like a mega-impulse/limited-firing-opportunity version of SFB and that is certainly not going to happen.

I agree, Mike: Phaser Capacitors not going to make it back in, but they're still on my 'wish list'

A major problem would be that you'd have to set aside tokens/paperclips/chips or whatever to represent the phaser power in the capacitor, and segregate those points from the general pool - that, or put a special track on the ship card for the capacitor, and that will simply not be practical.

You'd also have to make rules revising reinforcement limits, as you said, but as well as that you'd also have to make up rules about transferring power between batteries and capacitor.

All of which would add to the game's complexity - no thanks!

So, no, Phaser Capacitors will never be seen in FC - but there's no harm in wishing

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this weapon is simply a less efficient photon torpedo?

Coupled with the fact that you cant hold overload Ions, yes it seems like a less effeciant Photon, with slightly better to-hit chances.

Kang wrote: Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this weapon is simply a less efficient photon torpedo?

No.

Accountng for the accuracy, It's not as good at short range, broadly similar at mid range, and better at 13+ (and that is for standard charge not prox). Add in the fact that fairs better against EM etc then I think it is a pretty good weapon.

When overloading the IC is better than the 12pt photon after range 2, and even the 16 pt photon is only really better up to range 4 taking into account hit chance. Though of course the IC will never quite have the fear factor of a full overload photon volley.

Kang, MJW alredy covered the damage thing in the Rules Section. And didn't SVC just say he didn't want 2 disscussion threads run (We now have 3) on Ion Cannons. Shouldn't this Discussion be over in the Rule Section? All in one place easier to follow.

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:44 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weapon chart has a typo, but it is on the chart.

A normal load does 6 points of damage (not 2-6).
A prox load does 3 points of damage (not 2-3).
An overload does 12 points of damage (as shown).

The damage rating is in the chart, it is just obscured by the "2-" in front of it.
_________________
Federation Commander Answer Guy

pneumonic81 wrote: Coupled with the fact that you cant hold overload Ions, yes it seems like a less effeciant Photon, with slightly better to-hit chances.

You can't divorce to hit chance from 'efficiency', to hit chance plays a large part in the 'output' of a weapon and hence is vital part of its efficiency. The hardest hitting, fastest firing, best dam/power weapon around would be useless if could never actually hit.

Dal Downing wrote:Kang, MJW alredy covered the damage thing in the Rules Section. And didn't SVC just say he didn't want 2 disscussion threads run (We now have 3) on Ion Cannons. Shouldn't this Discussion be over in the Rule Section? All in one place easier to follow.

That was about IPG, though I'm a bit confused about why we would want a rules thead to include general opinon/discussion about something. That just clogs up the rules thread and makes it hard to see what the rules query is.

Discussing 'Is the IC a low power photon' is hardly a rules query. Or 'what do people think of the IPG' doesn't appear to ask any questions about the rules for it.

The Topic Tittle is "Vudar Rules Suggestions / Comment". The reason it is there is it is to incourage Playtesting dissccusions and general thoughts on the Vudar Rules in one easy to find place. Making it easier for SVC and MJW to keep up with the discussion in case they want to rewrite/change the Play Test Rules. But people will post what and where they want I guess.

storeylf wrote:

pneumonic81 wrote: Coupled with the fact that you cant hold overload Ions, yes it seems like a less effeciant Photon, with slightly better to-hit chances.

You can't divorce to hit chance from 'efficiency', to hit chance plays a large part in the 'output' of a weapon and hence is vital part of its efficiency. The hardest hitting, fastest firing, best dam/power weapon around would be useless if could never actually hit.

I dont entirly divorce it. I am hoping that the increased hit chance will be enough to make up for the fact I cant hold overloads.

Generally speaking, I think the Ion is a great weapon. I thought more of it before MW decided to take away the holding cost, but I still think its a fine weapon.

I think general discussion abotu systems would be better suited to be in this forum rather then the rules section. It seems like the rules section is for Facts about rules, not opinions and discussions on systems.

pneumonic81 wrote:Generally speaking, I think the Ion is a great weapon. I thought more of it before MW decided to take away the holding cost, but I still think its a fine weapon.

And again that is because there is no "ion energy" requirement in FC. Without that requirement, the weapon is almost too good in FC. The change in overloading was done to partially compensate for that change, and to make it more consistent with other weapons that overload with a 50% increase in power.

I will test a theory out over Thanksgiving, but I have a feeling that Orions are gonna have a new favorite weapon ...

Dal Downing wrote:Kang, MJW alredy covered the damage thing in the Rules Section. And didn't SVC just say he didn't want 2 disscussion threads run (We now have 3) on Ion Cannons. Shouldn't this Discussion be over in the Rule Section? All in one place easier to follow.

Didn't see it; I don't scour the forums all day

All I did was think of an idea, saw the thread on the IPG, and thought there was no thread on the IC.

I stand corrected; however it hasn't stopped the discussion, which was the aim in the first place.

So yes, I guess people will post where they want. That does happen on forums....

pneumonic81 wrote:Coupled with the fact that you cant hold overload Ions, yes it seems like a less effeciant Photon, with slightly better to-hit chances.

You can hold an overloaded IC: Rule (4r2b). Same cost as a photon overload.

Kang wrote:

pneumonic81 wrote:Coupled with the fact that you cant hold overload Ions, yes it seems like a less effeciant Photon, with slightly better to-hit chances.

You can hold an overloaded IC: Rule (4r2b). Same cost as a photon overload.

You can only overload at the point of fire though, so there will never be an overload to hold, from what mwest said, the holding cost was something that was not removed when they decided to make overload at point of fire.