Page 1 of 1
Question about base phasers (type 4, I think)
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:31 pm
by Itharus
My question is: do any empires use these as heavy weapons on their larger (DN/BC) star ships? Just thought that would be kind of cool if any of them did.
Thanks
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:44 pm
by djdood
Nope.
Phaser-4 are specifically forbidden on ships. The game fluff says they need special positional stabilizers to make them workable.
They're tailored to help things that are immobile (bases, planets) better defend themselves against things that can move around.
If you want to try them on a mobile platform, the Juggernaut "monster" uses the phaser-4 table to represent its giant energy weapons, as do some other monsters, IIRC.
[caveat: the Borak (recently introduced to FC in Captain's Log) do all kinds of odd things with phasers]
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:55 pm
by Itharus
Ah, bummer
I was half expecting Tholians to have something like it.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:25 pm
by Itharus
Six legged dragon things with a phaser fetish? I like.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:47 pm
by djdood
The Tholians have tricks enough, with web, cast web, web fist, etc. There's more rules to cover their gimmicks than any other single empire.
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:15 pm
by Scoutdad
ACTASF Book II web rules are 6 pages long... with no illustrations or examples included yet.
And the Webcaster / Web Fist is separate.
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:50 pm
by mjwest
Wow. In Federation Commander, web rules (including snares, but not web casters) is five and a half pages. Even ugly rules like tractors are only two and a quarter pages.
So, yes, the Tholian web device is probably the nastiest rule in all of the Star Fleet Universe, irrespective of rules set.
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:55 pm
by djdood
Sooooo many interactions. It's both imposed terrain and a damage cause-er - and that's just basic, "as seen on tv" laid web.
The SFB group I was in shied away from Tholians because of it (and because maneuver fights were more fun to us). I was very happy when things got streamlined for FC and looking forward to seeing what Tony is doing for ACTASF.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:59 pm
by Scoutdad
djdood wrote:...and looking forward to seeing what Tony is doing for ACTASF.
Pulling my hair out!!!
Actually. They aren't too awfully bad in ACTASF.
I wrote long, detailed rules for the play testers. Just to confirm that everything works as it should and that there are no questions.
Once we're sure they work to our satisfaction, we'll remove redundant language and clean them up.
I hope to get them down to 4 or 5 pages (with examples and illustrations) ... which when formatted by ADB seems to lose about 50% of its volume.
So I guess the final goal is 2 to 2 1/2 pages in the ACTASF book. although I would not complain if it ended up at 3 pages.