List of flawed ships

[Plaxor]

Maybe a save per turret rather than against each attack? say 5+? Each successful ignores an attack?

[RCgothic]

Doesn't maintain the neat 1.67 average that a straight 6+ against all attacks gives.

[Plaxor]

I'm afraid you're way too in love with your 1.67. It needs to be close, but within .2 is fine.

[RCgothic]

I'm not married to the idea of it MUST be 1.67, but I'm trying not to let AC get more powerful. Less than 1.67 is more acceptable than more. Here's an analysis:

D6-T:

Code: [Select]

T\Wave 2 4 6 8
1 3.8 8.8 13.8 18.8
2 1.7 5.0 8.4 11.7
3 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5
4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9

D3 6+ against all

Code: [Select]

T\Wave 2 4 6 8
1 2.5 5.8 9.2 12.5
2 1.7 5.0 8.3 11.7
3 0.8 4.2 7.5 10.8
4 0.0 3.3 6.7 10.0
5 0.0 2.5 5.8 9.2
D3 5+ per turret

Code: [Select]

T\Wave 2 4 6 8
1 2.7 6.7 10.7 14.7
2 1.3 5.3 9.3 13.3
3 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0
4 0.0 2.7 6.7 10.7
5 0.0 1.3 5.3 9.3
D3 6+ compared to D6-T: The exponentiality is gone. T2 is pretty much identical in both systems. T1 is less vulnerable, and Battleships are more vulnerable but still well protected against smaller waves, though they can now be vulnerable to large waves.

D3 5+ per turret compared to D3 6+: Small waves suffer disproportionately, whilst attacks against T1-3 for waves of 4,6 and 8 all get more powerful.

[Taggerung]

Isn't the point of the flawed ships lists to fix the fleets...not mess with the entire game mechanic?

[Plaxor]

Initially yes. Which is why we should change threads.....

[horizon]

My idea:
Bombers : D6 - turret value.
Fighter Bombers : D3 - turret value.

Fighters vs Ordnance: (ditch the World War Naval background to make better rules, ammed Star Wars/Wing Commander!!)
All fighters gain resilience (new Eldar rule to be made...). 4+ to stay in play, per Sigoroth's rule.

Fighters in a bomber wave =

i. If fighters survive turret fire then: turret reduction goes down by 1 per surviving fighter.
or
ii. If fighters survive turret fire then: attack wave gains +1 attack run.

So RCG said red was too strong, then blue remains. Yay.

[Plaxor]

It was me that said red was too strong first!

I'm a little confused on blue.... did you mean that the attack run gets just +1 attack?

I liked the idea of a minimum number of bomber attack runs as far as each bomber will have at least as many attack runs as surviving fighters.

[horizon]

As per current rules:
fighter marker adds +1 to the attacks if:
at least 1 bomber marker survived to do attacks.
the fighter marker itself survived.
where fighter attacks cannot > turrets
where fighter marker attacks cannot > remaining bomber markers

[Plaxor]

Yep, totally confusing. Full of technicalities.

What you're saying basically seems like; fighters have 1 attack that isn't reduced by turrets.

P.S. Don't worry, I'll write up a page on how to convert the fleet lists to official rules. As far as rules changes so far:

BMs to V.1
Tiered BM removal
Squadron Revisions (any capital ship, BFI revision)

Minor changes:
Order of actions in a lot of places specifically defined.
Attack Rating more important.

Other than that:
No pre-measuring, which isn't apparently that big of a deal, but I haven't written it out yet.

Things kinda on the block:
Bomber revision, Boarding Torpedoes, Resilient Ordnance. Torpedo marker size (RC keeps complaining).

[horizon]

Yep, totally confusing. Full of technicalities.

What you're saying basically seems like; fighters have 1 attack that isn't reduced by turrets.

Nein mann.

Balanced & Okay without the need to introduce/change other rules.

But yes, 1 attack per surviving fighter capped at bombers & turrets.

[Plaxor]

That's the same as before, it just means the fighter has to survive?

[horizon]

Yep.

[Plaxor]

That eliminates barely any of the weirdness/confusion!

How do you feel about minimum attacks?

[horizon]

It isn't weird at all or confusing to me. I find it all pretty clear.

Minimum attacks = BAD.