Re: Grasers was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

<snip OO's argument against EFSB heavy beams v. screens -1 per die per
screen level>

All of the settings in which we use EFSB-style heavy beams use integral
armor rather than screens.  What we use in these settings is -1 per
level per WEAPON, even if the weapon rolls more than 1 die.  How would
that compare?

> Jared Hilal wrote:
> >Since the KV primarily use a weapon category with the same to-hit
> >and range mechanics as the P-torp, and the Phalon are limited to 36 
> >MU with pulsars and PBLs, isn't giving the Hu'Mans another 
> >*scalable*, *long range* weapon (they already have the scalable B#) 
> >tipping the balance in the other direction?
> 
> Take another look at the size and cost of these long-ranged weapons
> :-/ 
> Yes, the Kraks and Phalons will hopefully get hurt while closing the
> range against these weapons; that way they don't completely overwhelm

> the humies once they get in close. The same goes for any of the FB1 
> forces, of course  - they too will get hurt while closing with the 
> UNSC ships, but tend to outgun them at short and medium ranges 
> instead.

Last summer there was a series of threads in which you argued that a
relatively small ship with T8 and a 3-arc B5 can stay out range of a
ship armed with B3's only while whittling the B3 ship over a long
running battle.  If your arguments are correct (I never tested them in
a game), then the exact same argument can be made for any 18 MU RB
weapon over class 2.  Although the *MASS* of the proposed grasers is
significantly higher, the same basic design scaled up to accommodate a
3-arc "G3" (max 54 MU) should, according to your previous assertions,
be almost assured of victory over a KV or Phalon ship (limited to 30
and 36 MU).  So a force of these ships in the GZG setting should be
able to shred any KV force.

> 
> The very fact that the range bands are different gives the grasers a
> quite different performance than the normal beams.
>

Same performance *per range band*, just longer RBs.

> >"Rereoll affected by screens" is not a new mechanic, just a twist on
> >an old one.
> 
> It is yet another variant for the players to keep track of, and one
> many players will forget about in the heat of battle.
> 

Most gamers I know are fairly bright, and can keep track  of a lot of
rules/variants.  Where do you find knuckle-draggers who can't keep
track of a simple variant if it is explicitly spelled out in the main
text describing the weapon?

>a feature [unpredictable damage] several players have already 
>complained/warned about),

If playtesters have already complained about the 1d6 damage, how about
having damage per hit = class, i.e. class 2 does 2 points per hit,
class 3 does 3 points per hit, etc.

> You haven't read the ECC7 AARs or other peoples' reactions to the
> UNCS beta, then? Most of them expressed worries that a lucky graser 
> hit would have too much of an impact on a game. 

In http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00056.html Matt Tope found
them "to be balanced", "causing on average similar amounts of damage as
an equivalent mass of K-guns", and "at present the UN tech seems to be
in balance with the other systems, cost and mass wise".
He again asserts this in
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00241.html

Bail9672 says "the Graser looks to be a very powerful weapon."
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200403/msg00240.html

These were the only ones who offered a conclusion or opinion before my
post, rather than just describing the events reported.	Jon Leary's
comments of 13 Mar 2004 aren't yet on the archive: "The mass cost does
seem to be well done and may provide the key to balance."

> (FWIW there were similar complaints about the EFSB heavy beam back in

> '97-98, and also about the FB1 Salvo Missiles.)

1) I wasn't on the list in 97-98.
2) In our group, we always found FB SMs to be *understrength* when we
used them, but then we also felt the FB PD suites to be pathetically
weak.  <shrug>

> After all, you're not the one who'll have to defend the rules against

> people who get their games ruined by munchkins or people who can roll

> "6" at will

If they really do roll 6's "at will", then this is called "cheating" or
"loaded dice".	If they happen to be lucky, it may just seem that they
are rolled at will.

We have a player who rolls as much as 40% 6's for beams (we started
keeping track), but couldn't hit a planet with torps or k-guns, and
usually has his ships gutted on the first threshold check.

If the dice are honest, it all should balance over the 100's of rolls
in a game.  If a player rolls 6's only when they need them, but never
or only average for thresholds, then it's the dice or the thrower. 
Make everyone use the same dice and make them throw them in a box with
Vegas craps rules for the throw.

My cousin's mother-in-law is a demon at backgammon and parchesi, but
not when she has to roll from a dice cup rather than by hand :)

J