Re: Grasers was Re: UNSC beta and FB3

Jared Hilal wrote:

>I figure most gamers are competent with basic math.

So did I until a few years ago; I was very rudely surprised when I found

out just how wrong I was. Even players who claim to be good at maths - 
including myself, of course - often surprise me by making very basic 
mistakes :-(

> >>2)	If FB3 needs a "heavy beam" or a "high damage beam", we would
> >>rather see something with the to-hit/damage mechanic of the EFSB
> >>beam in a single-component system.
> >
> >The original intent with the graser was in fact to copy the EFSB
> >heavy beam straight away, but it proved impractical for three
reasons:
> >
> >1) Many players dislike the EFSB heavy beam mechanic because it hits
> >automatically at close range - unlike all other weapons in FT (and
> >EFSB), the heavy beam has literally *no* chance of missing at range
> >6mu or less since you can't roll less than "1" on a D6.
>
>Taking B5 as the reference,

...is unfortunately not relevant for those many players who dislike 
automatic hits in their games.

> >2) Another common player complaint about new weapon types is "Yet
> >*another* screen-skipping weapon? How boring...". The EFSB heavy beam
> >mechanic as it is currently written is ignores "screens" (ie. EFSB
> >"interceptors"), and it is difficult to add screen which aren't
> >completely negligible yet which don't cripple the weapon completely
> >against level-1 screens.
>
>Just because it ignores a physical, active defense system doesn't mean
>that it has to ignore a passive, field-based system.

I'm talking game mechanics here, not PSB. It doesn't matter how well
argued 
your PSB case is if you can't come up with playable, balanced game 
mechanics to model it on the gaming table.

>If you interpret FT *screens* to be some sort of electromagnetic
>or gravity field that deflects particles and wavicles (as they are in
>the GZG setting, afew degrees can make a big difference), then why not
>have screens apply a -1 per die per level of screens.

How I interpret FT screens PSB-wise is completely irrelevant to the fact

that applying a -1 per die per screen level cripples the weapon even 
against level-1 screens. See below.

>This allows screened ships a reasonable defense (1/6th reduction per 
>level, similar
>to standard batteries)

The reduction is only 1/6th per level at point-blank range, and even
then 
only if your dice never roll anything else than "6".

An extra -1 DRM per die per target screen level reduces the damage 
inflicted by EFSB heavy beams (including re-rolling any natural "6" that

caused damage, as per Jon's EFSB clarifications posted eg. in the FT
FAQ) 
by the following percentages:

Range:	lvl-1	lvl-2
0-6		24%	44%
6-12		44%	60%
12-18		60%	71%
18-24		71%	79%
24-30		79%	100%
30-36		100%	100%

(If you re-roll sixes that scored 0 pts as well, the "100%" entries
become 
"83%" instead. If you don't re-roll the damage dice, the non-"100%" 
percentages all increase a bit.)

The only range band where this is similar to the standard beam batteries

(which are reduced 21% and 42% by level-1 and -2 screens, respectively)
is 
0-6 mu, and even there the reduction is a fair bit more than the "1/6th
per 
level" you claimed above. Beyond 6mu range, the EFSB beam is indeed 
crippled even by a single level of screens.

>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.

> >The larger grasers OTOH are the exact opposite to the EFSB beam -
they
> >can inflict serious damage at *long* range, but it doesn't gain very
> >much power types when the range falls.
>
>Since they use the same method for number of dice rolled and same
>mechanic for number of hits from those dice, how is it different from a
>same class standard beam other than a scaler for damage and range band?
>Should be a similar damage curve, just adjusted by scalers.

So you're saying that a 25% gradient is the same as a 10% gradient - it
is 
after all only a matter of a scalar adjustment? Ever tried climbing
hills 
with those two supposedly "similar "gradients?

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

> >>3)	If we are committed to the "Graser" concept, we always saw the
> >>standard battery rerolls as internal secondaries rather than
> >>additional hits. We would recommend that "additional hits" be fully
> >>affected by screens, and additional damage by allowing a penetrating
> >>reroll on a *damage roll* of a "6".
> >
> >This introduces new game mechanics instead of just recycling old
ones,
>
>"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.

>"Damage die natural 6 gives penetrating reroll" is also not a new 
>mechanic, just a stretch of an old one.  We have been using this for 
>P-torps for years with no problem.

No, that's the one that increases the unpredictability of the weapon
rather 
massively. (Which is of course why none of the FB weapons allows
re-rolls 
for D6-damage weapons - too many players dislike it.)

> >Makes the weapon even more wildly unpredictable than it already is (a
> >feature several players have already complained/warned about),
>
>Could be.  Dunno.  <shrug>

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. (FWIW there were similar
complaints 
about the EFSB heavy beam back in '97-98, and also about the FB1 Salvo 
Missiles.)

> >I'm not entirely convinced that any of these drawbacks would be a
> >reasonable price to pay for improving one possible PSB interpretation
> >of what the game mechanic represents, much less all three of them :-/
>
>I am. :)

Then use a house rule to change it in your own gaming group. 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
<shrug>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry