module C6 - Lost Empires

must admit i'm looking forward to it being released soon (hope it doesn't disappoint)

i don't own any Early Years products, so i have no idea what to expect ... but bring on the Doggies and the Birdies!

i bought the Vudar module and i really like it - fun to fly and fly against

now i'm contemplating picking up C4 and C5

as you guys always provide good input, i'd like to hear your reviews on both of those products (just a novelty item, or something you would play over and over?)

i only have one friend that plays, and we always do FTF one-on-one or two-on-two duels with no past and no future implications (even these get bogged down - usually takes us at least two sessions to finish)

if anybody knows anything about C6 (that isn't readily available on the retail websites), i'd like to hear that, too

thanks!

oh yeah

and modules R9 and R12 while i'm thinking about it

novelty or worth it?

i hate buying new products for the sake of a few ships (and the rest being stuff we would pass over and never have use in a duel)

This is the first I'm hearing

This is the first I'm hearing of this module. Sounds interesting. Is there a link to info on the module?

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Module C4 is very "gimmicky."

Module C4 is very "gimmicky." The simulator races aren't "real", even in-universe. Every Simulator empire has a special design/weapon/rule/gimmick that makes it unique and is really tailored to play well against one specific empire. Sharkhunters, for example, are meant to be played against the Romulans but don't work as well against anyone else. Worth getting for the FRAX and Canadiens, though. The FRAX have FX/RX oriented weapons and are modelled after wet-navy battleships. Very sensible layout for weapons and they actually play really well against every one. However, some of the unique gimmicky things are a little unbalancing in my opinion. The Frax have subs that can fire while cloaked and many have Antifighter Defence (an ADD/ PH-G combo that renders drones useless and is pretty wicked against fighters and seeking weapons). I didn't much care for the Canadiens at first (even though they are modelled after my national flag) but since I've seen some playtest expansion material for them on the ADB site, I've kinda changed my mind. The Canadien ships in C4 have maulers that fire in three different directions and are shaped kinda sorta like a maple leaf. Very "gimmicky" but fun.

Module C5: Don't have it. Not gonna buy it, either. If it's not Alpha, I am not interested.

Module R9 has got lots of stuff for the "official" empires. Most of it is conjectural, i.e. "not real", but there is lots of fun stuff there. I recommend it.

Module R12: I own this...but for the life of me I cannot remember what it is or what's in it. I've never played with it. (What does that say?) ;)

Module C6, I probably won't spend money on, either. It doesn't really interest me. I think the birdies and doggies are fine in early years but should just stay dead as far as the main continuity is concerned.

thanx!

thanks Harrier - pushing me back off the fence

C6 Lost Empires

http://www.frpgames.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=93559

This covers the extinct Paravian and Carnivon empires, presented as their ships and weapons would have been by the time of the General War (except for that annoying extinction thing).
Each empire is presented with two alternate histories, although players can ignore both and write their own if they wish.

The Carnivons might have existed as a major empire between the Lyrans and Kzintis, or they might have escaped to the WYN Cluster.

The Paravians might have survived Gorn attempts to destroy their empire and could have ended up allied to the Romulans (while the ISC became allies of the Gorns). Alternately, they could exist as edge-of-the-map raiders.
188 Pages, 280 die-cut counters

Module R12 Unusual Ships (sounds kinda similar to R9)

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/74229/star-fleet-battles-module-r12-u...

More new ships for nearly every Empire in Star Fleet Battles.

This is a standard Star Fleet Battles "R module" expansion in folio format containing: a 64 page rulebook, a 98 page ship SSD book, and a countersheet (140 counters). It gives you more than 100 new ships for the Star Fleet Battles game system. Ship types include Stellar Fortresses and Heavy War Cruiser for most Empires, as well as a large and varied selection of unusual and unique ships, many from previous issues of Captain's Log (Or the Federation Commander game system in the case of the Seltorian Battlewagon) are now presented here in an official SFB module.

Info from the back cover:

Module R12 Unusual Ships

Stellar Fortress: the final defense of the General War.
Fleet Oilers: without fuel, nothing happens.
Asteroid Miners: mobile factories to make anything.
Heavy War Cruisers: why weren't there more of them?
Federation Fast Destroyer: photon raider.
Federation Fast Scout: get in, look around, get out.
Federation Battle Frigates: multiple variants.
Klingon HD5: good, but too hard to build quickly.
Klingon D6N: not the first choice for diplomats.
Klingon F6: drone, escort, penal, scout, transport.
Romulan GryphonHawk: too much engine?
Romulan JayHawk Battle Frigate: small but deadly.
Kzinti Light Attack Carrier: heavy fighters on board.
Kzinti Improved Survey Cruiser: did they get it right?
Gorn Space Patrol Ship: who needs fighters?
Gorn Dreadnought-Cruiser: can it even turn around?
Tholian Heavy War Destroyer: is web even an option?
Orion War Raider: a pirate looking for a target.
Hydran Pegasus: cruiser, scout, flagship, Marines.
Lyran Siberian Lion: no fighters - no problem.
WYN Mako-P: light, fast PF raider for dangerous trips.
ISC Heavy War Cruiser: when it's all you've got.
Seltorian Battlewagon: how the Tholian spheres died.
Jindarian Medium Strike Cruiser: looking for trouble.
Vudar Fast War Cruiser: fast, but whom will it raid?
Vudar Heavy War Destroyer: is freedom an option?

C6... I don't know

I have C1, C2, C3, and F2.

All of those I like. They also make sense to me.

I want to buy C4 and C5. Those look fun. And although they seem slightly gimmicky, they still make sense. They're plausible.

Now comes C6 and... I don't know, man. It sounds interesting, but doesn't make any sense. Why are we assuming Carnivons and Paravians weren't made extinct again? What are we supposed to do with these new "conjectural" ships exactly?

I wish they had just called it an alternate Star Fleet Universe, straight up. Then you could have two different histories to develop and draw from, rather than getting into this "what if" business.

There's plenty of ships out there already. Enough for a lifetime of gaming. If all we're doing is looking for new ships for the Klingons to fight, then you might as well just say "what if the Omega sector ships came here?", and fight against those. A proliferation of new complex rules sets for new weapons that basically do the same thing existing weapons (in some form) does hardly seems necessary.

Plus, there are still play test packs that have been out there for years now. Some, like the Borak Star League, would seem to be fit good with C6. Why are they not getting released as part of this?

I don't know. I'm looking forward to buying C4 and C5, plus all the Omega modules at some point. But C6 just doesn't sound too appealing.

The new Away Team Log book looks interesting, though. I may have to buy that!

Much of your concern is why

Much of your concern is why we don't use the canon SFB model. As can be seen in my threads on the subject, our Alpha Sector (or Octant) is quite a bit different than canon SFB. It has more races active, more weapons, more tactics, more possibilities. And I think this is one area that ADB has missed the boat. The General War has been the same GW since the 70's. How much more can you do with that? Our GW is quite different in that the Feds and the Klinks are allies. That throws out a LOT of new options, tactics, fiction etc.

In our Alpha the Carnivons and Paravians would fit right in without an issue. We'd just have to find the appropriate spot to place them. And since our borders aren't 2D, battles are a lot more 'realistic'. We're looking for about 20 major races in the Alpha Sector which is about double canon SFB. So we have dramatically more possibilities available to us and it doesn't get stale.

My suggestion to anyone is to buy what you're interested in and add them where YOU want and play them as YOU wish to play them. It is a game and even if canon SFB isn't likely to change...doesn't mean your personal FTF games can't.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Looking at the description of

Looking at the description of C6, it looks like ADB is actually opening up the field a bit. It has two different backgrounds for each empire and takes them both up to GW era ships. So the Carvinvons could be played as though they exist between the Lyrans and Kzinti and the Parvavians over by the Gorns.

This makes this of much more interest to me personally as it would be two additional races for the Alpha Sector/Octant. So far in our FTF games, we have 14 major races developed, not counting the Andros or the WYN (which could easily be more of a major empire). In fact the WYN occupy an area at the cross-roads of the Lyran/Kzin/Klinks just like our Argonians on the Gorn/Rom/ISC borders. I'm looking at adding two or three Omega races (converted over to Alpha strength ships) so the Carns and Parvs would really be useful.

If I remember correctly the Carns use a heavy disruptor and the Parvs some type of torpedo??? This would fit in well with our unique HW's per race policy.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Orions in alternate timeline

What if the Orions did not up joining the Federation? IMHO, they could have had an empire of their own. Look at all the ships all the clans have now and imagine them under one chain of command. If I remember the maps right, Orion sits near the Fed/Klingon/Romulan corner. That's a great location for technology trade so they could keep their option mounts.

The Orions

I agree. The Orions have some massive ships too, considering they are supposed to be just a criminal organization. They have enough different kinds of Raiders and Warships to make you wonder why they bother with piracy at all. Instead they could go for conquest.

Orions

The Orions are one race with which I never agreed they be made to resemble the primary races. They of all the races should be more rag-tag. But, alas, SFB long ago committed to giving everything to everyone and capping it all off with same class ships for everyone. If the Somali Pirates fielded even a single modern destroyer, how long would they survive as pirates?

Dennis Surdu

The idea that the Orions

The idea that the Orions could procure/mount/maintain/repair multiple heavy weapons isn't realistic. Empires don't just leave photon torpedo or plasma launchers laying around. Nor do they haphazardly leave the components to maintain/repair them laying around. I could see perhaps the VERY VERY VERY RARE instance where a larger Orion ship may mount a single HW and have a single Ph-1. But not an Orion with a photon a hellbore, a disruptor and two drone racks with speed 32 drones. Look at it this way, an Orion pirate normally preys on a civilian target that isn't armed or at most poorly armed (maybe one or two ph-3's). A pirate armed with nothing more than ph-2's would be more than a match for such a civilian ship and shouldn't/wouldn't be armed to the teeth to face off with an empire's warships.

And don't get me started on engine doubling. For a pirate....no, never. As an empire..yes. It would be a special ability like the Tholians have WC or the Roms have cloaks etc. But why oh why would a pirate need the ability to double engines to take on a civilian freighter? That is what a pirate does, not take on the local heavy cruiser!

Just my two cents. We've played around with making the Orions an actual empire with a unique HW and reintroducing the engine doubling ability.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Pirate Realism

Well, in the context of a fantasy/sci fi game it is like debating who is the best super hero......best left to episodes of the Big Bang. But, ADB went a little far in allowing every race a super duper version of almost every ship and allowing every race to combat almost any other effectively. I think the Orions, given this nuance of the game's design have to be allowed the wide variety of weapons since they operate anywhere on the map. Also remember that up until recent history it was easier for pirates to go toe-to-toe with a national navy on a ship-on-ship basis. I think the flavor of piracy in an earlier era is what SFB is looking for. Who wants to play Orions if they are only good against a particular race.

Dennis Surdu

I'm sure that pirates of

I'm sure that pirates of yesteryear occasionally had small number of ships that could challenge a regular Naval vessel, but not like in SFB. And those yesteryear pirates didn't always have the repair/resupply available like regular navy with established bases. Let's face it, doubling your engines!?! What is that all about? Having access to pretty much any HW in the game!?! Toss in a cloak while we're at it!

Nope, we just can't do it in our FTF games. But it is making for an interesting empire race though. Just have to decide upon an appropriate HW that is balanced against the engine doubling ability. Something along the lines of the disruptor as far as damage output potential. Or a multi-turn weapon (like a 3 turn arming). I'll have to put a little thought into that as well as a better name for the empire.

Hmm....

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

On sale now and ships on the

On sale now and ships on the 30th of this month.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Talkshoe

Did anyone listen the September 26 Talkshoe about C6? After much of the C6 discussion wound down, there was mention of product coming that would have SFB players flocking to it and it would "blow us all away". Anyone have the slightest idea what they are talking about? The Steves were reticent to say anything more.

Dennis Surdu

Maybe X2 and the Xorks are

Maybe X2 and the Xorks are finally going to make an appearance?

BTW, I ordered C6. Wanted to add the Carns and Parvs to the Alpha line up. I'll give my impressions after I've viewed it. I'll have to revamp the SSD's though, we don't use the old-style ones.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

I mentioned this on the FC

I mentioned this on the FC board, the warp gearshift would have really fit into X-tech very well. And perhaps it would be a great fit for X2 tech. Rather than have an bigger engine with more boxes you actually have a more efficient warp engine. We're going to have to play around with this a bit....

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

C6 Preview

BTW, if anyone is curious what Module C6 is like, there is a free 12-page preview available on e23.

http://e23.sjgames.com/item.html?id=ADB5636-5

Still waiting for ADB to ship

Still waiting for ADB to ship the product out. Not sure when that is suppose to happen? I'll evaluate it and post a review when I get it and read through it.

I know the Paravians where in CL#28 as an alternate time line situation. We're the Carnivon ever in CL beyond that one fiction story?

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

I've received C6 and have

I've received C6 and have completed a preliminary read through most of the module. My initial impressions are that it was well done. I'm impressed. I like the alternate time lines that are offered. I think this is a very wise move on ADB's part. The canon GW has lasted since the 70's. And although fiction could still be done, it is only within those parameters. Now it opens up the field quite a bit for fiction, scenarios, tactics etc. Tourney ships would be one of the next logical moves.

I would even go so far as to suggest a completely alternate GW with different alliances. This would/could really shake things up. And when you consider a 3D model of the Alpha Octant, rather than a 2D model you could see the Lyrans fighting the Gorn or Romulans just as easily as the Hydrans or Kzintis. that would really offer new fiction, scenarios and tactics overall (more so than at present).

All in all a very good move.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

I've had the opportunity to

I've had the opportunity to really give C6 a good read through a couple of times now and I'm just very impressed with the whole module. I really like the alternate histories as I've mentioned above. I like the ships and the weapons systems I find very interesting and will enjoy testing them out.

I'm curious as to if there will be an OOB for both?

Also curious if any type of 'official' canon will be developed as to the GW and what sides, if any they would have taken. The Carnivon seem to lean towards 'maybe' helping the Klingons against the Kzinti as long as the Klinks keep the Lyrans off their backs. It's interesting because their enemies with both the Kzin and the Lyran and the Kzin and Lyran are on opposite sides. This really sets up an interesting dynamic. I could see the Carnivon not really being on either side or perhaps helping the Klinks against the Kzin but not really on the Coalition side (or helping the Hydran against the Lyran but not being in the Alliance per se. The Paravians also make an interesting dynamic. They war against the Gorn, Roms and ISC, all of which are on different (or no) sides. I could see them being more interested in warring against the Gorn than anyone but not being 'with' the Roms.

Really opens the door to fiction big time!

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

thanx for the input gonna

thanx for the input

gonna order it soon and looking forward to putting it thru the paces

As I mentioned above, I

As I mentioned above, I enjoyed this module. I particularly like the complete set of SSD's for all the various ship classes. Good backgrounds as well. We've already used both in our FTF games, though we've redesigned the SSD's of each. Same weapon systems and boxes, just a different color design to better fit into our FTF games.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

got my paws on it

C6 Lost Empires showed up in my mailbox yesterday

i read the rulebook last night and, from first appearances, it looks like it is going to be a good addition to our gaming-sessions

the Heel-Nipper! i can't wait to try that puppy out

that "big-drone" the Carnivons use is pretty cool, but the loading of it (deck crew operations) doesn't thrill me (not that i can't keep track of it, but just making it a 2-turn weapon with regular crew units instead would probably have served the same purpose)

Death Bolts

>>that "big-drone" the Carnivons use is pretty cool, but the loading of it (deck crew operations) doesn't thrill me (not that i can't keep track of it, but just making it a 2-turn weapon with regular crew units instead would probably have served the same purpose)>>

Agreed. I think the overly complicated and non-intuitive death bolt loading rules were an error in design. Like, you need to keep track of deck crews and deck crew operations and exact impulses of launch, and how many deck crews you have, and you have the two default deck crews and then you have maybe some other ones for the death bolts, but you can't buy extra deck crews for the death bolts unless you are a carrier also, and if the deck crews die, you can't fire death bolts anymore, but in general, all those extra words mean is that you only can fire a death bolt once every 25 impulses or something. Which is sort of an every other turn weapon, but not always, depending on when you launch them on a turn.

That is a *lot* of extra complication and fiddly rules for very little gain. They probably should have just been "it takes a full turn to reload a death bolt rack after launching one. Best possible firing rate is launching a DB on impulse 32 of Turn N and then another one on impulse 1 of Turn N+2."

The end result would have been slightly fewer death bolts on the map and a lot fewer confusing rules.

I agree with both of you that

I agree with both of you that simply making it a two turn firing cycle would make it a lot easier and pretty much be the same as the original intent.

A word on Quantum Torpedoes...I really like these! A one turn plasma essentially with a bit of uniqueness with the splash damage. That gives it a lot of flexibility. True, they aren't as powerful as BP torps but the ability to firing them every turn more than makes up for this. I also really like the way in which they are damaged. Not just the routine 2:1 plasma damage. Makes it a lot more interesting imo. The way Ol's are handled is unique as well.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

QWTs

Yeah, the QWTs do seem like interesting weapons.

I like the Paravian ships--they seem interesting, have a unique flavor to them, and seem like they are probably pretty good in general (although they might have trouble in, say, a closed map/tournament kind of situation).

The Carnivons seem like they might be a tad overpowered. The Disruptor Canons are strong (like photons, but they hit!), but more of an issue is the combo of Death Bolts (huge, very damaging, very difficult to kill seeking weapons) and the Heel Nipper thing (which I *really* wish there was another name for). You get to R1, you launch a couple DBs, hit someone with the HN so they automatically don't move the next impulse, and suddenly you are the most terrifying "anchor" ship in the game, and you don't even need to power the tractors (which is generally a huge gamble, where the HNs are not remotely). I mean, to be fair, I haven't actually played any of them with the C6 rules. But on paper, they seem pretty brutal.

Why do you think the

Why do you think the Paravians would have trouble on a closed map (tourney) duel? I'd think just the opposite. Here's my thoughts; First the QWT is a one-turn weapon. So they can put these things in your face every turn. True, on the surface it may not 'seem' as scary as a 30 point S (or 60 point SEPT) coming at you...but they're every turn. Second, the OL range is extended out to 14 hexes for basically OL'd disruptor damage at that range. Inside R7 it is half-way to a fully OL'd photon without the die roll. Yes, you can run from them, but then that would/could allow the bird to get behind you. Third, it is a 3:1 ratio on damage with the splash elements going first. And you'd have to get the full 6 points to remove the splash. After that it takes either 11 or 15 FULL damage to remove the torp damage. Anything less and you just wasted your phasers. That is a pretty substantial consideration right there. Or looking at 17 or 21 damage to take out one torp. That eats a lot of resources for the opponent. It could basically drain the phasers of the opponent while still popping the shields every turn. Yes, you can WW the QWT but then you're wasting an WW on a fairly low powered weapon that can be heading your way again on the next turn. It's going to eat WW up pretty quickly if that is the game plan of the opponent. I suppose the opponent could try to run over the Paravian, but then its going to probably be eating some OL'd QWT while running out of phasers. And again, next turn they're available again.

Can you tell I like this weapon :)

As far as the puppies, yeah, they aren't a ship to take lightly at all. Your completely right on the photon comparison. Whereas the photon has been called the 'wonder weapon' (I wonder if it's going to hit or not) the DC could rightly be called the 'probably will' weapon. 1-4 out to R15 is pretty substantial. I could see BP really having a problem with this ship. True it's a two-turn weapon but it has a fairly good chance of hitting with basically OL'd disruptor damage at R15. WOW!

We could always go with the Warp Field Interruption Device instead of Heel Nipper. Isn't as cute though LOL! And yeah, that 'cuttsy' weapon could absolutely ruin your day. Combine that with a death bolt, particularly one that may have some anti-tractor points....or focused burst...or armor and even with a reduced warhead it's taking a shield down. Or worse.

We all know the Gorn Anchor. This might just become the 'Carnivon bitch slap'!

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

So that is what the Heel Nipper does

I didn't really understand it the first time and didn't give it any thought afterwards. Does it make you roll for breakdown due to the sudden stop?

What does the Warp Field Interruption Device do? Is it like the Warp Disruption Cannon I thought up?

The 'Warp Field Interruption

The 'Warp Field Interruption Device' is the actual name for the Heel Nipper. I don't recall anything about a breakdown. It doesn't 'stop' the opposing ship, rather it just makes it miss its next scheduled movement. It also damages the warp engine it was aimed at (left or right) and shields don't stop it (nor does PA's or flame or soul shieds). And it does one damage to the warp engine.

It is one of those things that can really have some major tactical implications i.e. it could go a long way towards ruining your day. Another example of its use could be turning the opposing ship the way you want to bring a weak/down shield into arc. Imagine getting turned the way you don't want with an alpha-strike chaser on top of it. Yikes!

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

>>It doesn't 'stop' the

>>It doesn't 'stop' the opposing ship, rather it just makes it miss its next scheduled movement>>

Sound like it does stop you, but for just an impulse. Like a football RB who has his jersey grabbed. The results in a small jolt, he keeps his legs churning and quickly breaks away. That small jolt stops him for a split second most times, but slows him down enough to give other defenders a change to get there. However, sometimes it can be just enough to cause a misstep making the RB fall down.

That is RB speeding along at 40yrds in 4.4 secs. Now think of how fast the starship is going. Rolling for breakdown seems like the least that should happen.

That is one way to look at

That is one way to look at it, but let me give another view. A starship going S16 will travel 16 hexes but also have 16 'missed' hexes of movement where it doesn't move. It isn't stopping on those 16 hexes where it doesn't move. This is sort of the same thing. Rather than thinking of it as a 'stop', think of it as a 'slow' since it will continue to move throughout the rest of the turn minus the one scheduled hex it lost.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Board game play vs continuous movement

That's a good example of one of the problems in SFB that can't be fixed because it would be impractical to do. Let use your example of speed 16 for continuous movement. At the in of the turn you should move 16 hexes in 32 impulses... so 16/32 = 1/2 of a hex moved per impulse. With the map we have, 1/2 a hex per impulse. Doable, but ugly. But think of trying to move 11/32nds or 15/32nds of a hex. So the fix is the show that you move a whole hex every # impulses.

A good example for continuous movement would be SFC. Everything was always moving, some faster, so slower. Now you get hit by a Heel Nipper and suddenly that movement is stop, however briefly. The ship doesn't stop trying to keep going, so it fights against the snag it hit until the snag snaps. That sudden stop/go could really be bad for a ship.

QWTs

>>Why do you think the Paravians would have trouble on a closed map (tourney) duel? I'd think just the opposite. Here's my thoughts; First the QWT is a one-turn weapon. So they can put these things in your face every turn.>>

They can. But what is likely to happen in most situations is that they launch a volley of QWTs. Their opponent takes them on a side shield for, at most, a few internals while running at them quickly, and then the Paravian is caught against a wall, facing away from their opponent with FA torps. That certainly can shoot again, but will require them to stop and TAC or HET directly at their opponent (which has a whole host of other problems that come with it). Their opponent then mugs them from R1, which will likely mess them up real bad.

I mean, it won't be *that* easy to kill them, but still, the ability to just eat their first volley of torps and corner them could be a problem.

Names

bakija said:
>>Heel Nipper thing (which I *really* wish there was another name for).

It's bad, but not as bad as "Death Bolt". It's not a bolt, it's a drone. It's no more or less likely to cause death than any other big seeker. So should we call a type-IV drone a "Death Drone"? or a plasma-S a "Death Plasma"? Stupid. Even the name "Carnivon" is pretty poor. Apart from starting with the otherwise unallocated letter C, I see little to recommend it. SVC was not having a creative day when he dreamed up this lot.

Paravians & closed map

I made a prototype Paravian TC. The most obvious problem it had, basing it as closely as possible on the CL28 (?) conjecturals, was the FA arc of the QWTs. This meant that it was utterly reliant on the #1 shield; without that pointing at the target, you can't launch. So a weapon that would otherwise be devastating in a dogfight becomes a liability.

Otherwise, it's fine if you can keep shooting and running away. The QWT lacks crunch (even if you have 4 of them) but it's relentless, long-ranged and hard to shoot down. The only problem is that FA arc again. Unlike a Gorn, TKR, TFH or ISC with LP/RP or FP arcs, you can't easily cross the T so you end up too close to the enemy who almost inevitably gets R8 or even R5. And if the enemy gets behind you, you pretty much have to HET or TAC.

My solution was to given it an FP arc, which solved all those problems. I believe C6 Paravians are still all FA.

The C6 Paravians do have FA

The C6 Paravians do have FA QWT's. And yes, this could be an issue but no more than any other FA ship. Yes, it is a seeking weapon ship rather than direct fire but there are a couple of advantages as well; the OL range is nearly double that of any other ship (Alpha) and the torps don't lose juice for hexes traveled. Yes, the opponent could try to take them on side shields. But since the QWT is an every turn shooter you can really string them out, particularly over the turn break where the opponent may be facing up to two waves. He could weasel as I mentioned earlier, but that just isn't the best option and uses up shuttles quickly. And it is going to waste more phasers. It would be very interesting to see a tourney style duel. I just 'feel' there is some devastating tactics with this weapon system. And it isn't an expensive weapon either.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

FA QWT

>>And yes, this could be an issue but no more than any other FA ship.>>

Well, it kind of is, as it is plasma, and not, like, photons or disruptors. As your opponent can corner you and then stop and weasel the next pile of plasma you launch, where they can't do that to disruptors, or whatever. And disruptors also tend to come with other weapons (see: drones) or photons come with doing a lot of damage at once.

If you are on the closed tournament map, the first volley of plasma will have to come out middle of the turn, if you want any chance of making your opponent turn off and not get too close. Except then, as the QWTs aren't really doing *that* much damage, they can be run into with a #2/#6 shield with a bit of reinforcement (and maybe phasering one down with P3s), and then the Paravian is stuck running away with only FA weapons while getting closer and closer to the wall.

>>Yes, it is a seeking weapon ship rather than direct fire but there are a couple of advantages as well; the OL range is nearly double that of any other ship (Alpha) and the torps don't lose juice for hexes traveled.>>

The OLs might make the difference. Although if they are launched, the opponent probably turns and runs (and the Paravian isn't that fast either--they cost, what, 4 to launch?), turns back after 15 hexes, and it starts again. If the Paravian needs to launch standards on the next turn, they get rammed and the Paravian is stuck in the chase to the wall again. And if the Paravian is facing another plasma ship, the enveloped S torp that the Gorn/Romulan has launched is going to force them to turn off, and is going to push them a lot further than the overloaded QWTs are going push their enemy.

>>Yes, the opponent could try to take them on side shields. But since the QWT is an every turn shooter you can really string them out, particularly over the turn break where the opponent may be facing up to two waves. He could weasel as I mentioned earlier, but that just isn't the best option and uses up shuttles quickly. And it is going to waste more phasers. It would be very interesting to see a tourney style duel. I just 'feel' there is some devastating tactics with this weapon system. And it isn't an expensive weapon either.>>

I mean, I don't think it is a total slam sunk against them. But as, say, a Gorn on a tournament map, I imagine that the enveloped S is going to be better at forcing the Paravian away than the QWTs are going to be at forcing the Gorn away, and the follow up 70 point Gorn anchor is going to be a lot deadlier than the follow up QWTs.

I totally understand where

I totally understand where you're coming from. It would be interesting to see what a Paravian tourney cruiser would look like as far as potential balance against other Alpha tourney ships.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

>> "the photon has been

>> "the photon has been called the 'wonder weapon' (I wonder if it's going to hit or not)"

HAR! that gave me my daily dose of good laughter

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

i'm in the midst of flying the Paravian BCH against an ISC CA (stripped of two rear Plas-F) . . . 180 BPV vs 181 BPV

after only two turns of play, i'm really liking my chances . . . as mentioned above, the QWT is a bear to knock out and a ship can fire a bunch every turn (sure to be nerfed in a future revision) - i think i'd rather have 5 QWTs than 3 Plas-S and 2 Plas-F

(my opinion is still forming)

soon as this battle is over, i'm flying the Doggies

and as also mentioned above, the Disruptor Cannon looks downright nasty (i'll ditto the "best of the photon and disruptor combined into one weapon" sentiment)

If you get the chance, do a

If you get the chance, do a battle report on this Paravian vs. ISC match up. It would be very interesting to see what happened.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

oops

moved to the game reports category

Death Bolt

Bringing the Death Bolt topic back up. I was looking at the rules again. What I'm walking away with is this (please let me know if I'm not understanding this correctly).

* It takes on deck crew one turn to prepare and fire an unmodified DB. So an unmodified DB could be fired every 32 impulses.

* There are several modifications that can be done to the DB and they can be combined. Every modification affects the total yield of the warhead.

* It takes one deck crew 1 turn to complete a modification. So a DB that has had anti-tractor added takes 1 turn to modify and 1 turn to prep and fire i.e. two turns to fire the weapon.

* If a DB was modified to have anti-tractor + armor + focused burst it would be 3 turns to modify + 1 turn to prep and fire = 4 turns for this particular DB.

That sound about right to everyone?

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Sort Of?

>>It takes on deck crew one turn to prepare and fire an unmodified DB. So an unmodified DB could be fired every 32 impulses.>>

It takes a full Deck Crew Action to ready a death bolt for launch. And you can't start to reload/ready the next death bolt for 8 impulses after launching one. So if you have 1 deck crew working on the death bolt, it essentially takes 40 impulses to reload. But as you can have 2 deck crews working on a single death bolt, you can ready a death bolt in 16 impulses, but still need to wait 8 impulses before you start doing that.

So if you launch a death bolt on impulse 16 this turn, you can start reloading on impulse 24, and if you have 2 deck crews working on the death bolts, that means you'll be able to launch another one on impulse 9 of the next turn.

I haven't really read up on modifying them, so I don't know what happens there.

All ships come with 2 default deck crews. I think that ships with death bolts get an extra deck crew for each death bolt launcher, so if you have 2 death bolt launchers, you probably have 4 deck crews (I might be mistaken on the extra deck crews with the launchers, however). So you could have 2 deck crews working with each death bolt launcher, allowing you to launch a death bolt from each launcher every turn (no sooner than once every 24 impulses), but then you wouldn't have deck crews in your shuttle bays to arm special shuttles. And if a death bolt launcher got blown up, you'd lose 2 deck crews. And if you deck crews all die, you can't launch death bolts anymore.

This is all way too fiddly and convoluted for my tastes. Tachyon Missiles are about the same thing, and they are vastly easier to deal with (you can launch 1 Tachyon Missile from each pair of Tachyon Missile racks per turn, so essentially, you can launch a Tachyon Missile every other turn. Simple.)

Okay that helps clear a few

Okay that helps clear a few things up. Taking a look further, you are correct in that a Carnivon ship receives one dedicated deck crew per DB rack. This is in addition to the two deck crews provided in J4.814. This is covered in FD20.232. So a Carnivon CA that has two DB racks would in essence have 4 deck crews (two dedicated and two provided under the J4 rule). So you're right on the money that it takes one deck crew action (one turn) to prep and fire a DB with a possible 8 impulse delay for previous firings. And two deck crews will half the time (best firing time for a DB is 24 impulses apart).

DB modification require one deck crew action (for each modification) FD20.501.

WSIII assumes that all DB racks are loaded and ready to fire INCLUDING any/all modifications FD20.272.

You are correct that if the deck crews are killed the ship can no longer fire DB's. There is a caveat; If all deck crews (dedicated and casual) are performing DB activities and the DB rack is hit they are killed. Additionally, no special shuttle activities can be done if all deck crews are in the DB room. If however only the dedicated deck crews are in the DB room when it is hit, the casual deck crews can take over once the DB rack is repaired. So the Carnivon player has to keep track of where the deck crews are stationed (shuttle or DB room) for if/when they take damage.

This brings up a tactical consideration. Do you assign the dedicated to the DB room and the casual to the shuttle bay? Do you assign all of them to the DB room to hurry up the DB firings and forego the specialty shuttles? Do you keep them separate in case one or the other box is damaged so you have a 'spare' deck crew to keep the DB's firing? A lot to consider. Particularly since non-carriers CANNOT buy additional dedicated deck crews.

So yes, it is a bit to keep track of and requires one to be tactically-mindful of deck crews (more so than drones). But it kinda makes it interesting as it provides several options i.e. fire a DB every 40 impulses or every 24. Have a quicker prep time for modifications or keep the deck crews separate in case of damage. Now that I understand it better I like it.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Hmmm...interesting question?

I do not see a limit on DB's fired per turn. In other words, if I fire a DB on I1 of T1 and wait the required 8 impulses, then have two deck crews begin work on an unmodified DB beginning on I9 of the same turn, the DB should be prepared and ready to fire on I24 of the same turn. So can that same rack fire a second DB on I25 (and any time after) of that same turn?

If so, it would not allow a second firing every turn, but occasionally it may work out that way if I'm understanding the process correctly.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Huh.

Yeah, there does not, in fact, seem to be a limit on firing more than once per turn listed. I suspect that is a mistake. But I'll ask on the rules forum.

It will be interesting to see

It will be interesting to see their response. If for some reason there does exist a limit (one per turn) then really the whole process of deck crews handling the DB becomes a tedious and moot point. Perhaps this was a design feature from the start. It would make for an interesting tactical situation as a CA vs. CA duel would occasionally have the ability to fire 4 DB's in a turn. That isn't insurmountable for the opponent to deal with, but wouldn't be fun for them either.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

SPP's response

Just saw SPP's response on the BBS regarding the ability to launch two DB's from one rack in one turn. In short, yes it can be done and was done this way by design to separate them a bit from drone-using empires. The drawback, as I mentioned above is that it would require two-deck crew actions. Since a non-carrier has one dedicated deck crew per rack as well as the standard two casual deck crews it is viable to have a second launch if the first is early enough in the turn. This means two things (as I listed above); first, shuttle functions cannot be performed if the necessary deck crews are in the DB box and not in the shuttle box and two, if the DB box gets hit then the deck crews are killed and no more DB's can be launched.

So this basically comes down to a tactic decision of if/when to get in a double launch. The obvious is early in the game prior to an attack run (probably the initial). This way the ship hasn't taken damage and having double the number of DB's inbound on the target may help to eliminate/mitigate damage taken during the Carns alpha strike. Given a CA duel, you'd have 4 DB's inbound on the target. That's 40 points of damage necessary to stop them, or 20 points and two tractors. Either way you're tying up some resources that won't be used on you that turn. May also help to stop someone trying to anchor you as well.

I think some interesting tactics could be developed from this rule.

As a game starting at WSIII, all first launch DB's are assumed to have completed any modifications (if any) the owning player wishes. So the first launch could be armored and/or have some anti-tractor to make them tougher to deal with. This in turn would make an unmodified second launch (they'd have to be unmodified for a second launch) harder to deal with.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Kind of on the subject

But how long does it take to get a DC from the shuttle bay to the DB or the other way around? I hope it would take some time to travel about the ship.

I don't have the MRB in front

I don't have the MRB in front of me at the moment but it's covered in J4.813 IIRC.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

So Yeah.

Apparently all the convoluted death bolt rules actually have a point--you *can*, in fact, launch 2 death bolts a turn (might actually be 3 in 2 turns…) out of a given launcher if you time it right. As there is no prohibition on launching more than 1 per turn out of a given launcher. Just limits on deck crews.

Turn N, Impulse 1: Launch a death bolt.

Turn N, Impulse 9: Start rearming death bolt with 2 deck crews.

Turn N, Impulse 25: Finish rearming death bolt.

(Turn N, Impulse 26: Launch 2nd death bolt. I'm not sure off hand if you have to wait till 26. I need to check SOP).

Turn N+1, Impulse 2: Start rearming 3rd death bolt with 2 deck crews.

Turn N+1, Impulse 18: Finish rearming death bolt.

etc.

So the rules aren't *needlessly* convoluted. They are convoluted so as to allow very flexible launching schedules based on what you want to do with (and how you want to risk your) deck crews.

If a death bolt rack is destroyed, all the deck crews in it are killed. So if you have 2 of 4 deck crews in a launcher, and it is hit, you are out 2 deck crews. Which might be a problem in the long run. But I can't imagine that it would be that much of a problem most of the time.

Peter wrote: >>If a death

Peter wrote:

>>If a death bolt rack is destroyed, all the deck crews in it are killed. So if you have 2 of 4 deck crews in a launcher, and it is hit, you are out 2 deck crews. Which might be a problem in the long run. But I can't imagine that it would be that much of a problem most of the time.<<

Agreed. As I mentioned above, I can see doubling up the DC's early in the game, particularly the initial attack run. But also later, if damage hasn't been taken (or light damage) where perhaps a tactical point presents itself. Maybe an anchor at the right time with 4XDB's inbound that can't be stopped. 4XDB's could potentially do 120 points of damage. And even if the DB's are able to be stopped it would take a potential 40 points of damage to do so (or some tractors). So resources are definitely tied up.

Later on in the fight, after damage has been taken, it might behoove you to move a couple of the DC's out to the shuttle bay 'just in case' while hoping the shuttle bay doesn't get smacked.

Having used hard hits for a long time now I don't remember what would protect the shuttle bays and/or DB rack rooms on the DAC? I'll need to familiarize myself with the normal DAC method again.

As a side note, rereading CL #30 again as it has a bit in it about the Carnivon and tactics. Talks about 'raking with the rear claws' in reference to the plethora of ph-3's on the back of the ships with RX arcs. That would play in nicely with a 'Carn anchor' using 4XDB's inbound and a TAC after the initial head on alpha to try to get some R1 mizia in with the RX ph-3's.

I mentioned above about calling it the 'Carnivon b!tchslap' (see what I did there LOL). Hope it catches on...

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Death Bolts

Right, so now that it is apparent that you can, in fact, launch 2x death bolts in a single turn if you want (which mortgages the time it takes to launch a third on the next turn), one would assume that one is going to launch 2 per rack on the first turn of a given scenario. Given that death bolts are incredibly hard to kill and deadly (10 damage each/30 warhead without any modifications), it seems likely that if a Carnivon ship puts 4x death bolts on the map on the first turn, its opponent is going to weasel those 4 death bolts. As doing anything else is likely a losing move.

Shuttles are protected by center warp and aft hull (IIRC); death bolt racks are hit on drone hits, so nothing protects them. You roll a 3, you lose a death bolt rack. Which is, as any Lyran will tell you, likely to happen on the 3rd internal.

>>Shuttles are protected by

>>Shuttles are protected by center warp and aft hull (IIRC); death bolt racks are hit on drone hits, so nothing protects them. You roll a 3, you lose a death bolt rack. Which is, as any Lyran will tell you, likely to happen on the 3rd internal.<<

So the life expectancy of the DC in the DB room isn't great when the damage starts coming in. Since shuttle bays are a bit better off it may be necessary during the battle to hide the DC's there while the DB racks are being repaired. That way at least you have a chance to get them back in the game.

From C6, at WSIII it is assumed that the DB's have received any/all modifications prior to T1. So the first launch could have some anti-tractor or armor on it to make them a little harder to deal with. Reduces the warhead a bit but would be a nasty surprise if someone tries to slap tractors on them....and finds out they can't. Or makes them burn the batts to override the anti-tractor.

I can see the Carn doing some hit and runs on the tractors as well prior to or in conjunction with an anchor. I would think that a double launch turn would really need to involve an anchor on the Carns part. It would be a big waste to get it all lined up for a double launch turn and have them get wasted on a SP. Should really be interesting to see tactics come out of this ship type.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Reading on the BBS where you

Reading on the BBS where you were asking about the Death Bolt. The last poster mentioned writing a term paper on it. That's a great idea Peter and you should do it (or maybe they will do it from your post). I'm sure a lot of people don't realize the possible potential of the DB in this area and a term paper in CL is a good idea.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Term Paper

Yeah, see, maybe? But this doesn't really strike me as a clever use of something. It strikes me a lot more as "here is how this weapon actually works, that isn't actually readily apparent."

Like, I read these rules months ago, and it never occurred to me in a million years that the ship could launch multiple death bolts from a single launcher in a single turn, as while it doesn't say you can't, it does say in a few places that they are treated like drones and drone racks in any situation where there is ambiguity.

Really, the rule section should *totally* have had a line that specifically said "You can, within the limits of your deck crew actions, launch more than one death bolt per turn from a given launcher.", to make it very clear that this was possible. As every other weapon in the game that allows you to use it more than once per turn is completely clear about this. But the death bolt launcher isn't. And you need to:

A) Figure out the fairly obscure deck crew actions rule.

and

B) Disregard the default assumption that all weapons can only be used once per turn, unless they specifically say otherwise (like all other weapons you can use more than once per turn).

To get to this understanding. Which I think is a flaw in the rule writing. Which happens. But still.

Suspicious

I suspect it was something that just slipped through and wasn't intended at all. When Matthew enquired about it to SPP, I imagine he thought "Huh, that's odd. Hmm. Might make it more interesting. Doesn't seem too broken. Best leave it in rather than changing anything." Which was the right decision, even if the rule is a bit of a mess.

Firing Rates

I am total unfamiliar with Death Bolts. However:

If they are treated as being launched from a device that acts like a drone firing from a drone rack, then:

(FD4.2) BASIC RATE
Unless stated otherwise in the ship descriptions, or when using
player-modifications, all ships are presumed to be able to launch one
drone from each of their racks each turn.

While for direct fire...

(E1.50) BASIC RULE: No weapon may be fired twice within a period
of one-fourth of a turn. (Note that, in most cases, this involves firing
the weapon on two consecutive turns.) For example, if a specific
phaser were fired during Impulse #29 of one turn, it could not be fired
again before Impulse #5 of the next turn. This rule is NOT to be
interpreted as meaning that a weapon can be fired more than once
per turn. It is intended to eliminate the unrealistic tactic of firing a “full
broadside” on Impulse #32 of one turn and then repeating it on
Impulse #1 of the next.

i more or less interpreted

i more or less interpreted the DeathBolt as operating more like fighter + deck crews would (it just doesn't take off)

after firing, there's a 8-impulse delay before you can start reloading it (and it can only hold one munition at a time - so it's not like a drone rack with six drones loaded into it)

double up the deck crews if ya wanna to hurry up the process

fire when ready

wash, rinse, repeat

Death Bolts

It is confirmed that death bolts operate exactly as indicated above--you can launch 2 from a given rack on a given turn if you operate your deck crews correctly.

A maximum sequence would be something like:

T1, I1: launch a death bolt.
T1, I9: start rearming.
T1: I25: finish rearming
T1: I26: launch a death bolt.

T2, I2: start rearming.
T2, I18: finish rearming.
T2, I19: launch death bolt.
T2, I27: start rearming.

T3, I11: finish rearming.
T3, I12: launch death bolt.
T3, I20: start rearming

T4, I4: launch death bolt
T4, I12: start rearming
T4, I28: finish rearming
T4, I29: launch a death bolt

etc.

So you could get out 6 death bolts from a single rack in about 4 full turns.

more Death Bolt ideas

in the description, it mentions the slighty slower firing rate of the DB compared to drones, but it has been demonstrated here that you can actually fire them more often

i guess the slow down occurs after the "ready-rack" is emptied (the weapon has been fired six times) - from that point it takes two deck-crew operations to move a DB from storage onto the ready rack and then another deck crew action to load it into the firing-rack (64 impulses + 32 impules, or 32 + 16 if doubling up the deck-crews) - and you can't be loading the ready-rack and the firing-rack at the same time

that extra step (which drones don't have to account for) is really gonna curtail the number of DBs on the board in later turns

at Weapon Status 2, that could be mitigated a bit by taking advantage of the "two turns of deck-crews operations" allowance: use one of those "free" deck crew actions to load a DB from the ready-rack to the firing rack, and then double up the deck-crews to move a DB in storage into the now free space on the ready-rack

that would give you one DB ready to go in the firing-rack, and a full ready-rack of six at the start of the battle

(i think that would be legal)

Reviewing the thread

I was reviewing this thread as I'm going to try to get the Carns into an upcoming game. This has been one of the most productive threads we've had and I really appreciate everyone's contributions. As I was rereading all the Carn rules yesterday (Disruptor Cannons, Heel Nippers and Death Bolts) I was struck by another tidbit. As we've discussed above, the deck crews are in peril if the DB gets hit and DB's are destroyed on 'drone' hits. As Peter mentioned above, this happens on a roll of 3 on the 'A' column of the DAC so it's possible to lose them early on.

However...

They do have some padding. Heel Nippers are also destroyed on drone hits. So you'll have a choice between losing a DB or a HN. That will depend on your overall plan as to which is more valuable to you at the time. But at least they pad each other.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Heel Nippers

In my preliminary testing of the Carnivon Tourney Cruiser (My design, based off of a CC. Does it always take bloody-minded stubburness to get anything done for tournaments?) showed that the Heel Nipper is the go-to pad for the DB because it's a single-turn repair and hit on Drone.

I won't say you never get to use the HN, though, because the ship is as much a crunch ship and knife-fighter as the Hydran: Photon-like heavy weapon, Gatling-like phaser array, and the incredibly-short-ranged HN that can turn the tide when you want a cheap-and-temporary anchor.

Yep

The HN makes for good padding for the DB's, good point though that it is a one-turn repair weapon. That does make a difference. And it could really help as the game progresses either continuing as padding or actually using it to screw up someone's attack run and/or facilitating your own.

Really, a lot of pluses with these ships. Good point also in that it can be a good crunch ship as well as knife fighter. And it makes a good hack-n-slasher as well in that you can come in and hit with the heavy disruptors and ph-1's then turn and rake with the ph-3's.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

In regards to the Carn tourny

In regards to the Carn tourny cruiser...

Well nothing moves fast with ADB. Their still trying to iron out the Andro tourney cruiser and I suppose the Maesron as well. Let's not even discuss X2.

In short, don't hold your breath. Or do what I do and just do it yourself and enjoy without worrying about any of it becoming 'official'.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Not Being Official

Yeah, that's pretty much the tack I've taken to it. I got Paul F to put in the Paravian TCC (A CC with a few things done to make it even with the other TCAs) into the SFBOL Client. I figure that is step one. Maybe in a decade or so, everyone will consider it the official one, and ADB might consider it for the next tourney-module-update.

What did you add to a TCC

What did you add to a TCC version?

One of the things I semi-pushed for was the firing arc of the QWT to be out of the 6/1/2 shields. This was the intent of the original Paravian designers and probably the way it generally playtested. ADB has it 'officially' firing out of the #1 only, but that's only because they made a decision prior to consulting the designer.

So our FTF group uses them as originally designed. Official policy can catch up or not. ;)

And yes, I'd figure it to be a decade before any official consensus on a Carn & Parv TCC. Whether or not ADB is around that long will remain to be seen.

What would be interesting (and I wish no bad against ADB and hope they prosper and are around a long time to come), would be for the players (at least those interested in unofficial SFB stuff) to form a sort of 'underground'. Imagine all the new empires/ships that could be passed around for others to test/enjoy. Some folks here have done a lot of work on their own and have some very interesting ideas. And of course you can occasionally get a hold of some Companion Games stuff (I believe I have everything they published). So a lot of this 'unofficial' stuff could go a long way towards something like a Sigma Octant project. In fact, that isn't a bad idea at all and worthy of a new thread....

Part of the fun of a project like this is to see others ideas, test them out, suggest changes etc.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Paravian TCC

I basically took a stock Paravian CC, gave it the Y168 APR refit, made the shields (30,30,24,24,24,30), and dropped it to 4 shuttles. A typo I made in the 3rdGen Paravian CC had it with 6 Imp instead of 8, which the TCC got as well. I don't recall if the update I sent paul (for the TCC) has that fixed. (The CC definition is fixed)

I was silent on the fixed launcher on the TCC SSD, but I have been playing it as if it is a fixed launcher. I agree with you and the designer that it aught to (at least, post early-years) swivel the whole FA. But I've found that it is only mildly inconvenient. Yes, it affects my maneuver, but maneuvering for it makes it only an annoying disadvantage.

Carn FA QWT

As mentioned above and in another thread, our FTF group uses only the regular 6/1/2 FA firing arcs since it was designed to use them. In close the #1-only firing QWT would really be hamstringed. I just can't see any viable justification to equate a FA firing QWT to #1 only. That is for very old, unrefitted Romulan ships.

Having the normal, as designed, 6/1/2 FA arcs makes it a playable ship.

I've fancied the idea of starting a FTF tournament in our area if I can get enough people interested. Since I wouldn't worry about being sanctioned I would include many of the playtest tournament cruisers to see how they fare. That's really the only way to see how they fly against other ships.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

QWT Update

So it's been a year since this thread moved, but there has been some news.

I just recently got module Y2, and am still integrating it into my "rulebook", but I stumbled on an errata item that modifies (YFQ1.14). "Quantum Wave Torpedoes can be launched facing anywhere in the 120 degree arc of the weapon..." I have asked for clarification on the "Main" BBS, and got a partial agreement to the point that this removes the "Fixed (FP3.1) firing arc" of the Module C6 QWTs.

I say "partial", because they have admitted that an early-years errata piece certainly affects the early-years version of this weapon. It's not hard to say that if it was true for the early-years, then it's true in the General War unless directly countermanded in the intervening (time | rules). The new set of rules say nothing about this particular issue, thus the errata item aught to affect the more recent weapon.

But there is the feeling that "If it ain't said, it ain't official. If it ain't official, it ain't true." YMMV

QWT

So, can they legitimately use the 120 degree arc in later years?

QWT Update

I asked the same thing. From the original reply, one can make that assumption. But, as I closed my last post, YMMV.

YMMV

At the risk of sounding dumb, what does YMMV mean?

Internet Slang

YMMV is a simple Four-Letter-Acronym that means "Your Mileage May Vary". In Other Words (IOW), it means that you may get something more or less from this than I have.

In context, I'm being somewhat circumspect by using it. It's easy to assume that the above concepts in the errata will follow through to the Module-C6 QWTs. But assumptions have a way of biting back, and I'm figuring that somebody (heck, maybe even the game designer who gave me this bit of news) will work out some way to explain why the QWTs don't work that way for the GW-era Paravians. Said with an ironic shrug, the comment means that not everyone will be able to use the QWTs that way.

As I've said in the other

As I've said in the other thread, the designer of the Paravians has publicly stated that the QWT was designed and playtested to fire from the 6/1/2 shield facings. The rule never carried over to C6 as an oversight that no one picked up on until I brought it up here on this forum. Peter asked on the 'official' BBS. A rather hasty, and arbitrary decision was made that they are fixed (i.e. can target out of the 6/1/2 but only fire out of the #1). A few replies later the designer stated that YES they were designed and playtested to fire out of the 6/1/2 shields. TPTB simply didn't respond afterwards to clarify their decision was in error.

I know there is the feeling that if it isn't specifically stated on the 'official' BBS then it isn't true. I don't support that in every case. If the Paravians/QWT were specifically designed by SVC as a fixed launcher weapon and he stated it as such then that's one thing. But that's not the case. To use the QWT as a fixed launcher weapon is to play it as it WAS NOT designed for C6. So in this case, the 'official' BBS is wrong on this point. They can proclaim what they wish for an official tournament CC if they want (if one is ever actually sanctioned). But for regular SFB they use the 120 degree arc.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

It's official now

SPP has come out and specifically said that the ModC6 Paravians do indeed have the ability to face the QWTs according to the arc of the weapon.
And there was much rejoicing.

oh well

That was the only thing making Paravians almost balanced. Now they're simply going to steamroll anything they run up against, with anything even close to comparable BPVs.

Steamroll?

The Paravians have some good ships but I don't think they're going to steamroll anyone. The fixed arcs hamstrung them too much and as noted above, is not the way they were designed or playtested.

What made SPP change his mind? Or did he realize I was right lol?

Do you have a link?

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Paravian Link

Well, there's the rub with saying anything on that other BBS; it usually gets erased at some point. Not that it was malicious or anything.
The thread where such question was asked and answered, including the reference to the question asked some years ago, has been removed - apparently because the questions have been digested into some upcoming CapLogs.
As to why he changed his mind; I pointed out an errata piece in Y2 that changed it for Early-Years QWTs. He then said that would rattle out to the GW QWTs, as the Paravians aren't going to forget how to do it.

I think it would have been a

I think it would have been a better, wiser course of action to simply shoot an email to the designer years ago when the question was raised. Particularly when the designer himself frequented the BBS and was accessible. Indeed, as mentioned above, he responded in that very thread with what should have been the definitive response. The problem is that the designers comments were totally ignored.

At least it is now 'official', not that it really matters in FTF games. But if the Paravian ship is ever actually cleared for tourney use I suppose it would be a good thing. The only thing now for it to become a tourney ship is a bunch of playtest games, squabble back and forth on the BBS about the horrors of adding additional ships, another 10 years of non-activity and finally for the whole matter to be forgotten. By then the game will have closed up shop anyway.

It's a Monday...

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

thank gawd

I never did like the "through the front shield only" interpretation of the rule for firing QWT.

I liked flying the Birdies before I realized I was doing it "wrong", and dropped playing them after the original ruling. They're back on the docket now, though. Woo hoo!

(And I really like this website - a lot of useful info here).

QWT

My initial impressions of the QWT was that it was a weak/wimpy weapon. But I hadn't yet read the rules for it. After reading the rules I changed my opinion completely. It's an excellent weapon system. The way it takes phaser damage kinda makes it a waste (for the opponent) to fire phasers at one. They fire every turn. Have an extended OL range. Has splash damage. And it doesn't cost a lot to fire them.

I've really taken a liking to the birdies.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Played them in a campaign

In the Dramatic SFB campaign that just closed, I played the Paravians. I found thier weapon suite enjoyable and easy to use; much like a disruptor. I would often launch them at long range (range 13-15) and then turn off. Often times I could force a low-intensity fight, because the QWTs could keep coming. Usually I would start taking more damage than I dished out when I started knife-fighting with them.

All in all, a fun empire to play, since I prefer high speed, long range battles. Launch at range, turn off, let them swim through the torps, come about, launch some more, wash, repeat.

Yep. Wading through a swarm

Yep. Wading through a swarm of QWT is like swimming uphill. After a while it get's tiring for the opponent. They can waste phasers and still not stop much, if any of the swarm. Meanwhile the shields are getting worn down. The splash is really nice as it slaps a little off the sides and/or absorbs phaser damage to protect the main element of the warhead. A few turns of that and the opponent's shields are going to start looking ragged.

The opponent could charge in full steam hoping to get the R8 shot but then the birdie could hold back one or two OL QWT to discourage the attempt or to make them pay for doing it. And launching a full swarm of OL QWT is a good way to influence the opponent to turn off or eat them.

The QWT needs to have a sabot refit available.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Sabot QWTs

That'd be nice. There hasn't been enough playtesting involved to really poke the Steves enough about that.. after all, the conventional wisdom is that they are too strong of a weapon.

Conventional wisdom?

Conventional wisdom...

Would that be from the mass of playtesters? Of course since it was passed into an actual module, and supposedly playtested prior to release (not counting they've been a race for like a couple of decades) they would be admitting the long, drawn out playtesting process is inherently flawed. I would also put playtesting in general down as fictitious for the most part i.e. original Andros.

Or would that be from some of the guys that have been around for centuries that chat up TPTB and whine and complain when something new comes along? Because we don't want to possibly upset any tournament balance three decades from now when the Paravians are approved for 'playtesting'. Heck, that would require trying and learning new tactics rather than the old go-to tactics that have been around since the 80's.

Semi-rant over ;)

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

resistance is futile

all ships must be exactly equal
the Paravian will be assimilated (nerfed)
conform or die
~sborgi :o

Sabot QWT

I suspect that Matt was talking about *Sabot* QWT as too strong of a weapon (as Sabot plasma in general seems to be pretty overpowered). Which has nothing to do with "tournament balance", as Sabot weapons aren't used in tournament play. As such, the existence of Sabot QWTs or not has absolutely nothing to do with "upsetting tournament balance".

*shill*

*sabot* *plasma*, *in* *general*, *are* *not* *overpowered*

*asterisk*

Map

It all goes back to the open vs. closed map argument.

My point is that there are folks that flip out at the mere discussion of adding a new tournament ship or new race or weapon or modified weapon to the game in general. Since plasma can sabot, it follows that any plasma-like weapon should have the same ability at some point in the time line for the same reason plasma began to sabot in the first place i.e. the ships started getting faster in the later years.

Too be honest, Kzinti....and only Kzinti drones should be able to reach sabot speeds as well in later years for the same reason plasma started to sabot. Why only the Kzinti? Because the Kzinti are the premier drone using race and it follows that they would put more development into the technology than other races where drones are secondary weapons systems. Charge a 1/2 point per first wave in the racks (reloads are free) after Y180 or whenever sabots came about.

Hmmm...sounds like a possible HR to test in the next FTF game.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

*Way* *Too* *Many* *Asterisks*

"*shill*
*sabot* *plasma*, *in* *general*, *are* *not* *overpowered*

*asterisk*"

A) *Shill*? What does that mean?

B) How many games have you played with sabot plasma? And how many of them were on closed maps?

As David correctly points out, this is a situation where maps are very relevant. On a closed map, Sabot plasma is nuts. On an open map, against an opponent that just wants to keep the range open, Sabot plasma doesn't actually help the situation much--a Gorn fleet vs a Klingon Fleet on an open map? The Sabot plasma isn't going to help at all. They are still gonna get smashed to pieces at R30 by direct fire while their speed 40 plasmas are running up hill towards opponents who have no need to get inside 20 hexes.

Maps

"It all goes back to the open vs. closed map argument."

This is completely true. On open maps, sabot plasma isn't significantly better than regular plasma for dealing with the problems caused by open maps. On closed maps, Sabbot plasma is completely nuts.

"My point is that there are folks that flip out at the mere discussion of adding a new tournament ship or new race or weapon or modified weapon to the game in general. Since plasma can sabot, it follows that any plasma-like weapon should have the same ability at some point in the time line for the same reason plasma began to sabot in the first place i.e. the ships started getting faster in the later years."

Lots of stuff has been added to the game over the last few (10? 20?) years that is kooky and new, and has no impact on tournament play at all, as it isn't added to the tournament. Which is fine. The tournament doesn't need carronade (although it would be nice :-) or sabbot or drogues or whatever. A Paravian TC exists, folks are using it, maybe it will become official at some point (although it is really unlikely, given the way the PTB operate these days), it works pretty well when people use it.

"Too be honest, Kzinti....and only Kzinti drones should be able to reach sabot speeds as well in later years for the same reason plasma started to sabot. Why only the Kzinti? Because the Kzinti are the premier drone using race and it follows that they would put more development into the technology than other races where drones are secondary weapons systems. Charge a 1/2 point per first wave in the racks (reloads are free) after Y180 or whenever sabots came about."

Well, that, and the Kzinti was balanced to use some fast drones from day 1. And a *lot* of collected data (thousands of games) indicates that it works fine like that. Sabot plasma of any type is completely nuts on a closed map. As tournament games are on a closed map, best to omit that technology (especially given that all the BP ships also have thousands of games of data to suggest that they are pretty balanced as well without sabot plasma, which would make them nuts). I'm sure there would be a way to make a Paravian TC with sabot QWTs reasonably balanced, but would require pulling stuff out of the ship to make it weaker (to make up for the sabot). Which seems like a counterproductive plan. Why not just try and get a working Paravian TC with the one that exists, that isn't actually that bad currently?

More QWTs

By "conventional wisdom", I meant what I had been hearing from people belly-aching in the SFBOL lobby, plus the belly-aching I've been getting from the people who have played against the Paravians in my campaign. True, it's not a huge slice of people. But I have to go with the circle of people I'm exposed to.

The belly-aching I've been hearing is that the bog-standard QWT has a possibility of being too strong. Personally, I don't believe it. I consider the QWT to be treated like a long-range Plasma-D: neither do a whole lot of damage, but when you launch 4 of them as a bunch, they can do internals on a fresh shield. SSD-wise, I think they are treated like Plasma-Fs.

My personal opinion, is that the QWTs are not unbalanced. As noted, they are not so great as a close-range weapon. This is because of their relatively flat damage chart: They do 7 damage at point-blank range, 5 damage at range 20, and 3 damage at range 29 (and then drop off the map a couple of impulses later). It really behooves the Paravian to launch at long range, and keep things that way. Their somewhat awkward phaser array encourages this, as most ships can concentrate firepower only on the centerline. This makes them average-to-poor knife-fighters. And therein lies the way to kill them.

Sabots would make the QWT better at what it already does pretty well, but there really isn't much improvement to be had. The sabot's advantage of striking an opponent in a better range bracket is more of a booby-prize for the QWT, because it merely means you are doing a single extra damage to the victim. The sabot's other advantage is to make the torpedo a longer-ranged weapon is certainly of an advantage. However, you'll go from a range 30 weapon to a range 35 weapon (depending on the impulse of launch). While that doesn't seem like much, it means that you can engage from a longer (and safer) range.

As for closed/open maps: I think the open map is really the best thing for the Paravian. Being able to outrun your opponent means the Paravian can continue the low-intensity battle. The opponent is generally not going to outrun the QWT, despite the nature of the map. If the opponent managed to outrun the QWT (or take it for just a couple of damage) then the Paravian smiles: they want the opponent so far away that their weapons aren't doing any damage. A closed map is actually harder on the Paravian, as it's easier for an opponent to box the birds into a corner, and mug them.

Speed 96

I remember several years ago we had a 'closed vs. open' map discussion. I could be wrong on the member, put I think it may have been Paul Scott that suggested that plasma on an open map needed to go something like S96 in order to be competitive. Don't quote me exactly on who and or what the speed was but I think I'm right on both regards. I can't vouch for S96 as being viable or not but it really seems an easy fix in that plasma goes S32 (or S40 if being sabotted) on a closed map and SXX on an open map.

As far as folks complaining that the QWT is too powerful as-is I maintain that either:

A. The playtest process doesn't work.
B. They don't know how to play against a Parvian and blame the QWT for their lack of ability/experience.
C. Both A and B.

I'll go with C. Not that playtesting is useless, but it is subjective. Depends on a lot of factors such as ability of each player, total knowledge of the rules, luck of the dice etc.

I've played the Parvian a fair bit. Won with it and lost with it. Although subjective, after game discussion IIRC has never tended towards it being OP. Phaser fire against it is a moot point for the most part which is fine in my opinion.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

QWT/Sabot

>>I remember several years ago we had a 'closed vs. open' map discussion. I could be wrong on the member, put I think it may have been Paul Scott that suggested that plasma on an open map needed to go something like S96 in order to be competitive. Don't quote me exactly on who and or what the speed was but I think I'm right on both regards. I can't vouch for S96 as being viable or not but it really seems an easy fix in that plasma goes S32 (or S40 if being sabotted) on a closed map and SXX on an open map.>>

Seems about right. Plasma on open map is mostly pointless, given standard hypothetical tactics by a DF race (i.e. historically Gorns vs Klingons; Romulan vs Fed is mostly moot as the Roms can just cloak and go forward and force a draw). A stack of Klingons at R30 just firing standard disruptors and phasers for 100 turns while keeping the range open makes plasma irrelevant. Even if it is sabot speed. There is a reason that historically, the Gorns only fought Romulans and spent a lot of time attacking planets...

On a closed map, speed 40 plasma is total murder, however. It seems unlikely that anyone would ever ok a variable speed plasma rule. Like, the issue with open map vs closed map is one of "is this tactic effective, or does this tactic make for a fun game?". A lot of people will play on an open map just like they'd play on a closed map--get reasonable close and shoot things up (and as such, they don't really envision why people are opposed to open map games...). Which is a fun game. But when folks are either trying to be super effective, or playing a campaign or something where ship survival is important, open map games can devolve very quickly into "12 ships in a single hex dip into R30, fire all their phasers and disruptors, damage something enough to make it drop out of the opposing force, and turn off and run till they come back and do it again". Which is an incredibly dull mathematical exercise. But often the most effective strategy for a given fight.

>>As far as folks complaining that the QWT is too powerful as-is I maintain that either:

A. The playtest process doesn't work.
B. They don't know how to play against a Parvian and blame the QWT for their lack of ability/experience.
C. Both A and B.>>

I honestly have never seen anyone state (in any actual, articulated sense) that QWTs are, in and of themselves, too powerful. It is possible that someone has agrued that the Paravian TC is too powerful (it seemed like it might have been with the 5QWT armament I saw it with once), but that is a matter of tweaking a TC, not tweaking the QWT,

>>I'll go with C. Not that playtesting is useless, but it is subjective. Depends on a lot of factors such as ability of each player, total knowledge of the rules, luck of the dice etc.>>

Sure. There is only so much playtesting can do. It isn't exact science, and has lots and lots of variables. The best pre-release playtesting can do is result in "That looks about right". And then once something that "looks about right" is released into the general public, often it turns out to be about right. And once and a while, it turns out to be too powerful (or too weak), as once a lot of people are using it for a long time, folks figure things out that might not have been originally envisioned. And then they get tweaked again, hopefully. As that is how games like this tend to work.

One of the advantages of the SFB tournament system is that it is very good at generating playtest results, as it has very few variables, and is a very fixed set of rules, and generates lots and lots of data (there are thousands of recorded game results for most ships). Which has, many times, resulted in something that originally looked "about right" being determined to be overpowered, and as such, getting tweaked (see: Andromedan, which currently languishes in "hamstrung, but that's ok, as an overpowered Andro tends to ruin the environment"; Orion and WAX when they could have 2xPG; etc.).

jeebus h effing crisco

in this sense: shill can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws

and here's some statistics for you: i took 2 semesters of it at NCSU (Moo U!) and my average grade (homework, quizzes, tests, exams) was 100

may i do the math for you? and that makes me this: an amateur in statistics

unless you have a BS, masters, or PhD in that field - yer arguments are little more than mental masturbation

give me a solid mathematical argument with variance, covariance, alpha, beta, standard deviation, and any other factor you wanna throw in and maybe i'll change my mind . . . until then more power to you

any game with dice exponentially, geometrically makes the analysis more complex, and to state otherwise is drivel spewing from yer piehole

tournament rules are kindergarten SFB - and gawd forbid we upset that apple cart

play a game on a pinned map

Ah, ok. I see.

>>in this sense: shill can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws>>

So basically, you are just being an asshole. Great. Go fuck yourself.

And, in the name of humorous discussion, I'll point out that your argument doesn't even make any sense, in so much as anything you ever say makes any sense. You are accusing me of being an "apologist for glaring flaws" for, ya know, pointing out a glaring flaw (that sabot plasma is broken). You are completely non-sensical.

pro bono

you can do better than that i'm sure without debasing yerself by reverting to obscenities and vulgarities - for example, por favor:

#1 grow a spine, jellyfish

#2 thank gawd for all of us you weren't aborted as a fetus, or otherwise yer grey matter would have seeped into brain stem cell research and sent us back 100 years

#3 you missed out mentioning combinatorics - i missed that one too! how embarrassing

#4 those who can't do, teach

that's my free primer . . . sign up fer the full class at Lewis Carroll's cake: eat-me.com

Meanwhile, back at the point...

This line of discussion is beginning to show signs of fraying a bit at the edges. Can we please return to the original issue.

I tend to lean towards the whole "The belly-aching guys haven't figured how to beat the QWT", rather than the whole "Playtesting is broken." Sure, it seems like there are times things are insufficiently playtested, but I think the best counter-argument in that direction is that there is no better form of playtest than being released to the wild. The apocryphal Andromedan Krait is a good example. (The history of which I won't repeat. But I'm aiming at the whole "Nobody thought it out until it became unbeatable.")

I've played the Paravians a couple of ways (I am the one who put the above-mentioned 5xQWT TCC into SFBOL. I just finished a campaign game where I played them.) They can be beaten the same way that the WAX and Andro can be beaten: Mug them quickly - go for a knife-fight. As I've said here before: they like a low-tempo, long-range battle. (Well, maybe that's just my bias showing: I like those kind of battles.) After all this play, I do not believe the QWT is too powerful.

However, I have heard directly from people that they believe it is OP. They are looking at it on paper: It arms like a disruptor, It can do a bunch of damage (when a bunch of them are launched together - and there always seems to be a bunch of them), It can splash to adjacent shields (giving it the annoying PPD effect of tagging nearby down shields), it lasts forever (so running it out is kinda stupid), and it's a worthless proposition to phaser them down (has ECM and has alot of toughness.) So there isn't a good defense to use against them, there are always some on the map, and they can really hurt if the Paravian does things right.

The facts on the ground indicate otherwise. A full load (a cruiser's armament on cruiser shields, etc) will simply knock down a shield at anything but overloads at point-blank range. So someone that charges in will probably get bloody, but someone looking to dance/ballet will force the Paravian to worry away at several shields. This is acerbated by the fact that, since they are seekers, the defender largely gets to choose the shield that is hit. The Paravians have no other weapons to fall back on, except for their Gorn-like phaser arrays (pretty decent coverage, average-to-poor concentration.) I simply don't think they are in a position to claim that their phasers will leverage them over, say, a Klingon (and certainly not a Tholian or Fed.) So they start to feel like a one-trick-pony.

Oh, Sporki.

>>you can do better than that i'm sure without debasing yerself by reverting to obscenities and vulgarities - for example, por favor:>>

Dude. You randomly started throwing accusations at me (that were, again, completely non-sensical) out of nowhere, based on, uh, me mentioning that sabot plasma might be overpowered (as, well, it might; experience has shown that, well, on a closed or limited map, it is insanely powerful while on an open map, it isn't any better than non sabot plasma). Why you did that? I have no idea. Mentally unstable? Felt offended by someone saying something bad about a game you like? You really wanted to brag about your two whole semesters at NCSU (whatever that is)?. You didn't like that I was snarky about your overuse of asterisks? I dunno. But it is a really bad way to keep a conversation civil. So, ya know, don't get bent out of shape for a conversation becoming uncivil when you went out of your way to make it uncivil.

QWTs

Matt wrote:
>>I tend to lean towards the whole "The belly-aching guys haven't figured how to beat the QWT", rather than the whole "Playtesting is broken." Sure, it seems like there are times things are insufficiently playtested, but I think the best counter-argument in that direction is that there is no better form of playtest than being released to the wild. The apocryphal Andromedan Krait is a good example. (The history of which I won't repeat. But I'm aiming at the whole "Nobody thought it out until it became unbeatable.")>>

Yeah, the Andromedans suffered from a whole lot of endlessly evolving rules, and ancestral memory (which is all detailed at length elsewhere if folks are interested)--if one played the Andromedans for a long time using the original rules, and then playtested (or switched over to) the new rules, it was likely that they would have trouble adapting (and as such, fully exploring) the new ones. It happens.

With the Paravians, I suspect that the Y1/early years rules for QWTs were playtested a lot, as the Y1 playtest rules were in the wild for a long time before the rules were formally published, and a lot of people were invested in the Y1 rules becoming reality (if for no other reason that all of that happened during the "interregnum", and nothing new was being published). I suspect that the GW era rules for QWTs were playtested considerably less, and are probably a lot more the result of "Huh. That looks about right" rather than meticulous playtesting and adjustment. That being said, I don't know that I think the QWTs in and of themselves are particularly overpowered.

>>I've played the Paravians a couple of ways (I am the one who put the above-mentioned 5xQWT TCC into SFBOL. I just finished a campaign game where I played them.) They can be beaten the same way that the WAX and Andro can be beaten: Mug them quickly - go for a knife-fight. As I've said here before: they like a low-tempo, long-range battle. (Well, maybe that's just my bias showing: I like those kind of battles.) After all this play, I do not believe the QWT is too powerful.>>

Sure. It is possible that a TC with five QWTs in too powerful, however, even if the QWTs are fine (I don't know that it is, but it is possible that people are negatively reacting to 5 heavy weapons rather than QWTs in general). I have played against some version of the Paravian TC a few times. I don't recall which one it was (4QWT or 5QWT) how many times. Or what arcs the QWTs were in (i.e. I don't recall if they had to launch directly ahead or not). But in any case, the ship seemed ok.

>>However, I have heard directly from people that they believe it is OP. They are looking at it on paper: It arms like a disruptor, It can do a bunch of damage (when a bunch of them are launched together - and there always seems to be a bunch of them), It can splash to adjacent shields (giving it the annoying PPD effect of tagging nearby down shields), it lasts forever (so running it out is kinda stupid), and it's a worthless proposition to phaser them down (has ECM and has alot of toughness.) So there isn't a good defense to use against them, there are always some on the map, and they can really hurt if the Paravian does things right.>>

All of these things are true. I don't know that it makes them overly powerful, however. It does, however, have the unfortunate effect of making fighting the Paravian not that interesting--you gotta go mug it. Ships that are good at mugging it will do well. Ships that are not, won't. If you try and keep the range open, you probably get killed, as, at least on paper, QWTs are, like, the best long range weapon in the game--they stay on the map a long time, fire every turn, and are cheap to fire--8 power in 4QWT every turn is going to be a lot more effective than 8 power in 4 disruptors every turn, especially if you are trying to encourage your opponent to stay away from you.

>>So they start to feel like a one-trick-pony.>>

Yeah, that is what I'm actually concerned about with the ship, in both directions.

TCA vs. TCC

Matt, I would offer that the 5xQWT of the TCC would allow it to be competitive in a tourney environment over the 4xQWT of a possible TCA. Particularly against crunch ships. I don't feel (based on some tourney play with the TCC) that it would be OP but rather allow it to compete. It would need that extra QWT to mitigate corner-mugging. Wouldn't be an absolute solution, but it would help a bit. Because you're right, the Parv does well in the long game whereas the weakness is the 'rush-in-and-duke-it-out' type games.

But whether tourney or regular SFB, no, the QWT is not OP. It needs to be phaser resistant to the point that it is because the warhead just isn't that big. Otherwise, if it were 'normal' plasma/phaser damage the warheads could be whittled down to nothing every turn to pretty much nothing. The phaser damage is a last ditch measure to perhaps PREVENT the splash damage going through a down shield while taking the main element on a healthy shield. I would suggest that is the only/main reason to waste phasers on a QWT.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Peter wrote: >>Sure. It is

Peter wrote:

>>Sure. It is possible that a TC with five QWTs in too powerful, however, even if the QWTs are fine (I don't know that it is, but it is possible that people are negatively reacting to 5 heavy weapons rather than QWTs in general). I have played against some version of the Paravian TC a few times. I don't recall which one it was (4QWT or 5QWT) how many times. Or what arcs the QWTs were in (i.e. I don't recall if they had to launch directly ahead or not). But in any case, the ship seemed ok.<<

I would point out the Seltorian which in effect 'sorta' has 6 heavy weapons if we want to count the shield breakers. True, they don't damage the ship but if used just prior to the alpha can assist the alpha with better damage results which is a pretty much the same thing. Sorta disruptor strength in effect. And the Selt is definitely not OP (which is why I've proposed the few changes we've played with here and there. And those changes help but again, definitely don't push it into the OP side of the paper. Seems to make it slightly more competitive though). Bit of a thread drift but thought it worth tossing out.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Selt vs Paravian

>>I would point out the Seltorian which in effect 'sorta' has 6 heavy weapons if we want to count the shield breakers. True, they don't damage the ship but if used just prior to the alpha can assist the alpha with better damage results which is a pretty much the same thing. Sorta disruptor strength in effect. And the Selt is definitely not OP (which is why I've proposed the few changes we've played with here and there. And those changes help but again, definitely don't push it into the OP side of the paper. Seems to make it slightly more competitive though). Bit of a thread drift but thought it worth tossing out.>>

Oh, sure. But the difference is that:

-PCs and SCs are horrible weapons in the context of a tournament game (PCs are downright reasonable when you have a fleet worth of them on an open map where you can fire them twice per turn reliably and efficiently, and averaging out of the dice makes them solid, consistent damage dealers at range).

and

-QWTs are good weapons in the context of a tournament game (only so far your opponent can run from them, they have to go through them if they ever want to hurt you back).

Like, the Selt has, more or less, 7 heavy weapons. But they aren't particularly good, and the Selt in general is not that good--I think it might be marginally better than the LDR (and certainly better than the current Andro :-), but is pretty low on the list.

With the Paravian, QWTs are good weapons. And it is possible that 5 of them are too many of them on a tournament ship. Which might be what causes people to think QWTs are overpowered in that context. I dunno. Like, as noted, I have played against some version of the Paravian TC a few times. I don't remember if they had 4 or 5QWTs (maybe a little of both?). I don't recall it seeming particularly over the top, however. It is possible that 4QWT is the good armament (and maybe tweak up the phasers a bit if 4QWT seems slightly undergunned). Maybe not?

Selt PC

Peter wrote:

>>-PCs and SCs are horrible weapons in the context of a tournament game (PCs are downright reasonable when you have a fleet worth of them on an open map where you can fire them twice per turn reliably and efficiently, and averaging out of the dice makes them solid, consistent damage dealers at range).<<

I agree with you and include regular SFB as well when it's more a dual rather than fleet action as you mention. The PC as I've mentioned was, imho, nerfed too much originally and the tweak was a rather weak one. Which is why I proposed my earlier HR tweaks:

*Capacitor has no holding cost.

*Firing delay between shots is reduced to 8-impulses.

*This has been playtested and has demonstrated that the improvement was beneficial without being OP.

*Combined shot: The PC can be fired as a combined shot i.e. one OL and one standard shot combined. The cost is a full capacitor of 5 points. Maximum range of 8. May be fired at R0.

This went a long way towards making it viable and competitive. The lousy range breaks is what keep this ship humble (not unlike the FEDs). The Selt CA/CC has great phasers (IIRC without looking at the SSD is 8xph-1 and 4xph-3). Being able to combine the shots puts this on par with an OL disruptor albeit at a slightly greater cost in power and lousier to-hit %. But damage wise it's comparable and makes an alpha a bit more threatening. We've played it and it makes it a more interesting ship to play that is viable but is definitely not OP. IIRC, Matt beat my Parv using the Selt when we were testing both out. Don't recall the particulars but it was an interesting game all the way around.

I would surmise that the Parv in a tourney environment is going to need the 5th QWT.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

The 5th Torp

The SSD in the tourney-side of the SFBOL is based on the CC, which is the 5xQWT version. The CC is basically the CA with the flag facilities, and extra torp (going from 4 to 5) and the power to arm it (leaving it's speed generally >20 except when overloading.)

In the days leading up to ModC6 being published, Josh Driscol had put together a version based on the CapLog 35(?) "Raiding Paravian" designs, going with 4x QWT but more phasers. That thing was perfectly happy wading into the opponents; Launching the QWTs at close range and then trying to land solid Ph-1 hits on the damaged shield. If I were to try to do a Paravian on the [4xQWT] CA, I might look to go that route: Add a Ph-1 to the FH array and perhaps an extra Ph-3 on each side of the tail. This would seem less "One-Trick", but borders on making it a phaser-boat.

Paravian TC

>>This would seem less "One-Trick", but borders on making it a phaser-boat.>>

Hmm. Yeah, that. I'd still probably be inclined to go with 4QWT, myself. But that's me. What is the current TC armament? IIRC, 5QWT, 6P1, 4P3? And the "raider" version is 4QWT, 8P1, 4P3?

Parv TC

Yeah. The ModC6, CC-based TC is 5x QWT, 6x Ph-1, 4x Ph-3 - With the PH-1s evenly split into LS/FH/RS. The CL34(?) "Raider" version is 4x QWT, 8x PH-1, 4x PH-3. I don't remember the Phaser-arcs on the Raider version.