Jump to content
Paladin21

Interceptor SRS Rebalance

Recommended Posts

Hmm, well, allowing Interceptors to remain on the board by using linked fire rules instead of combined doesn't seem like a serious choice between options.  Interceptors are still extremely cheap and hard to remove for the amount of extra PD they deliver in their larger than normal area of coverage.  Which is to say they still clearly outperform anything that would try to fill the role of intra-fleet PD coverage.

While the option to combine fire with forced RTB might lure admirals into gambits to reduce potential damage at worrying moments, that option then leaves the fleet relatively vulnerable unless the enemy has little to no torpedo or boarding assets.  It would seem to be a clearly sub-optimal choice, and give up varying activation opportunity costs to the enemy.

Additionally, I wonder if there are many cases where a fleet producing a large enough torpedo threat to warrant Interceptors combining fire would then only have one or two useful sources of torpedoes.  It seems more logical to effectively counter all but one roll for torpedoes, than to definitively stop one roll, and risk several others getting through.

 

I'm also concerned that it is not necessary or even wise to link fire against incoming squadrons.  While it does increase the chance that a single role can manage to produce enough successes to drive off a SRS token, the overall dice being thrown is reduced due to linking.  In most circumstances it should not be difficult to position a squadron such that they can all support another model being attacked by SRS.  Although this dramatically reduces the odds that a SRS Token can be driven off by an individual roll, it does allow more chances to roll the precious sixes needed to cripple a SRS Token.

Perhaps instead consider trials where hits rolled place a token or marker next to the SRS, these hits effectively remaining on the SRS Token until they finish the attack run or are driven off, whichever comes first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, there aren't a lot of factions that could regularly take advantage of that option.  At least not without noticeably going away from core fleet strengths, and it would really apply mainly to larger point games.  I don't imagine a ruling about orphaned SRS Tokens would provide a significant advantage for the fleet, seems like a reasonably small change for presumably fluff to mechanics relationship reasons.

Also, as a side note, I've nothing against your chosen home brew rules and testing.  Better to test something and be certain than just rely strictly on hypothesis and theory.  However, since you brought the topic up, I'm just throwing in my two cents again about what I think are key points for how and why SRS and Interceptors significantly impact PD rolls.

Frankly, rolling for torpedoes against PD is already a grim contest when compared to direct fire in the majority of circumstances.  Anything which further shifts that teeter totter rolling system can easily make the dice rolling practically a formality.  Generally, the only opening gambit likely to work is against the T3 range of models, who coincidentally benefit quite significantly when under Interceptor coverage.

Well, Interceptors also provide another shut-out win when covering damaged ships with a crippled PD value.  Normally, a marginal PD allows torpedoes to shine and provide a sudden dagger to the soft bits, helping to ensure a finishing blow.  However, Interceptors keep the shut out streak going until the end of the game.  Which certainly doesn't help alleviate the Everest like stature of PD mountain.  So the question might be, how do you want to reduce middle to late game effectiveness of Interceptors, but still make it seem realistic instead of pure abstracted game mechanic that doesn't make in-world sense.

So with that intent in mind, I'm going to take another stab at it here.  How about this, every time you participate in PD with an SRS Token you put a marker beside the SRS Token and that lowers it's Wing Value until it Returns to Base.  Whether a one marker to one wing ratio, or a situation of halving wing values per token, the effect would be that no interception by any SRS is possible without reducing it's ability to act later on.  Bombers would have worse bombing runs, if they were used as interceptors before the run, Interceptors would eventually be pointless and have to RtB.

Allowing direct, clear, and predictable control of Interceptor effectiveness through intentionally diminishing their PD value could produce the overall desired results.  A SRS Token can either launch or RtB in the command segment of it's carrier's activation; this means that in most circumstances an Interceptor Token is only on the field in alternating turns.  Unless intercepting a SRS Token or driven off, the Interceptor can't RtB unless it does so at the start of the carrier's turn, remaining in the hanger for the rest of that turn.  This opens a lot of gaps in Interceptor protection, first over the course a turn with diminishing Wing Values lowering PD values, and later for a full turn when it must RtB by player choice at the start of the squadron's activation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easy solution is to completely remove the ability for Interceptors to block Torpedoes, and turn them into THE way to counter SRS Tokens.  They would need to double their movement and reactionary intercept range for this to work, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryjak said:

The easy solution is to completely remove the ability for Interceptors to block Torpedoes, and turn them into THE way to counter SRS Tokens.  They would need to double their movement and reactionary intercept range for this to work, though.

That would go into the direction of specialized tokens i have in mind when thinking of reworking them. Bombers for damage, assault boats for capturing and inteceptors for stopping both. And fighters with a little bit of everything or cutting them from the game. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a simple move perhaps, but a remaining issue is that once you sweep the legs out from under the current most effective tool for PD mountain, have you actually stopped PD mountain from existing?  You may discover that certain factions are actually quite adept at building a normal squadron based version of PD mountain, with overlapping fields providing a very familiar sort of bonus.  Degrading though it may be, that's one of the key problems with Interceptor play which can be otherwise resolved.

Tightly grouped formations for Interceptor coverage aren't far away from providing similar coverage by simply reducing the gaps between squadrons; and some models can directly play the role of Interceptor for certain factions quite handily.  Removing Torpedo PD combining for SRS leaves a lot to be desired from pure carrier models; as now they pretty much either bring Bombers or Assault Shuttles to the table; or the carrier seriously struggles to pay off its' inflated model cost.  Smaller Wing Capacity models can find that value shut down to simply Support Shuttles, as the attack SRS don't really provide solid nor reliable punch at half wing value.

If you reduce Interceptors to an arms race between SRS, that simply enables SRS heavy factions such as Aquans or Ryushi to clean the table of enemy SRS with their Interceptors and let the Bombers run free.  Nothing stops Interceptors from hitting other Interceptors.  For fleet practicality, It would then serve you better to simply not bring SRS at all, or carefully use only the Support Shuttles.  If the opponent can out WC you, worse when with more combat capable ships, then the dilemma is why bring any SRS at all?

Some degree of multi-role capability keeps the ability to pick and choose what role you want the SRS in for that turn; and can pressure an Admiral to change that role mid game into something that might suit your purposes more with the right rules and fleet build.  Which is to say, if you give an Admiral more opportunity to overreach their limits then they can more easily be goaded into bad positions.  Perhaps the worst problem is then once you pay up for Interceptors, that squadron needs to maneuver towards enemy SRS to pay off the fleet point and model opportunity cost for bringing Interceptors.  Otherwise you just bought some pet rocks for luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point Defense mountain has been the foremost thing on my mind as we work on the new edition.  We have several working solutions for it currently.  They all have had decent results in testing and all deal with PD mountain rather well.  The main thing is making Torpedoes a decent weapon system again by nerfing, or changing Interceptors and toning down bombers so a full token does not have the same hitting power as a dreadnought and can defend a vessel against incoming torpedo fire.  

I wish I could say more.  We have not locked down which system is going to Beta , so I do not want to say "Yes this is what we are doing".

The methods do range though.  A system similar to what Ryjak has suggested, making it so interceptors do not intercept torpedoes, is one.  PD being only usable against other SRS.   It has been a major point of contention.  We do not want the feel of the game to majorly change, but PD mountain is a problem.

 

The main thing is that Firestorm Armada is a game of Capital ship vs Capital ship.  SRS should never overshadow that IMHO.  It has been a bugger of an issue to resolve though.  The discussion here is interesting and peoples suggestions as to how to fix it are interesting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2017 at 10:40 AM, Dr_Vector said:

It's a simple move perhaps, but a remaining issue is that once you sweep the legs out from under the current most effective tool for PD mountain, have you actually stopped PD mountain from existing?  You may discover that certain factions are actually quite adept at building a normal squadron based version of PD mountain, with overlapping fields providing a very familiar sort of bonus.  Degrading though it may be, that's one of the key problems with Interceptor play which can be otherwise resolved.

Only SRS can cover other friendly ships outside of their own squad. No models can do that, which makes it a non-issue if this one squad has high PD because it is either sacrificing elsewhere or is priced appropriately.

Even if Escorts had umbrella type coverage, they are at least triple the price and far less maneuverable or resilient than SRS which would go a long way towards nerfing the power of umbrella coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huhh, well thanks for pointing that out.  Seems that's a mistake that I and my friend have been rolling with for the games we've managed to play.  Think I figured out why we came to that conclusion; the manual states the intent clearly under the entry for torpedoes, but the blurb under the description for linked fire only makes a reference to any assisting models.  Thinking about it, we've not played games large enough for overlapping squadrons to often be an issue.  As I recall, we came to that conclusion after talking over the value of bigger batteries while looking through the linked fire rules.

It might be superfluous to change, but that whole of page 63 has only one direct reference to squadrons when discussing linked fire for Point Defense and Combined Fire rules.  Even if it is under the important note section, the intent of that note was to clarify that even models with no PD value can still be assisted by other models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, back in V1.0 ships/models did provide overlapping PD for each other. Which unfortunately led to the tactic of 'cluster-balling', where you only moved your ships incrementally to stay as close to each other as possible in a big slow moving ball to provide maximum PD coverage.  Or at least the un-creative did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2017 at 6:24 PM, Dr_Vector said:

I'm also concerned that it is not necessary or even wise to link fire against incoming squadrons.  While it does increase the chance that a single role can manage to produce enough successes to drive off a SRS token, the overall dice being thrown is reduced due to linking. 

I did a project report on dice statistics in college. The part that applies here is that the number of dice rolled can have an increased chance of  favorable result. This is why the game of craps only uses two dice. 

Example:  1d6 has 3 chances of yielding a 4+ result. 2d6 have 6 chances, however, the physical interaction between dice makes this more like 7 chances. 3 separate rolls of 3d6 would then yield 11 chances each totaling 33 chances. A single 6d6 might also have 33 chances.

 So at cruiser or frigate values the difference is negligible but for tier 1s with escorts it could make all the difference in the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some old ideas I had in regards to Escort vs SRS and worth in the eye of the player. It should be noted that I am using the term Escort in this context to refer to the Small ships that have no BL reward and are generally only 2HP and limited in capability, therefore even though an Aegis can "escort" an Ares it is not an Escort for how I am using the term.

These ideas do assume some sort of reduction to "PD mountain" made up of SRS tokens. Also I am listing a bunch of ideas, it doesn't mean they should all be implemented.

 

1: Most Escorts should gain Bigger Batteries as standard for no additional cost, I say this generally because there may be a limited number of cases where the Escort may be tuned just a bit too much, so each Escort would need to examined. I would also exclude a certain specific number of Escorts from this as they aren't taken for this role as a primary, the Dindrenzi Buckler is an example, however that doesn't rule out the possibility, again an idea, ideas are presented to the group then discussed and tested and so on. The big thing is that 4" protection is tiny vs SRS and in a number of cases requires almost mandatory B2B placement just to protect their parent model. The increase to 8" also has an additional benefit of extending that reach to other ships on an incidental basis, again increasing their worth.

 

2: As a case by case basis (so examine each Escort closely and the faction it is in to determine viability), widen the scope of attachment options for Escorts. As an idea that I haven't had the chance to put through rigorous testing but provides an option to aid in the life expectancy of Smalls. Consider the theory of a squad of 4 Pilgrims being able to purchase up to 3 Guardians, Pilgrims are a prime example of a squad that can benefit as they typically like to skulk far away from the massed battle and typically end up isolated and therefore juicy torpedo targets. The option to attach them to even just select squads of Smalls I feel has potential over SRS because of the current inherit range limitation of SRS. I do realise many people are questioning the merit of this idea based on the cost of buying Escorts and how much that inflates the cost of a Small squad, and that is a perfectly valid point, which leads on to idea 3.

 

3: Allow Escorts to dynamically reform with other valid squads/ships (not exceeding original allowances) whether their parent squad/ship was destroyed or not. Just set conditions similar to the Regroup TAC in terms of proximity (without the BL hit or actually requiring the TAC, the Admiral requirement could stay). Escorts don't have a BL associated with them so that wont be an issue in terms of tracking, but it gives the Escorts flexibility and initiative to react to the changing board conditions, again giving them another tool to increase the value vs SRS.

 

4: Simple, decrease cost of most Escorts, sounds like a bit of a cop out and I don't consider it the best, but it is an option.

 

5: Allow Escorts to provide supporting PD to any ship within CMD, even other squads. They have to follow their parent ship/squad but otherwise can support others. This has flaws based purely on the notion that it is simply another variant of "PD mountain".

 

Ideas 1, 2 and 3 are my favorites and have the greatest merit in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Endrasalem  It's a moot point really, since T1 models with Escorts use combine fire instead of link fire rules.  Also the entire premise was that you are lowering the total amount of dice being rolled when using link fire for the sole purpose of trying to get more drive off results in a single toss of the dice.

4 Capital ships with 3 PD each aren't highly likely to drive off a 6 wing SRS token rolling 12 dice in separate sets.  They also aren't very likely to get the minimum of 6 hits or kills necessary on 7 dice with linked fire either, and lose 5 dice of potential and probably a wing kill on the SRS.  3 Captial ships with 4 PD is somewhat better a trade, but still runs long odds when you consider the dice are not exploding.

@Meatshield  Well, as was just pointed out, Escorts are only good for the squadron they come with, which is that singular T1 model you bought them for.  Also command distances being what they are, 8 inches of Bigger Batteries is pretty much only useful for firing at SRS or potentially non-capital ships if the model somehow also had Point Defense Barrage.

Also since SRS need to make base contact to threaten a model, it'll definitely be tight, but you should be able to draw an intercepting line to an SRS token past the T1's base and still have around 1-2 inches of space between the parent model and accompaniment.

 

Given the typically poor PD of T3 models, they could easily justify adding an Escort model to their squadron.  If nothing else it adds an extra warm body to take a hit, and countering torpedoes is typically a T3 weakness.  Capital ships, mainly T1, can buy an inherent bonus to their PD and for cheap; whereas the T3 squadrons usually lack such options.  Although, if you have several T3 squadrons the price of Escorts will add up rather quickly and significantly.

Changes affecting Escorts such as lowering model costs, altering the Regroup Tactical Ability Card, and allowing them to behave basically like SRS are for PD rolls are all relatively reasonable things you could try.  If only by virtue of how little value escorts add to a fleet right now, which is more of a separate and specific to the ship class issue than an effect SRS have caused.

I find it funny that one of the problems with Escorts is the vulnerability of the Escorts themselves.  You'd need to bring at least two Escorts just to ensure serious torpedo protection for each other.  The T1 can't use combine fire rules to protect its' own Escorts and they're already the weakest link in the squadron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

I think interceptors should be cut from the game or they can only be deployed by fixed installations or bases.

Interceptors are huge compared to fighters very fast but capable of carrying lots of ordinance to shoot down bombers which is their only purpose. 

Bombers in FSA should be redesinated attack srs their role is to attack enemy ships or bases, fighters are multirole srs their role is to protect the fleet from enemy srs and escort the attack srs to their target but also capable of attacking enemy ships or bases.

If you have to have bombers in the game they can only be deployed by fixed installations or bases as they are even bigger than interceptors, of course fixed installations can also deploy carrier fighter and attack srs if you so desire.

That's how I would like to see srs in the game keep the rules pretty much as is would have to work out the attack value of carrier attack and larger bomber srs in some way.

The reason I've said interceptors and bombers are only deployed by fixed installations or bases is in theory most battles are fought in a planetary system with the defender having numerous installations and bases or if the system is contested both sides can have installations and bases in the system.

Anyway these are just my thoughts on srs they may or may not be good ideas lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2016 at 8:52 AM, Misterbucket said:

Going from one extreme to the other doesn't really fix things. Now you're going to promote squadrons that can carry 2-3 flights by themselves as the only thing of value and if you don't do that you're going to be smashed by torp heavy stuff. Torp balance comes a lot in the form of easier to stop than a direct shot, but at an extreme range that is unhindered by terrain. Making them virtually worthless, as you have, aside from to select units, what stops people from just polar opposite listing and running nothing but sitting in the back torp heavy stuff in every game. What would you rather play, a game where you ball up in the middle and creep up on each other to eventually get into a brawl, or sit back on your table edge behind as much **** as you can and launch torps all game. You plan to direct weapon down 3 units of Terquai torp cruisers that completely demolish you, or Works raptor, or Terran or any other? 

I'm sure I play different than most people, since local meta is pretty big in a game so spread out in play. That said, I've run omnidyne(extremely torp reliant) for quite a while before the new ships that give a much better direct weapon alternative. I've run it against fleets that had a lot of interceptors or simply high point defense squadrons. I can make it work because I try to make the best fleet I can. Not simply nerf into the ground something that stops what I want to do. You have every right to play your group any way you want, but I think your fix is just going to point the power gamers to the other side of the spectrum, not fix anything. 

All this aside, interceptors ARE too powerful, I don't disagree for a second. As you have chosen to fix it, you could simply take 6 bombers and sit all the ships next to them. The huge difference between an interceptor PDing down torps and a bomber doing a bombing run is that the bomber can PD down torps too, as can a fighter, and not return to the base. The interceptor returns after intercepting other SRS coming in. So you made interceptors useless, Just run 6 bombers and sit in that bubble and if the time comes You can still bomb with them, plus you gain the same PD of 6. Sure it cost 15 more points, but you stopped the absolutely inevitable torp spam you are going to promote. 

 

Here's a real quick idea of a 1200 for your rules.

Apollo 245 admiral

+2 pd

+1 shield

sector shielding

3 escorts

Battlecruisers(2) 280

nuke torps

Torp Cruisers(3) 225

+1 shield projector

Nuke torps

torp spook

Armsman frigate (4) 120

Armsman frigate (4) 120

Terquai Torp Cruisers (3) 210

Corrosive

 

My plan at first glance? sit on the table edge as far back as I can, behind any terrain I can sit behind(or in depending on the ship). Possibly spread if enemy has nuke torps too, or bunched as tight as possible to get more cover from terrain. Fire torps for 2 turns focusing on whatever I decide is a threat first. You're at BEST going to match my range. After that a plan tends to go to hell anyway. Maybe other fleets will do what I'm trying to do better, but this is a fleet I own. This fleet could actually function even vs current overpowered interceptors.

 

TLDR? Entire point is, making interceptors virtually useless changes the problem, not solves the problem. You will simply change what fleets are extremely powerful. 

 

This is what i was talking about in the main thread that just nerfing interceptors would cause problems on the opposite spectrum with things like torps where you turn PD Mountain into Torp Spam mountain im glad someone thought along the same lines back in the day. SRS ideally needs to be redone from ground up if need be it wouldnt be unresonable if interceptors were like 10 points each and if they do nerf interceptors there needs to be a pd rebalance not everyone has phat shields to soak up enemy torps like terrans etc like making escorts more attractive would be a plus or making it so torps dont ignore terrain and the attack dice degrade with damage so then you wouldnt need interceptors with such high pd values so you could make do with 1 pd each i mean PD degrades with damage why dont torps .

Also from what was already mentioned assuming we do nerf interceptors or remove them  i like the idea of giving SRS Mar upgrades if they started at pd 1 but you could buy ace pilot mar to give them +1 pd for example or have tac cards that you can use in game that let you double the effectiveness of ships/token pd. Having them return to base is also feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents:

SRS should perform Linked Fire instead of Combined Fire when joining with Models. A 6-wing token of Interceptors grants +6PD instead of +12PD. Fighters, Bombers and Assault Shuttles don't join with models when attacking, so no change to their AD/AP levels. Peace is restored to the forums for approximately 17 seconds. ;)

 

Also, most Escorts with no offensive weapons should probably gain the PD Barrage MAR to give them a reason to be taken. Defensive is one thing, toothless is another.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna jump back in here for fun. I'm not rereading the thread, because that would be effort(also I'm not following the 3rd edition thread because it's nothing short of infuriating). I've come to the conclusion that, along the lines of what Pawprint just said, escorts need to become the "bubble" not interceptors. I don't remember if this was mentioned before, or if I may have said it myself. If it was said and not by me, you probably gave me the idea, credit goes to you. It's much easier to balance PD from escorts ranging from 1-4 than interceptors or SRS in general. The Intercept range for interceptors is obviously a bubble to do so, but the PD bubble should be escorts. Making it a REAL decision to choose, do I want offensive escorts, or defensive escorts. That could also be a classification. If I want an offensive escort, it does not HAVE the bubble, it only has it's own squadron's defense. With the ability to take so many types of escorts on so many ships, the only ones that really get hosed here are marauders. Points would undoubtedly need reworked, as well as the PD given(probably lowered in most cases). I think interceptors should just disappear entirely and fighters gain the intercept ability as well as a bombing run with the same 2 ad. That's just my thoughts on it at this time. Again, if you stated this earlier in the thread, you were probably why I think as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the most important factors when looking at SRS PD assistance are these:

  1. Both Boarding and Torpedoes are balanced in FSA without any SRS on the field. Ships with good AP or strong torpedoes achieve expected results in an SRS-less environment without dominating the game
  2. You get more PD that is more defensible in point spent on SRS that do you from Escorts, Hardpoints, or Upgrades for the same points
  3. You can get more PD from SRS than you can from any other source in the game
  4. Only PD from SRS allow one squadron to defense another squadron with their PD
  5. SRS are not universally available, with some fleets having them only available on Carriers while others can have them widely available. This creates an imbalance in the forces

If you address all these factors when revising the rules for SRS, especially Interceptors, then you will have suceeded. Otherwise, the problem will continue if just in a different form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2017 at 11:26 PM, alextroy said:

I think the most important factors when looking at SRS PD assistance are these:

  1. Both Boarding and Torpedoes are balanced in FSA without any SRS on the field. Ships with good AP or strong torpedoes achieve expected results in an SRS-less environment without dominating the game
  2. You get more PD that is more defensible in point spent on SRS that do you from Escorts, Hardpoints, or Upgrades for the same points
  3. You can get more PD from SRS than you can from any other source in the game
  4. Only PD from SRS allow one squadron to defense another squadron with their PD
  5. SRS are not universally available, with some fleets having them only available on Carriers while others can have them widely available. This creates an imbalance in the forces

If you address all these factors when revising the rules for SRS, especially Interceptors, then you will have suceeded. Otherwise, the problem will continue if just in a different form.

This is a very good definition of the problem. I think number 5 is especially important. Ease of access to SRS should not be a major factor in determining the relative strength of a faction.

I know task force is generally unpopular, but I do think the idea of making SRS work more like a Weapon System on a ship rather than a weird list of exceptions to the main rules has a lot of merit. If this is really a game about the big ships and not the SRS, then treating them like just another kind of weapon system makes sense. Some ships land their damage with torps or railguns, others with bombers. Maybe they have different coherency effects, but they don't necessarily have to function so differently in the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2017 at 8:26 PM, alextroy said:

I think the most important factors when looking at SRS PD assistance are these:

  1. Both Boarding and Torpedoes are balanced in FSA without any SRS on the field. Ships with good AP or strong torpedoes achieve expected results in an SRS-less environment without dominating the game
  2. You get more PD that is more defensible in point spent on SRS that do you from Escorts, Hardpoints, or Upgrades for the same points
  3. You can get more PD from SRS than you can from any other source in the game
  4. Only PD from SRS allow one squadron to defense another squadron with their PD
  5. SRS are not universally available, with some fleets having them only available on Carriers while others can have them widely available. This creates an imbalance in the forces

If you address all these factors when revising the rules for SRS, especially Interceptors, then you will have suceeded. Otherwise, the problem will continue if just in a different form.

I completely agree with your points. 

There is one rule change that completely balances SRS that could be made.  After an SRS engages a target using AD or PD the SRS must return to base.  This means that interceptors might be able to completely block a torpedo attack but the player must make a choice as to when or which shot to block.  This leaves interceptors able to fulfill a role while at the same time limiting them to a more equal choice with the fighters, bombers, assault shuttles, or repair shuttles.

We used to play this way and still do but have since moved SRS into their own phase as well as a few other adjustments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, etherflyer said:

I completely agree with your points. There is one rule change that completely balances SRS that could be made.  After an SRS engages a target using AD or PD the SRS must return to base.  This means that interceptors might be able to completely block a torpedo attack but the player must make a choice as to when or which shot to block.  This leaves interceptors able to fulfill a role while at the same time limiting them to a more equal choice with the fighters, bombers, assault shuttles, or repair shuttles.

 

We already use this in our own house rules mentioned earlier in the thread.

They have evolved though play to this.

All SRS types with a PD rating Link (with the minimum of 1 per SRS in the token) to provide PD cover to any friendly unit in the token's defensive range (6" for Interceptors, 4" for others) against Torpedo Fire and Boarding Assaults.  Thus any 6-Wing Fighter, Bomber, Assaulter, or Interceptor token can provide the same 6 PD dice to a friendly ship's Defensive Fire. Interceptors however can declare an Intercept Action. Under these rules an Intercept Action can do one of two things, perform an Intercept Move and engage in a Dogfight against an incoming enemy SRS (standard per the rules pg 89-90) OR an Interceptor Token may use it's Intercept Action to Combine it's full PD with a friendly ship in it's defensive range that is the target of Torpedo Attack or Boarding Assault (So a 6-wing Interceptor token can provide it's full 12 PD to the defense of a ship). As per the book rules an Interceptor can only perform one Intercept Action per turn, however in this house rule an Intercept Action counts as an Interceptor's "Attack Run" and thus it MUST Return to Base after doing so just the same as Fighters, Bomber, and Assaulters after they make their Attack Runs.

This puts Interceptors on a more equal footing in comparison to other SRS types. Now with all wing types have the same tactical choice, whether to keep them out on roving PD coverage duty, or utilize their fullest ability in an "attack run" and in exchange lose that coverage.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.