Jump to content
S..Mike

3rd Edition Cyberwarfare and Gravitational Weapons

Recommended Posts

The cyberwarfare and gravitational weapons are now separate modifiers (WAR's) that can be attached to a weapon system.  For reference, these WARs are:

Cyberwarfare – Coherence Effect:  All Cyberwarfare Weapons are considered to be Indirect Weapons. They ignore all Shield and Cloaking defenses but often do not cause Hull Damage or Critical Hits directly, and instead use the Debilitating Effects Table 

Gravitational Weapons – Coherence Effect:  All Gravitational Weapons are considered to be Direct Weapons. They ignore all Shield and Cloaking defenses but often do not cause Hull Damage or Critical Hits directly, and instead use the Debilitating Effects Table

Both Cyberwarfare and Gravitational weapons ignore the effects of the Elusive Target and Difficult Target MARs.

And here is the relevant table.  Nevermind the green highlighting, it doesn't have any special meaning here.

debilitating effects.jpg

Edited by Spartan_FA_Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bessemer said:

So crits will always cause Debilitating Effects? Or only when War's/Mar's apply?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Take the Hawker Excelsior.  It has a Secondary Cyberwarfare weapon.  The AD for this is 12(6) - 12(6) - 0(0) - 0(0).  So, you catch a Dindrenzi Praetorian with DR-6 and CR-14 at short range.   If you roll 6-13 successes, you get the Damage Level (which we ought to rename, since it does 0 HP damage).  You get a roll on the sub-systems critical.  Do 14-19 successes, you get two rolls and -1 HP.  Do 20-27 successes, three and -2 HP, and if you somehow get 28+ successes, well ****.  

The Damaging Critical level is the DR+CR.  Multiple criticals are of course CR+CR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polaris said:

I'm I correct in reading that cyber can do hull damage now :blink:

if so...:D

Yes.  Repair orders get scrambled, coolant systems get taken offline, power surges burn out switch panels...maybe Adama was right to not network the whole ship together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Presidente said:

Grav weapons were always the game breaking weapon ignoring shields and such:(

no shields was for sure not game breaking on the gravs,
even the push pull wasn't if you add a houserule: you can't be shifted of table before your first activation (assuming a flanking force in escalating engagment).

If after that houserule, you Keep your ships to Close to the edge or a planet, it is your own fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remember too, that grav weapons had less AD generally (the tarakian battleship got 8 I believe), effective on terrans who rely on shields, pretty lackluster when you fight the dindrenzi <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question: a non-capital critted by a grav/cyberwarfare attack will always suffer D3 damage? Even if it reached, say, 2X CR? Or is it D3 damage per CR successes (es. CR5, I get 15 successes, so I'll roll 3D3 damage)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So cyber is not that bad, rolls for great effects on critical chart, but is totally random, that's sad to hear. Will there be ships or special orders allowing you to re-roll this roll or modify it? 

 

Good cyber does some damage, but I hope you can scale it for small ships too. If it does 1 damage for reaching Dr and D3 for CR, why not simply let it work against non-capitals like a normal weapon without critical effects? Result would be pretty much the same without adding more different special rules to the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Venter said:

Quick question: a non-capital critted by a grav/cyberwarfare attack will always suffer D3 damage? Even if it reached, say, 2X CR? Or is it D3 damage per CR successes (es. CR5, I get 15 successes, so I'll roll 3D3 damage)?

No, anything past a Critical Level is just 1d3 damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can't take an extensive read into how these systems inter-lay over each other, mainly without model statistic samples to run testing sets, I've got opening questions.  I'm reading a, "coherence effect," here which could dramatically change the value of these weapons.  Provided, of course, the corollary follows that these weapons can be combined with *other* weapon systems.

This requires squadron ships like a Turmoil, off the top of my head, which potentially carry Cyberwarfare and Gravitational weapon systems that can be positioned to fire at the same target.  Again, model statistics could have changed, but this is an example squadron which could mix these weapon types.  I'm also wondering how the Tarakians make out in all this, the changes eat away a bit at their unique flavor as outsiders.  Not relevant per se, but I do like it when factions have rules that favor distinct, even better unique, on table behaviors.

Back on track, this seems to make Cyberwarfare weapons about 2/3rds as effective for frigate hunting than standard weapon systems; unless they are allowed to combine fire with another system.  Even worse for gravity weapons, who seem to be scrambling to provide the same knock out effect on non-capitals.  I'd have to make sure I've got all the relevant pieces working right for a sample set, but this certainly makes gravy weapons seem like a gambler's tool.

The power of gravitational weapons varies based on the faction fleet you're facing, and the utility really feels like a high stakes, high risk gambler's choice.  I've not yet seen how all the systems work together, but using the weapons as intended doesn't yet give me any warm fuzzies.

 

This also begs the question:  In the case of a Reactor Overload result, does this mean it does absolutely nothing since a coherent Cyberwarfare / Gravitational attack cannot damage any models?  With the exception of coherent Cyberwarfare attacks against non-capital class ships, as that system then does something entirely different.

 

Edit:  Forgot to expand a point, although it is still mostly an outlier for the moment.  Some Non-capital class ships do have 3 HP, which would make Cyberwarfare *roughly* 1/3rd as effective in those cases compared to standard weapons.  Unless of course, all DR/CR damage resolution against non-capitals now follows this rule.  Which would be an, interesting, cascade effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dr_Vector said:

While I can't take an extensive read into how these systems inter-lay over each other, mainly without model statistic samples to run testing sets, I've got opening questions.  I'm reading a, "coherence effect," here which could dramatically change the value of these weapons.  Provided, of course, the corollary follows that these weapons can be combined with *other* weapon systems.

Quote

As with other coherence effects, all of the weapons in an attack need to share the same WAR in order to gain the bonus.  So, no Kinetics linking up with Cyberwarfare, for example.  A weapon can have multiple WARs though...so you could have in theory both Gravitational and Nuclear Munitions on the same weapon.  It could make for interesting combos.  We probably ought to be carefule about Directorate scientists getting any new ideas...

This requires squadron ships like a Turmoil, off the top of my head, which potentially carry Cyberwarfare and Gravitational weapon systems that can be positioned to fire at the same target.  Again, model statistics could have changed, but this is an example squadron which could mix these weapon types.  I'm also wondering how the Tarakians make out in all this, the changes eat away a bit at their unique flavor as outsiders.  Not relevant per se, but I do like it when factions have rules that favor distinct, even better unique, on table behaviors.

Back on track, this seems to make Cyberwarfare weapons about 2/3rds as effective for frigate hunting than standard weapon systems; unless they are combining fire with said systems.  Even worse for gravity weapons, who seem to be scrambling to provide the same knock out effect on non-capitals.  I'd have to make sure I've got all the relevant pieces working right for a sample set, but this certainly makes gravy weapons seem like a gambler's tool.

The power of gravitational weapons varies based on the faction fleet you're facing, and the utility really feels like a high stakes high risk gambler's choice.  I've not yet seen how all the systems work together, but using the weapons as intended doesn't yet give me any warm fuzzies.

This also begs the question:  In the case of a Reactor Overload result, does this mean it does absolutely nothing since a coherent Cyberwarfare / Gravitational attack cannot damage any models?  With the exception of coherent Cyberwarfare attacks against non-capital class ships, as that system then does something entirely different.

Quote

The cyber/grav attacks roll on the sub-systems chart, so they don't get into the Reactor Overload results.

Edit:  Forgot to expand a point, although it is still mostly an outlier for the moment.  Some Non-capital class ships do have 3 HP, which would make Cyberwarfare *roughly* 1/3rd as effective in those cases compared to standard weapons.  Unless of course, all DR/CR damage resolution against non-capitals now follows this rule.  Which would be an, interesting, cascade effect.

My comments in blue above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so there is an entirely separate and distinct chart being rolled which isn't available yet.  Hmm, makes it very hard to understand the value of this chart's design without the other chart available to read.

 

I understand there can be more than one modifier to a weapon system, though now I realize there is a major point that got missed:  I was reading off the 3rd Edition Weapon System chart and there Gravitational weapons are listed as indirect weapons; but here they are direct fire weapons?

Which is the actual case, as the mixing of direct and indirect is not permitted the last time I was aware.

 

Personally, I'm not overly impressed by mixing other WARs with these.  Cyberwarfare and Gravitational already negate all damage aside from a small scaling of -1 HP per scale of critical hit(s) achieved.  Nuclear proliferation might produce a thematic result, although the naming would be, odd.  Are Gravitational weapons then direct weapons, as nuclear weapons must be direct?  If so the other chart should be updated to indicate Gravy weapons are direct, not indirect, weapons.

Unless, that makes them direct and indirect weapons, which I just don't even know anymore?  I'm assuming all signs point to must be direct fire.

 

Edit:  To be specific the referenced post's points were:

* Cyberwarfare': 'All Cyberwarfare Weapons are Indirect Weapons and are not subject to Defensive Fire responses. Cyberwarfare attacks ignore all Shield and Cloaking defenses, and use the Debilitating effects chart for damage.',

* Gravitational': 'All Gravitational Weapons are Indirect Weapons. Gravitational attacks ignore all Shield and Cloaking defences, and use the Debilitating effects chart for damage.',

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my bad.  Copy and Paste error on my part.

Cyberwarfare are Indirect weapons.  Gravitational are Direct weapons.

Here is a copy of the critical chart.  The Sub-systems are in green:

critical hit table.jpg

And, I'm not saying we have mixed Grav with other WARs...just that it could happen in the future.   That was part of the reasons the WARs came about, to make it easier to modify the weapon performance.

Sorry again for the direct/indirect confusion there.  

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, a sub set of the chart, didn't notice that.  Hmmm, not sure how I feel about that yet.  Feels more like a niche tool for targeting large capitals or duo squadron sizes.  Aside from long shot drive failures potentially causing severe tactical problems for larger squadron movement.  Odd to see gravity weapons folded into this chart, it rather begs the question as to why they even exist.

Granted I haven't seen how much model statistics may have changed, but, this feels like an all stop for my Tarakian build up.  Well, thank you for the clarity, I had completely missed the point of that part of the critical chart.

Share this post


Link to post
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.