|
Ok I have a question about missiles and ammo.
Can someone point this to me if it is already clarified but I have heard two different versions of this and I want to check with the forums and see if can be clarified if it hasn't been already!
When you fire a missile in starship combat. If you miss TL, do you still fire the rocket and it comes off your ammo, it just wildly goes into nowhere, OR does it just never fire because you never make the Target Lock?
Thanks!
I have seen people suggest that the missle should never be fired, because it doesn't fit their preferred image of how this battle would play out.
What I haven't seen is anything in the rules of either tracking wespons, or limited fire weapons that indicate a missle isn't fired when you make an attack roll. Without special rules to create an exception, you fire and fail, as with other weapons. So the missle is lost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 320: "If the result of a gunnery check for a tracking weapon is ever less than the target’s TL, the weapon’s projectile is destroyed and removed from play."
While this sentence is at the end of the tracking weapons section, it's still pretty clear.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 320: "If the attack is made with a tracking weapon such as a missile launcher (see page 303) and the result of the gunnery check equals or exceeds the target’s TL, the tracking weapon’s projectile moves its speed toward the target, making turns during this movement as needed (a projectile from a tracking weapon has perfect maneuverability)."
So if the initial roll is not high enough, the projectile doesn't move towards the target and stays in the tube. Pretty clear no?
|
|
Page 320: "If the result of a gunnery check for a tracking weapon is ever less than the target’s TL, the weapon’s projectile is destroyed and removed from play."
While this sentence is at the end of the tracking weapons section, it's still pretty clear.
I believe this is for when the missile is already fired no? That's how I read it anyway :/
It doesn't say "once the missile is fired". It's a stand alone, absolute sentence.
Whether that's what they intended... that's a different question
Page 320: "If the attack is made with a tracking weapon such as a missile launcher (see page 303) and the result of the gunnery check equals or exceeds the target’s TL, the tracking weapon’s projectile moves its speed toward the target, making turns during this movement as needed (a projectile from a tracking weapon has perfect maneuverability)."
So if the initial roll is not high enough, the projectile doesn't move towards the target and stays in the tube. Pretty clear no?
Very much not clear. The thing making turns towards the target pretty heavily implies its not in the tube anymore, but out in space.
Page 320: "If the result of a gunnery check for a tracking weapon is ever less than the target’s TL, the weapon’s projectile is destroyed and removed from play."
While this sentence is at the end of the tracking weapons section, it's still pretty clear.
Page 320: "If the attack is made with a tracking weapon such as a missile launcher (see page 303) and the result of the gunnery check equals or exceeds the target’s TL, the tracking weapon’s projectile moves its speed toward the target, making turns during this movement as needed (a projectile from a tracking weapon has perfect maneuverability)."So if the initial roll is not high enough, the projectile doesn't move towards the target and stays in the tube. Pretty clear no?
So, is it then a dud, or does it explode in the tube?
Realism suggests you don't fire a missile (as opposed to a rocket) without an active tracking solution. Patriot batteries don't fire a missile and then hope they establish a target link while it's in the air.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that some form of inference into the reality of how the weapon works is throwing this in to some kind of confusion.
That shouldn't be the case.
The rules clearly state that "If the result of a gunnery check for a tracking weapon is ever less than the target’s TL, the weapon’s projectile is destroyed and removed from play."
This includes the initial gunnery check.
We are supposing that you wouldn't fire a tracking weapon until you have target lock, however, that's just an assumption.
You could fire the weapon, and attempt to "guide" it to the target.
Either way, don't let the "realism" of how you imagine these gunnery systems working deter you from accepting the rules as written.
The missile or torpedo is lost should you fail your gunnery check.
It's not even an issue for us since we put the conserving fusion on our ship's tracking weapons. :P
It's not even an issue for us since we put the conserving fusion on our ship's tracking weapons. :P
Haha. Perfect.
Aside from not actually being rules-legal. :pIt's not even an issue for us since we put the conserving fusion on our ship's tracking weapons. :PHaha. Perfect.
Yeah, I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek.
Could it work though? Fusions don't seem to limit what kinds of weapons they can be placed on. Vehicle and starship weapons are undoubtedly considered weapons (it's literally in their name), and they even have weapon levels so we know what could and could not be placed and how much it would cost. Some fusions would be useless in starship combat, but others could add quite a bit of flare.
Furthermore, there are undoubtedly magical vehicle/starship weapons in the setting.
Vehicle and starship weapons are undoubtedly considered weapons (it's literally in their name), and they even have weapon levels so we know what could and could not be placed and how much it would cost.
Starship weapons do not have levels. Vehicle weapons are functionally the same as individual weapons, however.
Oh. So they don't. I'm so used to everything having levels in Starfinder, I'm surprised by the things that don't.
Oh. So they don't. I'm so used to everything having levels in Starfinder, I'm surprised by the things that don't.
It's worth noting that power cores, shields, weapons and such also have no item level.
It's what makes the most effective ship to be: the two most powerful guns you can fit in a turret twin linked and then the best shields you can afford.
I kind of wish starship items had item levels so this is mitigated and starship combat as written could be difficult.
But... starship combat is simplified and meant to be a quick change of pace once in a while, leaving it unbalanced is fine.
Though I would like to see two of that style of ship facing off. Would it be entertaining or boring?
Boring. Weapon facing is what gives rise to manuevering, two deathspheres shooting at each other may as well be holding still
Boring. Weapon facing is what gives rise to manuevering, two deathspheres shooting at each other may as well be holding still
Agreed. You need multiple enemies and/or interesting space terrain to really make starship combat shine.
Boring. Weapon facing is what gives rise to manuevering, two deathspheres shooting at each other may as well be holding stillAgreed. You need multiple enemies and/or interesting space terrain to really make starship combat shine.
Any recommendations on preventing the death sphere other than designing the PC's ship myself?
I'm kind of thinking just adding tiers to the items available, but I like to stick to the rules more often than not.
Boring. Weapon facing is what gives rise to manuevering, two deathspheres shooting at each other may as well be holding stillAgreed. You need multiple enemies and/or interesting space terrain to really make starship combat shine.Any recommendations on preventing the death sphere other than designing the PC's ship myself?
I'm kind of thinking just adding tiers to the items available, but I like to stick to the rules more often than not.
In our next campaign we're looking to limit the number of "changes" one can make each level to three/four/five (we haven't decided yet).
It kind of bugs us that each tier you can effectively rebuild a ship from scratch. We like the idea of a gradually evolving ship as the PCs tinker/buy enhancements through the course of a campaign. Our hope is that this will introduce a "Hmm, we have to upgrade the core and the shields. We can't decomission the port weapon and upgrade the turret - which do we want this level?" dynamic.
Our hoped for result is that the ship will gradually morph rather than "jumping around" as new mount options/weapon configurations become available, which is what happens to us at the moment. Another expected side-effect is that our ships will be significantly less effective than those built on the design philosophy of: "Minimum spec-everything except for the biggest turret we can afford and shields sweeping up any residue BPs" - our current tier 14 medium ship outclasses any of the higher tier ships in the CRB, from a pure combat perspective.
Realism suggests you don't fire a missile (as opposed to a rocket) without an active tracking solution. Patriot batteries don't fire a missile and then hope they establish a target link while it's in the air.
Arguing 'realism' in order to get some mechanical advantage in the game seems ... off somehow. Hard to explain. But I don't like it when I see that. It feels like you are less interested in the realism or even the role playing and fantasy. It feels like you are just interested in the advantage and just using realism to justify it. I don't know you well enough to actually know if that is your intent or not. But that is what that type of logic feels like to me.
Sure a character isn't going to fire a missile unless they have the weapon trained in and locked on. But we already know that missiles can lose their tracking and self destruct in order to not accidentally do collateral damage (You wouldn't want the missile to try and re-engage tracking and detect your own ship instead, would you?).
So yeah. The gunner is only going to fire once the target is locked, but then the tracking weapon needs a gunnery check before moving its listed speed while tracking the designated target. The first time it does this is immediately after leaving the weapon. If that first gunnery check fails, the missile immediately loses tracking and is removed from the game.
The attack misses and the ammunition is used.
Exactly as the rules say it should.
And still without breaking 'realism'.
Boring. Weapon facing is what gives rise to manuevering, two deathspheres shooting at each other may as well be holding stillAgreed. You need multiple enemies and/or interesting space terrain to really make starship combat shine.Any recommendations on preventing the death sphere other than designing the PC's ship myself?
I'm kind of thinking just adding tiers to the items available, but I like to stick to the rules more often than not.
I did some of both. Part of the ship was my decision and the rest was what the players wanted to put on it.
I decided the ship's frame. I wanted to make sure that it was a ship that did not have a turret. I wanted to have (at least in the beginning of the game) a reason for maneuvering. Eventually I will probably let them upgrade the entire ship to a frame of their choosing.
I also added some initial systems and weapons in order to make it a usable ship and had it attack the players as a pirate ship. After some story and skill checks and such, the NPC ally ship captures the pirate ship and gifts it to the players as a story reward. They also get another story reward that gives them enough build points to upgrade and modify the ship to their liking once they are back in port.
So with that, they decked it out in rather hefty shields and a bunch of weapons. I don't expect them to suffer much difficulty in any of the starship combats I have planned, but it won't be a 'sit still and shoot' type of combat. They will have to maneuver around and dogfight a bit in order to bring their good weapons to bear.
|
|
It seems that some form of inference into the reality of how the weapon works is throwing this in to some kind of confusion.
That shouldn't be the case.
The rules clearly state that "If the result of a gunnery check for a tracking weapon is ever less than the target’s TL, the weapon’s projectile is destroyed and removed from play."
This includes the initial gunnery check.
We are supposing that you wouldn't fire a tracking weapon until you have target lock, however, that's just an assumption.
You could fire the weapon, and attempt to "guide" it to the target.
Either way, don't let the "realism" of how you imagine these gunnery systems working deter you from accepting the rules as written.
The missile or torpedo is lost should you fail your gunnery check.
So if the Missile is destroyed, as per how it is written...does it then explode in the tube? Does it block the tube? Does it just pop out the end and blow up?
You can't just try and fire it, miss and then have it get destroyed without anything happening right? That makes no sense to me...
If it explodes in the tube, the rules would say that. Likewise if it blocked the tube, that'd be something to note. Maybe it fires and never gets a lock and goes off into space (to return as a sentient space robot in 1000 years).
I have a hard time seeing how it doesn't make sense. You fire, you expend ammo. If you miss, you still expend ammo. It is "destroyed" in the sense that it can't be recovered and reused. That doesn't mean it has to blow up.
Boring. Weapon facing is what gives rise to manuevering, two deathspheres shooting at each other may as well be holding stillAgreed. You need multiple enemies and/or interesting space terrain to really make starship combat shine.Any recommendations on preventing the death sphere other than designing the PC's ship myself?
I'm kind of thinking just adding tiers to the items available, but I like to stick to the rules more often than not.
Tweaking the design rules so that the big guns have to be on the front of the ship
That's already the case, sort of. Capital ship weapons cannot go in turrets.
That's already the case, sort of. Capital ship weapons cannot go in turrets.
Usually. Supercolossal ships appear to be an exception to that rule.
Since they can't be mounted on ships small enough to be operated by the average party, without additional crew, they don't do much in most games to affect the ball-of-death penemenon.
I think one of the biggest reasons that BoD is so obviously the optimal shipbuilding strategy is that turrets are too cheap. There should probably be a cost multiplier on the weapons in the turret, instead of just the flat costs for the mounts. Then at least there'd be incentive to put main weapons into facing slots, because you'd be able to afford bigger guns.
Perhaps heavy weapons take two weapon mounts to place in turrets for ships of large/medium size or lower?
I'd think the easy access to powerful shielding is a bigger factor in BoD beating encounters easily than turret weapon price.
Side note, glancing over hiring professional freelancers for additional crew. I think you would be paying a few thousand credits a day to meet the minimum crew for a supercolossal, increasing to 10x that if you ever got into combat.
Back on topic, do you find the increased damage from limited fire weapons to be worth only having 5 shots?
That depends on what you're doing with them. I would not use a missle launcher as my main or only weapon, but a lot of them are cheap enough to be quite good for their price.
So, as secondary weapons, they aren't a bad buy. Especially if you're trying to put weapons around your arcs, instead of just putting everything in a turret, because when the port launcher is empty, you may still have 5 shots starboard.
In the handful of starship combats I've participated in or seen, tracking weapons are almost never worth it.
They require multiple checks to succeed (which means more chances for failure), can be shot down before reaching their target, still have to beat comparable defense values, have a limited number of shots, and deals fairly lackluster damage once you take your chances of hitting into account when calculating your DPR.
It amazes me that anyone ever takes them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intersting. My experience has been that the majority of space combat ends up taking place at short enough range that only a single attack roll is needed.
I also haven't seen point weapons, especially turreted ones, as a universal occurrence. Not on all published ships, obviously, but also on fewer player designs than I expected, since they're so handy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the combat's I've run, my PCs tended to charge in and basically get into a dogfight with the enemy ship. Range tended to matter when one side or the other tried to disengage. Of course if the enemies I've run tended to be slower and less maneuverable, so they couldn't keep their distance. Almost all the missile weapons strike at medium range the first shot.
|
|
In the handful of starship combats I've participated in or seen, tracking weapons are almost never worth it.
They require multiple checks to succeed (which means more chances for failure), can be shot down before reaching their target, still have to beat comparable defense values, have a limited number of shots, and deals fairly lackluster damage once you take your chances of hitting into account when calculating your DPR.
It amazes me that anyone ever takes them.
I actually had a really really interesting experience.
I won a Charity Boon - The Manticore. One of the weapons is a 10d10 Missile Launcher in Tier 6.
The Enemy had a flak cannon (from memory) or something that could shoot missiles down...we hit twice...20d10 is a shedload of damage!
Admittedly that is very specialised but still, it has the ability to do some serious damage.
I agree the limited number of shots is a problem and there is a boon for an instant reload, but I do find that most combats are in 10/12 hexes of each other, so one TL check.
Just my 2cents.
all of our games so far the party closed to a range where more than one TL was a non issue. With the flyby being such a useful maneuver and the new DCs making it a bit to easy to do in my estimation its become a popular choice making ranges fairly close most of the time.
In the handful of starship combats I've participated in or seen, tracking weapons are almost never worth it.
They require multiple checks to succeed (which means more chances for failure), can be shot down before reaching their target, still have to beat comparable defense values, have a limited number of shots, and deals fairly lackluster damage once you take your chances of hitting into account when calculating your DPR.
It amazes me that anyone ever takes them.
Does your DM have an absurdly large table? I usually push the party to take the drake and I think I've seen us out of range of an instant hit with that thing once or twice (in which case you just fire a different weapon this round and use that next round)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our group usually invests heavily in long range weapons, then we stay outside the optimal ranges for the enemy's short and medium ranged weapons. They can still hit us with them sometimes ('cause increments), but the range penalties that accumulate as a result of our tactics really work in our favor!