Here is my take on this.
Yes weapons have to be manned in order to fire. They require a gunnery check so they need a gunner present.
You can fire as many point weapons as you have gunners.
The unique thing about a point weapon is it can be potentially fire both offensively and defensively in the same combat round.
Once by the gunner to attempt to damage and enemy ship. The gunner must be at the weapon station.
One to stop incoming tracking weapons.
Now I am ok with saying that since a point defense weapon has its own attack value a gunner does not have to be physically at the weapon mount to fire it defensively. He does have to be available to active the defensive system though. This defensive activation could be done from any gunnery station including by the pilot if he also fires the forward mounted weapons.
Hope that helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only thing I would add, is that it appears that one gunner can fire many different point weapons a turn if such a situation comes up.
Maybe I would rule differently in the moment, but I think that's rules legal.
I think the only thing I would add, is that it appears that one gunner can fire many different point weapons a turn if such a situation comes up.
Maybe I would rule differently in the moment, but I think that's rules legal.
This is my interpretation as well.
I've always assumed that the guns on these starships aren't physically manned and operated like is shown on the Millennium Falcon, but rather a lot more like the weapons on ships from Star Trek. Which is to say, you have a digital interface with some computer control action in their helping you out. I think there's probably a "weapons area" where one person could potentially fire any weapon without trouble, or multiple people could work simultaneously to fire multiple weapons.
|
Based on the RAW I would say: They don't have to be manned to be fired as point defense. Why?
"the gunner of the targeted starship"
If the weapon have to be manned to be fired in PD, it would be written like "the gunner who controls this PD weapon"
P.S. Just realized that the gunner don't have to declare which weapon he is "manning", he can fire one of the weapons of the starship in his round, no matter which one.
I don't think that's true, I think you just need to have a gunner available to make the shots. They don't fire on their own, but as long as someone is there they can use them. I think an individual gunner could fire multiple PD weapons even.
Yeah, I think there just has to be a single gunner in the role that round to be able to fire all applicable point defense weapons. Presumably he's turning the "arm" key on them or something.
I'm going to offer a different view on your original question.
The number of point weapons you need is zero.
Point weapons are an inefficient use of build points. Buy shields instead and eat the missiles. Unless you're dealing with a missile heavy enemy, you're better off just buying shields.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to offer a different view on your original question.
The number of point weapons you need is zero.
Point weapons are an inefficient use of build points. Buy shields instead and eat the missiles. Unless you're dealing with a missile heavy enemy, you're better off just buying shields.
Regardless of whether that's true or not, it doesn't answer the question of "How should point weapons work?"
|
|
Wouldn't agree to this, especially with the bigger missiles a PD weapon is really usefull.
Sure you can soak the damage with your shield, but denying damage before it hit's the shield isn't bad at all.
A Flak thrower cost 5 BP this is equal to ~20 shield points. These shieldpoints absorb one Light HE Missile, the Flak has a ~50% chance to deny every missile fired at you (even higher if the damage of the missile get bigger, because they become slower).
My party found that what was effective for us was using one really damaging weapon mounted on a turret and an array of smaller weapons for options, including PD weapons. I think we included one PD weapon in our front arc since we built around going fast and having a pilot who won initiative.
So it became very easy to say that we could control which arc the missile would potentially hit, and this was mostly true. There were only a couple turns where our pilot didn't win init and wasn't able to control relative placing.
|
|
…
Also keep in mind that you can also add your ships computer bonus to this roll.
The problem with shields is once they are gone, they are gone (sure you can reload them but the amount is really small). It all depends on how missile-heavy your enemy is.For my games every ship has at least one missile launcher (since they do really nice damage for their BP/PCU) and navigation/evading missiles also adds more to the game.
Maybe I should also mention that we changed the missiles, so that they can be fired vs. any ship in sensor range, regardless of the arc. They just have to move half-speed in straight line in their arc and then they turn toward the target.
I'm sure there's some kind of math that can describe where a point weapon is better than shields. I'm also sure I can't do that math.
I did it. That's part of why I made the suggestion. :) It was a while ago and I don't have the math handy, but the basics go like this:
1. Shield cost is fairly linear or better. And shields work against everything.
2. Raising TL as a countermeasure gets very expensive. And it only works on tracking weapons. (Unrelated: AC is also horribly expensive.)
3. Point defense likewise gets expensive. Weapon mounts, turret mounts, etc. And as weapons they're not much help.
4. The general probability of shooting down a tracking weapon was not that great.
When you look at a comparison of estimated value per build point, shields end up being a clear winner. Of course, there's subjectivity in that evaluation.
Now some caveats: everyone's experience will be different. If you're in a homebrew campaign fighting the Great Empire of Missile Launchers, then you might have a different experience. :) Mine was based on Dead Suns and the fights in that run. There were some tracking weapons, but not a lot and certainly not towards the higher end. A solid ship and crew means that the fight won't last ages, and we usually started with the book rules on "roll to see how far apart you are to start". Which means we didn't start at long ranges often. (Tracking weapons have some advantages at longer ranges where you can pre-load the battlefield as the range closes.)
In a medium weight ship, I found it to be a poor use of BP that could go other places. If I'd had a larger ship to play with, I might have thrown in some.
Overall I think there are some imbalances in the construction costs that should be tweaked - the rules as written have some very clear efficiencies that lead you to a certain path. Maybe that's by design, or maybe not. But I think AC and TL cost too much, and many people have noticed that turrets really seem to undercut the notion of tactical movement and piloting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I will say, I'd rather have a better ability to eat damage than a 40% chance to shoot down a missile. Its worse if the PD has to be manned, now I'm losing out on the damage from a gunner to have a bad chance at not being hit by a tracking weapon.
You don't lose out on the gunner taking an offensive shot. A point defense weapon gets to make one free gunnery check per round to eliminate an incoming tracking weapon attack.
A weapon with this special property is always short range and can’t be fired against targets that are outside the first range increment. If a tracking weapon would hit a ship in an arc that contains a weapon with the point special property, the gunner of the targeted starship can attempt an immediate gunnery check with the point weapon against the incoming tracking projectile using the bonus listed in parentheses in the weapon’s Special entry (instead of her usual bonus to gunnery checks). The DC for this gunnery check is equal to 10 + the tracking weapon’s speed. If the attack hits, the tracking weapon is destroyed before it can damage the ship. A point weapon can be used to attempt only one such free gunnery check each round, but this usage potentially allows a point weapon to be fired twice in a single round.
How I rule it is to use the PD weapon offensively it must be manned like any other weapon. To use it defensively any gunner on the ship can activate it provided he has not activated another PD weapon in the current round.
My players have recently discovered how a PD weapon can foil tracking weapons. They hit the enemy ship 5 times with a light plasma torpedo.
The enemy ship had a laser net in a turret. I rolled 5 straight 14+ and blocked all the attacks. The player's ship had 4 critical hits on it before the destroyed the enemy ship.
Upon repair and refit they added a laser net in a turret.
We shall see if it works as well for them.
For its relatively low cost and free use I think it is a pretty good item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't lose out on the gunner taking an offensive shot. A point defense weapon gets to make one free gunnery check per round to eliminate an incoming tracking weapon attack.How I rule it is to use the PD weapon offensively it must be manned like any other weapon. To use it defensively any gunner on the ship can activate it provided he has not activated another PD weapon in the current round.
Right, and because you run it that way, PD is maybe not a bad choice, pending individual opinions.
However, if a gunner has to choose to be manning a PD weapon, the best that you get is a very close range shot with laughable damage vs a ship in order to get that free attack on a tracking weapon. This feels like a much worse option than just 'more shields at first, end the fight faster.'
This isn't a case of Hawk Kriegsman running the game in a peculiar way. Having to choose one weapon that you're manning is not a part of how starship combat works.
If you couldn't be in position to man multiple guns, how would you perform Fire At Will, or Broadside?
EDIT: Turrets are also more than dominant enough as a shipbuilding strategy without gunners having to select their weapon when they assume their role, which happend before the helm phase.
I guess it how you envision where the gunner has to be.
Do you envision it like the Enterprise where all weapon systems are controlled from a central station?
Or like a B-17 bomber where you physically have to be in the upper turret, ball turret, tail guns, etc. to physically pull the trigger?
I see it as the Enterprise option where the gunner / gunners work at a station. This makes actions such as Fire At Will, Broadside and the free PD weapon fire make more sense to me verses a gunner running around the ship and pulling the trigger of every weapon.
The enemy ship had a laser net in a turret. I rolled 5 straight 14+ and blocked all the attacks. The player's ship had 4 critical hits on it before the destroyed the enemy ship.Please realize that five rolls of 14+ is about a 1/200 chance. Meanwhile failing all five rolls is slightly better than 1/10 (specifically 11.6%). Your most common result in that is going to be one or two missiles blocked (approx 30% channce of either).
My experience has been that no matter how many point defense weapons there are they block about 1.5 missiles per enemy ship because you only get one shot at any incoming missile and nothing can enhance the automated point defense attack bonus.
Yes my players made it all too aware to me. Especially my wife who has a PHD in statistics. I had to sleep on the couch that night.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no need to get into internal logic, its not going to fetch you an answer you like or that makes much sense.
Agreed. Ship combat is so abstracted that is very difficult to explain what is going on in any detail or with any sense.
But my players ask questions so I have to provide answers as best I can.
Like this gem from my players.
"Why does the enemy ship get an armor bonus while it has shields up? The weapons are hitting the shields not the armor. The enemy ship should not get an armor bonus until it is attacked in a facing that has no shields."
Make sense to me and I had no good answer for then other than that how the rules are written.
I then gave them each a copy of the Traveler D20 ship combat rules.
I get far less questions now. LOL!
No? You just say "I'm the gunner for the all guns" and can choose which gun you fire?
Not a single person at my table reads the rules in that manner. Is that how everyone else is running starship combat?
*edit*
Might sound snarky? Not intentional. I'm legit asking, is this how people have been running starship combat? Because it sounds much better this way than the way my table does it.
Yep, that's how my group ran it.
Because the ship’s computer calculates if shots/asteroids will do damage, and only activates/boosts shields in that arc if the hit would penetrate the armour and cause damage. Otherwise it saves shield energy and lets them bounce off.This interpretation allows things such as the Tracker weapon (Nearspace book) to make sense (as it attaches a device to the hull despite shields) and also allows space-flying critters to access the ship without an argument on shields being up out of combat (the CRB mentions navigational shields as a thing, and even the critter who can phase through matter is blocked by forcefields, yet boards ships in the drift)
It even makes that famous Star Wars move make sense - docking on the back of the star destroyer bridge to hide, despite shields being up)
This is as good as an explanation as I have seen. Thanks!
. . . where exactly in the rules would one even get the idea that a Gunner has to choose a specific weapon to man? One of the most basic actions they can do is "Pick two weapons, fire them both".
Maybe they assume the penalty is from having to run between the weapons, lol
I guess it how you envision where the gunner has to be.
Do you envision it like the Enterprise where all weapon systems are controlled from a central station?
Or like a B-17 bomber where you physically have to be in the upper turret, ball turret, tail guns, etc. to physically pull the trigger?
I see it as the Enterprise option where the gunner / gunners work at a station. This makes actions such as Fire At Will, Broadside and the free PD weapon fire make more sense to me verses a gunner running around the ship and pulling the trigger of every weapon.
A lot of the ship floor plans from various adventure path make it look like gunnery is handled more like star trek than starwars. With stations that you can use to run whatever weapon you are monitoring not physically jumping into the turret.