It is currently Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:11 am


Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostMon Feb 26, 2018 11:25 pm

Some pretty interesting changes! A few of them I really like, a few of them I'm okay with, and a few of them I have significant contention with:

General Changes
The change to debris is very nice, no problems there.

I personally wouldn't give Torpedoes' Particle, and instead just give them more damage; considering that even if they miss, they come back around for a second go, giving them particle means that Torpedoes will ALWAYS do damage, no matter what; it's just a matter of when they actually hit. I personally have a distaste for actions and mechanics that will result in guaranteed damage to the target, so I'll have to say it's a bad idea on a weapon that can never miss. Flash is a great idea, though.

No problems with this one either; I'd imagine Torpedoes are both maneuverable enough to dodge most debris, and armored enough to tank what they can't dodge.

Another decent change for the orbital layer coherency, I like it.

Bomber change is good.

Shaltari
Very nice change to Vectored, I'd actually be tempted to take a squadron of Azurites if it meant zipping around the table two feet at a time freely.

Much needed change to Gravity Coils; I still think they're more of a gimmick than a proper utility, but now the gimmick will at least happen reliably.

While the Jade sorely needs a buff, requiring it go Weapons Free to actually be useful just doesn't work. Besides running into the usual problems of F(N) weapons trying to hit stuff on weapons free, it's still not all that great of a ship. In my opinion, just leaving it at 2+ lock, 1 attack, 1 damage, but reducing the cost to 35 points alongside the Topaz and the Toulon is the best choice. It still does ever so slightly less damage than its peers, but it's very, very close, and maintains its role, giving out near-guaranteed finishing blows. It just needs to be cheaper to be efficient.

An interesting idea for the Granite, but it unintentionally actually nerfs it; it makes it so that even firing just one of its lances gives the Granite a spike. A better implementation would be the following:
Particle Lance: etc etc etc, alt-1
Particle Lance: etc etc etc, alt-2
Particle Lance P air: alt-1,2, bloom

UCM
I've never really been a fan of the Siphon Power rule, as I feel it de-emphasizes the point of the Pete (massive damage equaled only by superweapon-toting ships), but it's certainly more useful than the current implementation.
I'm still of the opinion that giving it a 3+ lock, 4 attack, 1 damage, 12 BTL beam with alt-1,2 (with the single beams having alt-1 and alt-2, respectively), with the restriction that it can only fire on weapons free, would be better.

Good to see someone agrees with me on those linked UF-4200's :lol:

While you're at it with the San Francisco, can we upgrade the New York's CAW to Swordfish as well?

Interesting change on the Santiago; I'll have to run some numbers later, but that seems like it'd make them properly effective in their role; I'll have to check how'd they stack up to Taipei's as well.

Scourge
Very, very nice change for Corruptor; it's very nice how, no matter how much hull is remaining on the enemy ship, there's always a chance for there to be enough fire results to cripple it on the following step.

The Scald change is also good; it maintains the Scourge's high damage potential, but forces them to get in close, and out of the safety of cross-layer lock penalties.

I very, VERY heavily disagree on the change to the Furnace Cannons; the wide beam (4 attack) is already more powerful than the UCM's and PHR's main laser, sans the flash of course, and this would just put it massively over the top. The beams are fine as they are and don't need a change.

For the Nickar change, same as the Santiago; I'd have to run the numbers, but it seems like a decent change on paper.

No changes to the PHR?
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2434
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 8:16 am

Stompzilla wrote:I don't follow.

Emeralds tend to average around 2 damage. I run 3 every game and I generally expect and get 2 damage most of the time. Sometimes less, sometimes more but pretty much 2 damage most of the time with the potential for 6.


Well I fear your personal dice rolling experience has little bearing here. Mathematical averages however (or for those prefer it the possible distribution) puts the Emerald at the following values: 5+ armour 2,33; 4+ armour 2; 3+ armour 1,67; 4+ Passive 1,5.

Potential damage is often hypothetical, or would you argue for the (full) light Broadside and it´s theoretical 12DP output?

Ambers are a WF ship, so don't be disingenious. For 10 more pts than your 2+ lock Granite, the Amber provides a lot more bang for buck.


With 2+ Lock the Standard order fire-power is quite close, as is the WF one, if modifiers or special ship (Opal, Calypso) apply the Granite even comes out on top. The gap is only quite visible at light armour levels.

Also if you take the Emerald as a damage ship and a spare I fear you are disingenuous. As you are comparing something we can easily quantify (fire-power) with something that has great value but is in another category. Also you only hold this against the Granite. I am unwilling to follow your comparison of possible maximum damage as it is of little value and use most of the time. Even with one Disintegrator hitting all 4 shots only has a 16/81 or 19,8% chance this is before saves can possibly reduce it further. This quickly becomes a lot less once you add more of them.

With 2+ Lock the Granite would do less damage then the Amber in standard situations, true. However it would deal +25% compared to the current output, also it would be a specialist for situations that raise the protection of the target. I fear as long as we have quite a number of damage ships some will be better then others. Specialisation is the only option around this. As soon as ships with reinforced armour arrive (which they will at some point as the rule exists) lances will be a lot more useful against those targets.

Lastly you still do not refer to any points raised about the linked Granite aside from the uniqueness of the lock value.

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 12:13 pm

Lorn wrote:
Stompzilla wrote:I don't follow.

Emeralds tend to average around 2 damage. I run 3 every game and I generally expect and get 2 damage most of the time. Sometimes less, sometimes more but pretty much 2 damage most of the time with the potential for 6.


Well I fear your personal dice rolling experience has little bearing here. Mathematical averages however (or for those prefer it the possible distribution) puts the Emerald at the following values: 5+ armour 2,33; 4+ armour 2; 3+ armour 1,67; 4+ Passive 1,5.

Potential damage is often hypothetical, or would you argue for the (full) light Broadside and it´s theoretical 12DP output?


Lol! So how does one roll 1.67 damage on the table-top? That's 2 for all practical intents and purposes. Thanks for proving my point. :lol:

Potential is important because sometimes you will roll well and sometimes you won't. It's nice to know that if you do roll well you can get huge amounts of damage, wheras with the granite you can only ever get 2 (Unless your opponent is a fool). I've had Motherships do 5 pts of damage with one go, in games before now (Super lucky i know). No matter what the situation is, or how well you roll, you'll never do 5 DPs at range with a 2+ lock Granite. Potential damage factors into the value judgement, of how useful a ship is, hence me metioning it. It's not the only factor, or even the most important but it does factor into a value judgement.

And I honestly don't see how a straight up value comparison between a 100pt Emerald and a 100pt Granite given that they put out roughly the same damage could possibly be considered disingenuous.
Offline

Brutoni

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:17 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 2:00 pm

Why no love for the PHR Broadside cruisers that are still less effective than many of the units you have chosen?

The Torpedo rule should probably not have particle if it also is literally impossible to dodge. I'd go down the route of perhaps more damage or perhaps 2 attacks and 4 damage. The multiple attacks representing the fact most large calibre torpedoes would have some sort of proximity detonation / failsafe if they weren't going to get a dead on hit. I donno.

Alternatively, Particle but a way to avoid them for good is the alternative in my mind.

Certainly agree with above that guaranteed 6 points of damage is lethal. A Minos could cripple BBs in 1 go with that and depending on the table roll come close to an outright kill.
Offline

will

  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:42 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 3:38 pm

Brutoni wrote:Why no love for the PHR Broadside cruisers that are still less effective than many of the units you have chosen? .


Unfortunately "someone" :shock: in the group that came up with these rules has been doing very well with broadside ships making it very hard to persuade people they need a little boost.
My suggestion was to hand out fusillade to the medium and light batteries to match the models. So light batteries get fusillade 2 and broadsides fusillade 4. Medium batteries fusillade 1 and broadsides fusillade 2. Would have to change the command card massed weapon batteries to increase the fusillade value if they already have the rule. It's only a small boost but might be enough!

Would you feel better about torpedoes having particle if they could still be shaken on a 6 using course change/max thrust?
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2434
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 4:28 pm

Stompzilla wrote:Lol! So how does one roll 1.67 damage on the table-top? That's 2 for all practical intents and purposes. Thanks for proving my point.


Well alternatively you could express it in chances for 0DP, 1DP and so on but if you are choosing to be ignorant so be it.
As you prefer to answer only selectively and in put your feelings/experiences on the same level as mathematical calculations we can and should end the discussion here.

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 6:19 pm

Lorn wrote:
Stompzilla wrote:Lol! So how does one roll 1.67 damage on the table-top? That's 2 for all practical intents and purposes. Thanks for proving my point.


Well alternatively you could express it in chances for 0DP, 1DP and so on but if you are choosing to be ignorant so be it.
As you prefer to answer only selectively and in put your feelings/experiences on the same level as mathematical calculations we can and should end the discussion here.


How do your mathematical calculations actually work out in practice though? There's literally no point in working that out if you don't I know what to do with it.

How do I roll 0.7 of a DP? Please explain to me how i do that on a 6 sided dice that deals only in round numbers.
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 9:39 pm

In response to Stompzilla, Lorn is completely correct. The mean of the attack, despite not being a whole number, is still an incredibly useful tool given that the weapon's damage distribution is fairly balanced (which it is, in the case of everything but the swingiest of weapons like Torpedoes)

For your question, "how do I roll 1.67 on the tabletop", you don't. Let's examine the (approximate) probability distribution of the Disruptors against a 3+ lock target:
There's a 14.33% chance to do 0 damage
32.70% chance to do 1 damage
31.31% chance to do 2 damage
16.15% chance to do 3 damage
4.75% chance to do 4 damage
0.72% chance to do 5 damage
and a 0.04% chance to do 6 damage

Which comes out, approximately, to a mean of 1.667, and a median just a little less than 2. You're never, ever going to roll 1.667 as your damage, but it's entirely reasonable to say that, on the average, the expected damage of the weapon is 1.667. And because the median of the distribution is so close to the mean, that also means the distribution isn't very skewed at all, meaning that most of the time your actual damage will be very, very close to the mean.

As for potential, maximum damage; yes, it can "technically" happen, but in the case of Disruptors doing six damage against a 3+ lock target, we're talking about it happening maybe once in 2500 firings of that weapon.
The probabilities get even worse for high attack, high lock weapons; the probability of doing just 10 damage from a light caliber broadside against a target with only 5+ armor is effectively 0, let alone doing 11 or 12 damage.
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostTue Feb 27, 2018 10:45 pm

So what you're essentially saying is that Emeralds average around 2 damage a turn, like I said about 6 posts back, when i used it as a point of comparison for why a 2+ lock Granite is still shit and will never be taken.

Super.
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 12:51 am

No, what I'm saying is that they average 1.667 damage a turn, because that's literally what the average is against 3+ armor targets. They average 2 damage a turn against 4+ targets, and 2.333 against 5+ targets, because that's how the mechanics and probabilities shake out.

You are right, however, a 2+ lock granite, firing just a single one of its lances, will still only do an average of 1.667 damage per firing; you don't need to round up or down the granite or amber or whatever for it to be better than the granite.

The hypothetical/on-paper strength of the 2+ Granite is that it's near guaranteed to do 2 damage; in fact the 2+ granite has almost exactly the same probability to do at least 2 damage as the disruptor has to do at least 1 damage; their average damages are higher because they have the likely potential to do more damage, but the particle lance is heavily skewed towards its maximum damage.
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron