Can someone point me to the rule which states that Agility is used as a DM to incoming beam weapon & missile fire? I see Agility listed under the Meson Screen attack table but nothing on page 45 of High Guard. I see nothing in the Errata as well. Am I blind or looking in the wrong place?
CT High Guard Agility
- Thread starter ddamant
- Start date
Funny, it is not on mine. On mine I says:
DMs Allowed To Hit:
+ relative computer size.
+ target size modifiers.
Energy Weapons: not allowed
at long range.
Lasers: -1 at long range.
Missiles: -1 at short range.
DMs Allowed To Penetrate:
+ relative computer size.
Energy Weapons: +2.
DMs Allowed To Hit:
+ relative computer size.
+ target size modifiers.
Energy Weapons: not allowed
at long range.
Lasers: -1 at long range.
Missiles: -1 at short range.
DMs Allowed To Penetrate:
+ relative computer size.
Energy Weapons: +2.
Well, the rest of the modifiers are also in my book, but I obviated them as irrelevant for the question on hand.
That may be an edition problem...
Mine is in the FFE Books 0-8, Classic Books Reprint edition. Which one is yours?
That may be an edition problem...
Mine is in the FFE Books 0-8, Classic Books Reprint edition. Which one is yours?
I wonder - is it a GDW printing or a GW printing?
And what are the printing numbers?
(the list looks like : 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for first, 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 for second, etc)
In FFE reprint they are: 12 13 14 15 for LBB5
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Early print runs of HG80 lacked the universal agility DM.
I have three copies and the earliest one lacks the DM but the later ones both have it.
A:5 TCS clarified this for the earlier printings - the agility DM should apply to all weapon tables.
Also note that the inserts given away in JTAS to upgrade HG1e to HG2e als lack the universal agility DM.
All of the GW licenced printings of HG that I have also lack the universal modifier.
HG2e plays very differently if only spinals are affected by the agility modifier.
I have three copies and the earliest one lacks the DM but the later ones both have it.
A:5 TCS clarified this for the earlier printings - the agility DM should apply to all weapon tables.
Also note that the inserts given away in JTAS to upgrade HG1e to HG2e als lack the universal agility DM.
All of the GW licenced printings of HG that I have also lack the universal modifier.
HG2e plays very differently if only spinals are affected by the agility modifier.
Sure. Among other things, it makes fighters quite more vulnerable, and allows them to hit each other.
It also makes hamsters more powerful...
indeed, our small-ship hg2 games would have turned out to be much more ... exciting. if being lased is exciting.
is there a good (game) case to be made for applying agility only to spinals (and certainly to missiles as well?) given the numerous discussions about how lasers are unavoidable perhaps this should be implemented?
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I think this came up because of my ongoing work on making HG work on a maneuver game and actually have tactics.
But it was more like ships could not use agility while aiming their spinal weapons.
For most other people, I think the idea was that bays and turrets can move independently and so 'track better', while the game reason was to put the lighter stuff into play and provide better survival against the big guns.
I don't see it personally- a spinal weapon shot is likely to be a several second continuous shot, or several shots fired in a pattern covering more potential endpoints, that is MORE likely to hit then the smaller weapons.
I noticed this the other day - was building a Vargr 10 dton fighter, Computer/1 and ended up with Agility 6. So it's (-6-2 + relative computer size) to hit it, which means most ships < 1000 tons probably can't hit it at all. It seemed odd that two of these things can't hit each other. I wondered if it should be +relative agility? After all if I can turn with the target it should make it easier to actually hit them.
I always liked the original misprint on the grounds that fine control was easier for a one-ton turret than a 200,000-ton dreadnaught.
A common complaint is the Imperial TL15 fighter that can't be hit... including by other fighters with the same performance characteristics.
Theoretically(?), since High Guard uses a front line and a reserve, you could therefore put one of those fighters in the front line, and your flotilla would be safe.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Unless the enemy has a good computer and a factor 5+ missile, factor 8+ beam battery, or spinal. All of them will do a good job of destroying the fighter with size crits...
So is there a decent fix for this problem? For RPG purposes it's a bit boring if the fighter can't be hit by anything they are likely to actually face. Could say that a natural 12 is always a hit I suppose.
Relative agility might help on a 1 to 1 situation, but it's unlikely that a large ship is going to use it's full agility against a small fighter if there are bigger ships around.
Of course, even if the fighter is (almost) unhittable, the enemies can always try to shoot at things they can hit - like the PC ship that launched the fighter.
Relative agility might help on a 1 to 1 situation, but it's unlikely that a large ship is going to use it's full agility against a small fighter if there are bigger ships around.
Of course, even if the fighter is (almost) unhittable, the enemies can always try to shoot at things they can hit - like the PC ship that launched the fighter.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Fighting a TL-15 specialised warcraft with a Free Trader is like fighting a F-22 with a DC-3 with a few machine guns bolted on. You should loose...
A civilian low-tech 10 Dt fighter is much less of a problem, beatable with a decent computer.
If the PC ship is screened, i.e. in the reserve, the enemy can't shoot at it...
