Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alfndrate wrote:
the part that I quoted did not

To be fair, I was explaining it to you for the second time already:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
If I hit with 2 regular hits, does that deal 2 points of damage or just 1?

Just one. But if you roll two regular hits and also a critical hit, that's two.

 Alfndrate wrote:
So why not just say, "Ignores the first penetrating hit" and not have this rigmarole of of medium turrets are only damaged by multiple penetrating hits and critical hits that we currently have.

Because that's not what happens. Let's try it again:

Say you roll three attack dice:

(1) any instance of multiple regular hit symbols = 1 penetrating hit (whether that's two or three dice together)
(2) any instance of a critical hit symbol = 1 penetrating hit

So if you rolled on your three attack dice 2 regular hit symbols and 1 critical symbol you will have done 2 damage. If you rolled on your three dice 1 regular hit symbol and 2 critical symbols you will have still done 2 damage. But if you roll three regular hit symbols that's only 1 damage.

Just so I'm clear because I feel like I'm missing something...

I roll x number of dice and get the following results:
1) Score 1 hit = Nothing
2) Score 2 hits = 1 Damage card dealt
3) Score 3+ hits = 1 Damage card dealt
4) Score 1 Critical = 1 faceup Damage card dealt
5) Score at least 2 hits + 1 Critical = 1 facedown Damage card dealt + 1 faceup Damage card dealt

Am I getting this now?

Would that mean that if I score 2 Critical hits I get 2 faceup Damage cards dealt?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
To be fair, I was explaining it to you for the second time already:

Just for that, I'm going to lick all of your attack wing stuff

Wait....I got lost in the various arguments...

Is the damaging mechanic still "Only Crits Damage, where each Crit Hit deals 1 Hull Damage to the turret"? Or is it "You need 2+ hits to cause damage"?


As an alternative and more 'generic' damage system, could have damage taken per normal, and amend crits where "Ship" Crit Cards immobilize the turret (and any subsequent are treated as causing double damage) and "Pilot" Crit Cards lower attack value of the turrets by 1 (To a min of 1).

 Alfndrate wrote:
Am I getting this now?

Nope. As someone already pointed out (maybe you?) the critical text is designed for ships not turrets. Critical hits on the turret never confer face-up damage cards (or any damage cards at all*). Instead, it's just damage. Keep track of it with glass beads or something.

Here are the possible damage results with three dice:
3 criticals = 3 damage
1 regular, 2 criticals = 2 damage
2 regular, 1 critical = 2 damage
3 regular = 1 damage

 Alfndrate wrote:
Just for that, I'm going to lick all of your attack wing stuff

::shudder::


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jin wrote:
Wait....I got lost in the various arguments...

 Manchu wrote:
Unarmored: any hit destroys
Light Armor: multiple hits on one attack -OR- a critical hit destroys
Medium Armor: multiple hits on one attack -OR- a critical hit damages
Heavy Armor: only critical hits damage

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Am I getting this now?

Nope. As someone already pointed out (maybe you?) the critical text is designed for ships not turrets. Critical hits on the turret never confer face-up damage cards (or any damage cards at all*). Instead, it's just damage. Keep track of it with glass beads or something.

Here are the possible damage results with three dice:
3 criticals = 3 damage
1 regular, 2 criticals = 2 damage
2 regular, 1 critical = 2 damage
3 regular = 1 damage

Wasn't me! Though it could have been me, it's been a whirlwind of a day.

Are turrets in Star wars computer controlled, or manned?

Manned.

 Manchu wrote:
Manned.

Okay, I (and this is just me) would use damage cards like they are used as is. I think the inclusion of some of the critical effects would be nice to have on the turrets. Turret in space gets damaged cockpit? oh well, have fun going last! etc... There are some that simply don't work like damaged engine

IMO that's where a critical hit table would come in handy.

 Manchu wrote:
IMO that's where a critical hit table would come in handy.

creating a critical hit table could be as easy as just looking at all the critical effects and removing the ones that arent really applicable

So this past Friday, we got the chance to play, and I had made the suggestion of using the turrets presented here in this thread. We made them 15 and took away the heavy armor ability. We ended up playing 200 points a side, and the Imperials would get 4 fixed placed turrets (that could rotate) that could not be closer than 2 feet from the Rebel's table edge (we used 2 of the Death Star mats for a 6x3 table).
They functioned exactly like a ship does in the game, and would be affected by criticals, anything that prevented movement, or dictated movement (ala Ion Cannons) would prevent the Turret from rotating up to 90 degrees.

The object of the scenario was to get within range of a certain point and fire a Proton Torpedo, which would destroy the death star. We got to play it "twice" only because a single Rebels ship had Proton Torpedoes and had crashed and burned after a few direct hits on like turn 3/4 and the Imperial players were like, "uh... is that it?" So we reset, and all of the x-wings were done cheap with torpedoes, and supported by 2 YTs, a B, and a few Ys. The Turrets proved more effective at directing lines of fire and forcing the rebels to fly a certain way, but didn't do much in the way of damage. The Imperials were tabled and the Rebels got the scenario win after what seemed to be an eternity. I want to try out some more with the turrets, I also think we had 2 turrets survive, 1 blew up after taking shots from the YTs, and the second went down after it killed a Y-wing and the rebels concentrated on it.

Still needs more testing.

Instead of just firing the torpedoes as a win condition, why not require a crit result on one of the dice instead? That makes it a bit more like bulls eying a womp rat with a t-16.

 warboss wrote:
Instead of just firing the torpedoes as a win condition, why not require a crit result on one of the dice instead? That makes it a bit more like bulls eying a womp rat with a t-16.

Because it was a quick 1 off scenario and they were playing 50 points down, but it didn't matter .

Also the Crit is too easy to bypass with things like marksmanship

It was an excuse to use the turret rules more than anything

 Alfndrate wrote:

Also the Crit is too easy to bypass with things like marksmanship

It's obviously not insurmountable (nor should it be) but at least it requires some effort both during the game and prior (and a tiny bit of luck) as opposed to an easy button "Rebels win" when a torp fighter gets to range 3. Either way, glad you had fun.

 warboss wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Also the Crit is too easy to bypass with things like marksmanship

It's obviously not insurmountable (nor should it be) but at least it requires some effort both during the game and prior (and a tiny bit of luck) as opposed to an easy button "Rebels win" when a torp fighter gets to range 3. Either way, glad you had fun.

I agree, they still had to hit with the Torpedo, and it made it easy for the Imperials to target the players that had the Proton Torpedo carriers, kind of like the first game, but this time there were like 4 on the field instead of just 1 .

I plan on refining it more, but the turrets were what I was interested in.