A quick question: Do I get a range bonus to defense when being attacked by a secondary weapon? For example:

*Miranda is hammering on me with her TLT from range three. Does my poor Countess Ryad get an extra green die on her defense roll?

Nope, no range bonuses are granted for secondary weapons unless they specifically say other wise (For example, Dorsal Turret having a greater attack at range 1)

43 minutes ago, Innese said:

Nope, no range bonuses are granted for secondary weapons unless they specifically say other wise (For example, Dorsal Turret having a greater attack at range 1)

Wait what????

So when being attacked by a cannon or missle or torpedo at range 3....the defender does not get the extra green dice? What about if its obstructed?

if this is true it seems very stupid...

i get why the attacker wouldnt get a bonus red...but why penalize the defender at all.

Obstructed attacks add a dice to defense regardless of distance. No defense range 3 bonus against secondary weapons, unless something on an ability says otherwise. Autothrusters still kick in for range 3 attacks.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Wait what????

So when being attacked by a cannon or missle or torpedo at range 3....the defender does not get the extra green dice? What about if its obstructed?

if this is true it seems very stupid...

i get why the attacker wouldnt get a bonus red...but why penalize the defender at all.

If the attack is obstructed you still get an extra green dice, but otherwise no, you will not get an extra green dice when the cannon/missile/torpedo/secondary attacks from range 3.

59 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Wait what????

So when being attacked by a cannon or missle or torpedo at range 3....the defender does not get the extra green dice? What about if its obstructed?

if this is true it seems very stupid...

i get why the attacker wouldnt get a bonus red...but why penalize the defender at all.

It's part of the benefit you get for forking out the points for secondary weapons; the ability to bypass the range bonus for defence.

22 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

It's part of the benefit you get for forking out the points for secondary weapons; the ability to bypass the range bonus for defence.

Whelp seeing as you are a doctor, I believe you! Guess ill be playing a lil differently now.

2 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Wait what????

So when being attacked by a cannon or missle or torpedo at range 3....the defender does not get the extra green dice? What about if its obstructed?

if this is true it seems very stupid...

i get why the attacker wouldnt get a bonus red...but why penalize the defender at all.

Think of it this way: secondary weapons are designed to work at long range. That's why defenders don't get the bonus.

Eeek. That makes those nasty secondary shots even MORE nasty. I think I officially hate TLT even more now.

Thanks for the info guys!

When that rule was written, the only secondary weapons in the game capable of attacking at Range 3 were torpedoes ( and they probably had missiles in playtest) . It makes sense that autonomous guided weapons wouldn't allow a range bonus to defense.

For direct-fire secondaries like cannons and turrets it doesn't make as much sense, but rules beat fluff.

28 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

When that rule was written, the only secondary weapons in the game were torpedoes (and they probably had missiles in playtest). It makes sense that autonomous guided weapons wouldn't allow a range bonus to defense.

For direct-fire secondaries like cannons and turrets it doesn't make as much sense, but rules beat fluff.

Nope, Missiles and Turrets were released right at the same time as the core set in wave 1. They were all tested at same time. Canons were in wave 2 and probably tested at the same time. So it was "planned" all along.

For a very long time secondary weapons were still really bad even with that.

2 hours ago, digitalbusker said:

When that rule was written, the only secondary weapons in the game capable of attacking at Range 3 were torpedoes ( and they probably had missiles in playtest) . It makes sense that autonomous guided weapons wouldn't allow a range bonus to defense.

For direct-fire secondaries like cannons and turrets it doesn't make as much sense, but rules beat fluff.

Then by that measure who should any cannon not be able to fire at R1? How the **** does a HLC get to target something at R2-3 without blasting through R1 first? That TLT runs into the exact same question.

11 minutes ago, StevenO said:

Then by that measure who should any cannon not be able to fire at R1? How the **** does a HLC get to target something at R2-3 without blasting through R1 first? That TLT runs into the exact same question.

Either it takes a while for the beam to cohere, or there's enough of a delay as the capacitors discharge to make it effectively impossible to hit something very close.

Or the cards are printed that way and rules beat fluff.

I didn't mean to threadjack this conversation onto a discussion of the realism of secondary weapon mechanics. That way lies madness. I just always figured the no range bonus on secondary weapons rule was somehow related to the fact that they were mostly ordnance to start.

33 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

Either it takes a while for the beam to cohere, or there's enough of a delay as the capacitors discharge to make it effectively impossible to hit something very close.

Or the cards are printed that way and rules beat fluff.

I didn't mean to threadjack this conversation onto a discussion of the realism of secondary weapon mechanics. That way lies madness. I just always figured the no range bonus on secondary weapons rule was somehow related to the fact that they were mostly ordnance to start.

That may have been a "why" the rules were written to ignore the range modifiers but cannons came so quickly afterwards they should have been aware of those interactions immediately. Now with whatever fluff one comes up with explaining why cannons/turrets that are R2-3 can't hit anything at R1 you then need to explain why the R1-2 secondaries do NOT gain the benefit of short range.

They are auto guided ordnance, if they don't have range penalty, they also don't have range bonus, they are not directly guided by the pilot, nothing is gained from being close...

But, it is true that Canon and TLT make less sense to have or not have bonus. This is just easier rule choice versus realism. Like MTG animal that can equip boot or sword...

For the Range 1 Bonus, I see that as the weapon being too large / huge / slow to be able to handle range 1 fire. An Heavy Laser Canon versus Primary weapon could be seen like a Tank Canon versus Mounted Machine Gun. Clearly one can't attack in close range.

On 5/28/2017 at 6:52 PM, Boom Owl said:

Wait what????

So when being attacked by a cannon or missle or torpedo at range 3....the defender does not get the extra green dice? What about if its obstructed?

if this is true it seems very stupid...

i get why the attacker wouldnt get a bonus red...but why penalize the defender at all.

It's a trade off. It makes Secondary Weapons better at range 3 but worse at range 1. The rules reason for this is the section that covers range bonuses specifically says when attacking with a PRIMARY weapon at range 1 attacker gets a die and at range 3 defender gets a die. So no range bonuses apply to secondary weapons either way.

All obstructed attacks give a bonus die to the defender because the rules on that just say if an attack is obstructed without specifying any type of weapon.