I hope the developers will read this. I just thought of an idea about the mines that I find particularly interesting... If it is seen by the developers, it can be corrected in the FAQ or in the rules reference, and no cards need to be changed.

The reason is that I have played numerous games with Emon Azareen dropping proximity mines on ships that have 2 hull left. On the 8 drops that I had (16 potential extra damage), I think that the ships popped only 2 extra damage. I love bombs, and I think that dropping them can be really tricky, and you really have to carfeully plan your moves for it. But in my case, I haven't got the deserved reward for this trouble (at least 8 extra damage).

Instead of rolling the attack dices to make more damage, why does a mine has standard damage on the mine (as for the cluster mines), and the damage can be reduced by rolling a defense roll ? It would represent that a more mobile ship can try to avoid a little of the damage, compared to a decimator, which is supposed to receive all the damage with its lack of mobility.

My suggestion: Proximity mines deals 3 damage, reduced by a defense roll, to a minimum of 1.
Clusters mines deals 2 damage, reduced dy a defense roll, to a minimum of 1.

In those cases, the huge ships, the decimator and the ghost are sure that the mine just sent is really efficient, and it shows the capacity of small ships of passing through the mines. It gives the mines also more power, since you have less chances of rolling an evade than rolling a hit/crit.

I feel that this suggestion is really interesting. Some people agree to that ?

I disagree. If a small, light fighter flies into a proximity mine, they shouldn't somehow reduce the damage due to being light and agile. The explosion has happened, and they've gotten caught in it, hence the auto-damage and the chance of taking serious (read, critical) damage.

Small, agile fighters can demonstrate their ability for passing through minefields by....not flying into mines. Your idea would only punish larger base vessels, or those fighters with low agility, while giving high agility fighters even more of a pass.

52 minutes ago, AceDogbert said:

I disagree. If a small, light fighter flies into a proximity mine, they shouldn't somehow reduce the damage due to being light and agile. The explosion has happened, and they've gotten caught in it, hence the auto-damage and the chance of taking serious (read, critical) damage.

Small, agile fighters can demonstrate their ability for passing through minefields by....not flying into mines. Your idea would only punish larger base vessels, or those fighters with low agility, while giving high agility fighters even more of a pass.

I agree that this would be the effect. But in terms of realism, it would be more realistic.

When your fire a shot on a AGI 3 ship at range 1, you attack him, and he tries to dodge it. I see the minefield as an attack that can be dodged the same way. Instead of rolling for potential damage, you roll for potential evade. The mine is supposed to make the same damage. not 2c and 1h on one roll, and 1h on the other.

1 hour ago, AceDogbert said:

Small, agile fighters can demonstrate their ability for passing through minefields by....not flying into mines. Your idea would only punish larger base vessels, or those fighters with low agility, while giving high agility fighters even more of a pass.

I suspect the main part of the problem is that it's driven by someone who keeps getting hammered by Emon Azzamen (I've had a similar experience with a Skilled Bombardier Sol Sixxa) - not flying into mines is fine in theory but more of an issue when they materialise right on top of you and detonate immediately, and the potential drop points are basically anywhere in the ship's rear quarter at range 1 and most of range 2.

I'm not complaining here - 'don't go behind them' is still a valid argument, but it is a lot harder than it sounds at first pass.

My counter argument is simply that rules should be as consistent as possible.

An attack is made by rolling red dice. It is mitigated by rolling green dice. Always and for all types of damage sources. Full stop.

I can see a logic to the defense dice roll, maybe. It eliminates the "FeelsBadMan" of having nothing to do against a mine. However, it creates another moment where a large ship has to eat 3 damage without really any hope of getting lucky. Defense-roll version is also probably a buff, since green dice are worse than red dice, and against an "average" ship, an "average" roll probably does more damage.

I think I prefer things as they are, but really, there isn't too much of a difference.

6 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

My counter argument is simply that rules should be as consistent as possible.

And attack is made by rolling red dice. It is mitigated by rolling green dice. Always and for all types of damage sources. Full stop.

Along these lines, the right way to do @Silver_leader 's suggestion is

Proximity Mine: The ship suffers [hit] and makes a defense roll against 2 hits. This would allow stuff like Reinforce to potentially reduce damage as well.

Of course, most ships won't have dice mods at that point in time of the activation phase.

//

Yeah, I think I don't really see enough of a reason to change that it'd be worth a headache. It wouldn't have been a terrible idea, but changing it seems messier than leaving it.

I like static damage. Period. I would go for the median range tho. 1-3 currently means 2 damage.

That being said, that’s probably a price increase. And.... I kinda like the gambling honestly.

For every sad story there’s an amazing one.... Proxing a full health Fenn Rau off the board with a hit crit....

I dont think so Tim.

Like its been said, a small ships ability to evade a mine comes from its ability to... not hit the mine in the first place, that mechanic is already present.

and if you want these mines to be effective, youre going to be a lot more annoyed when drop one on an ace and they just lightly roll away taking minimal damaged

and as a side note, im sorry you've had this problem, but i think only about 10% of the mines i drop dont get at least one extra damage, 3 hits is rare, but would also be near impossible if they are dodging it. ive never had a problem with them as is.

Thanks for your thoughts. I do understand your points.

Indeed, a small ship is way more difficult to hit than a ghost due to his..... smallness. Hitting a small base is much more complicated. The idea here is to simply get the bombs more worth their weight.

The thing I am comlaining about here is that I pay 6+4points (to get 2 bombs on Emon) to have proxs, and those are doing a little 1 hull damage to a shuttle or a VCX. I think the shuttle is more than happy to eat the 1 damage. Proxs are not worth it in this case.

Proton are different, by the fact that they can cover more than 1 ship while exploding. But I think that prox mines must do a fix damage instead of the 1-3 damage of the roll, like the connor net which does 1 damage + ions

Great plays can always be ruined by dice variance. Trying to fix that was how we got to the near-guaranteed dice results of late-stage 1e.

8 prox mines may feel like a lot, but statistically speaking, it's not. Drop 8 more, then 8 after that, then yet another 8... keep doing it, and eventually, the numbers will even out.

Bombs/Mines are supposed to be good against high agility and bad against high HP. That's because if the inverse were true, then they would be redundant, because attacking is already bad against high agility and good against high HP. Bombs should be filling a role that isn't already occupied by normal attacks.

If you are going to run bombs in your list, you need to also have something that can handle High HP ships. Like Fenn Rau. He is ridiculously good at punishing low agility ships and would be a good wingman to Emon who can hopefully deal with the aces.