9 pounds of mischief once wiped out over two hours of a B5wars game by scattering numerous paper counters and markers in an ill-fated attempt to leap onto the table covered by a surprisingly slippery felt mat. "Uh, was my Omega-Alpha on hex 2235 or 2245? And where the hell did all the fighter dice go????" Another reason why online gaming like Vassal is purr-fect, I mean perfect.

Agreed in that I have felt that No Hull Damage is at the very least "under-pointed" in SAE. One of the most "destructive" combinations in terms of rendering a ship utterly helpless in SAE was No Hull Damage and Continuing Damage. In Starfire, the often interchangeable partner to Force Beams were Primary Beams. Primary Beams would probably be No Hull Damage & Ignores Shields in SAE terms (in Starfire they essentially ignored the various layers of physical defenses), so without doing any kind of math, the two traits together might help balance them out in relation to Force Beams in purely SU terms. They would also probably be less "accurate" as IIRC there was a lower chance (than a Force Beam damage) that the tiny beam would actually damage anything vital. It seems to me that in most instances where the weapon is based on fluff/narrative, the NHD system has some off-setting flaws or weaknesses. As designers of Starmada weapons systems, none of us really feel the need for such constraints 

I think there is a place for a No Hull Damage trait, as that type of weapon appears over and over again in Sci-Fi (which ALWAYS serves as my base-line for what should be in Starmada  ) shows, movies, literature, and other games (none of which I would ever actually play, but often provide good conversion fodder).
Cheers,
Erik

From a game-play perspective I can see the justification for this, but I would be opposed to it on the grounds that it seems that ships should have the greatest firepower concentrated as much as possible. There is plenty of really good science fiction evidence ( ) to back up the notion of massed forward firepower.
I think the real problem is that so many games of Starmada are played with opposing forces arrayed head on, meeting-engagement style, no matter the scenario. Maybe the answer is to mix up the scenario generation a bit to introduce some randomization of headings and placements.
I have no idea how to mechanically accomplish it, but I think that if something like that was introduced and Player X builds his battlewagon around a Supermegamondo-gun, he runs the risk of starting the scenario with Player Y on his port quarter out of arc or worse yet on his six. Historically speaking and even taking Sci-fi as our lead, there are many many examples of ships (or even fighter aircraft if you want to use air combat as somewhat analogous) either stumbling upon each other or otherwise in a less than perfect aspect at the opening of an engagement...and then speed and maneuver become important along with the raw firepower you mount. Just a thought.
Erik

Obviously I want to play it to see for sure but at first glance I think I like the

weapon damage version better...it just feels slightly less abstract. It occurs to me that with this method of weapon damage resolution it should be more difficult to "de-fang" large ships that mount only a few weapons relative to their hull size as you actually have to do damage to the ship to get to the weapons. More than once I saw big ships built around big guns lose them to a "lucky" hit, rendering the ship combat ineffective quite quickly.
Erik

And I believe that is where Mr. OldnGrey comes into the picture 
Erik

I think I mentioned this before, but a simple alternative could be to have one Shield track, but have a modifier if the shot is coming through the front or rear hemisphere. +1 to shield rating for forward shields, -1 to shield rating for aft shields. This would seem to simulate the fact that most ships (not all but a great many) in the SFU have higher forward shield numbers than aft.
This could even leave room for simple optional rules for shield reinforcement.
Just my 2 cents.

Erik

I would rather have the rules than the news. In fact, I think I would be happier not even knowing that new rules were coming until Dan says "ta-da!" and they magically appear for purchase. After all, you can't pine for something you don't know exists (or will soon at any rate).
Ignorance: the lesser of two weevils!
Cheers,
Erik

Hey Dan, I know this is probably putting the cart way ahead of the horse, but I was wondering if it would be possible to get the S:AE to S:NE conversion process at some point before the game is actually available. I for one would be willing to commit to a pre-order if that is what it would take, and I would think that the converted ship data cards shouldn't give too much away without the context of the rules. I figured I'd ask because I have about a half a billion ships that I can convert over  and I wouldn't mind a head start!    If not, that's cool too, I'm still an addict and must buy...
Cheers,
Erik

Hmmm, I asked but they didn't have much to say about it
[attachment=0]New Ed.png[/attachment]
But they did sound surprisingly good!

I'd love to offer to playtest, but with a three week old that doesn't seem to give a fig for how I've been doing things for years...I don't think I could. I'm looking forward to this new edition, and I think it's great that Starmada never stands still. I just won't be moving forward with any projects I had in mind while I await the new rules.
Starmada: Infinity Edition?
I'm sure you'll come up with something. Can't wait for the release.
Cheers,
Erik

I really believe that setting determines the nomenclature that is appropriate for the ship's size. I don't think that in a construction-base game that it is possible to "pin" the size to a classification. For example, I can very easily justify having Flotilla Destroyers in one setting, while in another, destroyers are 4-5 Hull each. How 'bout another example? In modern terms a frigate is typically a small vessel relative to contemporaries, but during the Age of Sail a frigate was a major warship more akin to 20th century cruisers, with some being quite powerful.
Cheers,
Erik

I like it, particularly the idea for streamlining. I look forward to reading the setting material!
Cheers,
Erik