2,976 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

frigatesfan wrote:

Say, why can't one destroy the Russian Battleship Spiridoff's engines?

The Thrust column does not have a corresponding damage number.

Ship class notes, a la Star Fleet Battles, would be useful.

Thanks,

Michael.

It is a quirk of the method by which the damage track is constructed -- basically, there aren't enough engine hits to register when doing the calculations (see step 8 from p.40 of the Iron Stars rulebook; 20 x 3 / 125 = 0.48, rounded down to zero).

However, the statement that one cannot destroy the engines is incorrect -- it is possible to do so by rolling a 12 after all the primaries have been destroyed. As per p.15, damage that cannot be applied is shifted left along the damage track.

I suppose one could stipulate that if there is anything in a given section of the damage track, then there is a minimum of 1 slot on the d20; or you could state that all fractions are rounded up. But I believe the Spiridoff is the only ship that suffers from this affliction...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,977 Reply by mj12games

(3 replies, posted in Discussion)

It's been a while, but we're back in the top two slots at RPGNow, and four of the top ten.

MJ12 lives! big_smile

Go to forum: Discussion

2,978 Reply by mj12games

(20 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Kevin Smith wrote:

> Eventhough the brainfart occurred, I think it'd still be
> interesting to allow the "Forward Only" restriction be
> applied to "Aft Only."
> I don't know whether anyone would want to necessarily design
> using this restriction, but it probably wouldn't hurt to be in place.
> I'd also think the point costing would be the same as for
> "Forward Only" primaries.

Agreed.

Someone make a note of that for the next book.... smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,979 Reply by mj12games

(7 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

"Saved"... but still 1000 lbs of ordnance hit the city?

Huh. Must be using the military definition... wink

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,980 Reply by mj12games

(20 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Can the "Forward Only" restriction also be applied to turrets that can only be fired in the rear arc ("Rear Only"), in order to duplicate real world ships?
I'm assuming that it could, although not being familiar with any books past the first this may already be in place.
Kevin

I'm not sure what you mean... the "forward-only" restriction indicates that all of the ship's primary turrets are forward of the superstructure -- were there any historical ships that had all turrets aft of the SS?

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,981 Topic by mj12games

(6 replies, posted in Discussion)

In my inbox this morning, several bits o' junk with the following headers:

acquiesce
heroic
soda
asphalt
wearisome
conference
moose cathedral
profitable
crumb deterioration

There's a message in there somewhere... and I'm gonna find it!

Go to forum: Discussion

2,982 Reply by mj12games

(4 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Go0gleplex wrote:

Scenario 20: Secrets Betrayed has the spanish point total at -13.  Is this correct?

Yup. Remember that each freighter reduces the point total by 50.

But since the victory conditions don't have to do with the relative point totals in that scenario, it's irrelevant.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,983 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

wminsing wrote:

Just picked up all three books as PDF's from RPGNow, have to say I'm very impressed.  Rules seem very straight forward (with a couple of neat innovations, the momentum idea is a good example) and the special equipment is just right- cool effects, not too many rules.  Love the background, espcially happy to see my beloved Austro-Hungarians leading the way in space combat doctraine!  My only question at the moment, being an incorrigible Yank, is when the the Americans going to be putting on appearence?

Welcome to the club! I'm glad you like the rules... hopefully they stand up to your expectations after you've played a couple times.

The Americans will likely appear in the WW1 edition, which should be the next one up, unless we decide to do a quick short book on the Selenites.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,984 Reply by mj12games

(4 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Found one thing

Tochigi is a Japanese BC from the original IS rulebook.  In Southern Front, her stats are included in the back for a scenario against the Soviet Fleet.

She's listed as 56 points or something.  In the original IS rulebook, she's 118.

I think the scenario point total is off as well, looking at that.

That's because the ship masquerading as Tochigi in Southern Front is actually Senjo...

Oops. wink

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,985 Topic by mj12games

(0 replies, posted in News)

Majestic Twelve Games is proud to announce that Iron Stars: Southern Front is now available! Southern Front is the second supplement for Iron Stars, the game of space combat in an age of steam and steel. In this book players will find additional game mechanics and background material that extends our semi historical timeline through the pivotal year of 1912:

* An overview of world history from the close of the Merchant War through the Antarctic crisis;
* Nearly four dozen new ether ship designs, covering the space forces of South America, Italy, Turkey, and Spain, along with additional ships from Britain and Japan, and the introduction of the Soviet space forces;
* Coverage of the Falklands War between the British Empire and the A.B.C. Powers (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile), including nine new scenarios;
* "The Red One”, a short story by Jack London;
* A new space station, HMSS Diamond Rock;
* Rules for boarding parties and shipboard combat;
* New special equipment, such as star shells and heat rays; and
* Rules for orbital bombardment of surface targets.

This should be more than enough to keep your ether navies occupied as the world marches inexorably towards the Great War.

For more information, please visit our web site: www.mj12games.com

Go to forum: News

2,986 Reply by mj12games

(14 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Is there a date?

Yeah, how about May 1?

big_smile

http://mj12games.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=52

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,987 Reply by mj12games

(50 replies, posted in Miniatures)

tnjrp wrote:

So, seeing as it's already the 26th... How many have tried ordering 'em yet?

Actually, I wouldn't try ordering them just yet... gonna be another week or two (at most?)

Go to forum: Miniatures

2,988 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Starmada)

BeowulfJB wrote:

My Friend who I play with in Jacksonville has expendible weapons that have this combination: {Repeating+RerollsToHit+RerollsPenetration}.  The way we deal with this combination is to only the repeating weapon to reroll any misses once, the first time it makes its rolls to hit.

This seems a reasonable limitation, although the math is set up so that the weapon should be allowed to re-roll its repeating shots as well... quite nasty. big_smile

I wonder if the Repeating/Re-Rolls To-Hit combo should be disallowed...

Go to forum: Starmada

2,989 Reply by mj12games

(14 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

hundvig wrote:

Hmmm...is the 18th still "early" April?  smile  Any ETA on this book yet?

Frankly, I was hoping that it would be finished over this past weekend. Unfortunately, I've run into a slight delay -- but it should be Right Around the Corner now. smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,990 Reply by mj12games

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

kehrer1701 wrote:

Dan,
do you still have this and could you post

You mean this?

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/weapon_conversions_281.zip

Go to forum: Starmada

2,991 Reply by mj12games

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:

Thus, the point cost for the weapon would be (MPs + 30) x 4.6 (the DMG of 9.2 times the to-hit percentage of 50%).

Okay. I'm aware that I screwed up in the previous post, so please ignore it. smile

I misread the intention of this weapon -- I failed to notice that the projectile was only in real space for 1 hex at a time following the initial 4-6 hex travel. In addition, I think a normal to-hit roll of 3+ is appropriate during that initial phase... once the projectile starts "skipping" I'd still make it an auto-hit if it appears in a hex with a valid target.

Therefore, the real point cost value should be:

(MPs + 30) x 3

Go to forum: Starmada

2,992 Reply by mj12games

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

chaos_engineer wrote:

Cost: [provisionally, as Spinal Mount]

Well, I'd want to test it first, but I think that may be over-valuing the weapon.

First of all, the limitation of firing down a hex row is a HUGE drawback. You're limiting your choice of targets tremendously -- without taking into account the random nature of being able to skip in and out at the right time to hit somebody who does happen to be on that row. Finally, on a stationary platform, these weapons would be all but useless; I'll just keep my moving targets off your six hexrows and you can't fire.

Finally finally, the cost of a spinal mount varies with the size of the ship; this has a flat value (either 1, 2, 3 or 10 for the DMG) independent of ship size. That also will affect the cost.

At the very least, I would allow the weapon to be fired along a straight line that isn't defined by a hexrow (a la the diagram in the book for the Anime-style spinal mount). Then, I would cost the weapon like this:

1. Assume a max range of 30 hexes.

2. Over a 30-hex distance, the chance that the weapon will be in real space on any given hex is roughly 50% (actually, between 51 and 52%). Thus, I wouldn't even give the weapon a to-hit value; if it lands in a hex containing a target, it's an auto-hit.

3. Over that same 30-hex distance, the average DMG value is 9.2.

Thus, the point cost for the weapon would be (MPs + 30) x 4.6 (the DMG of 9.2 times the to-hit percentage of 50%).

Make sense?

Go to forum: Starmada

2,993 Topic by mj12games

(0 replies, posted in Starmada)

beowulfjb@aol.com wrote:

> I have some questions about the Anime style Spinal Mounts. 
> When one  of these weapons travels thru a hex containing
> fighters, drones, battle  sattalites, etc, do these get a
> "-1" to get by the 'mount?  Are mines  effected at all if
> they are in one of the hexes?

From the rulebook:

During the End Phase, a starship with a spinal mount must announce its intention to fire the mount in the next Combat Phase. When it comes time to fire the weapon, a target hex is nominated. Then, draw a line from the firing hex through this target hex, extending out to the Mount's maximum range. To hit rolls are made against every target in all hexes along this line of fire. There are no modifiers to these to-hit rolls, aside from those for short and long range.

So, the answer to all your questions is in fact "no".

smile

Go to forum: Starmada

2,994 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Starmada)

The text of the rules states that PDS allows the ship to ignore any odd penetration roll -- no limits are placed upon this ability. Therefore, fighter attacks ARE indeed affected by PDS.

Having said that, whether they SHOULD be affected is another matter entirely... smile

An easy "fix" should you want one is to allow PDS to only block fighter PEN rolls on a 1 or 3 -- this would give the same effect as fighters vs. shields 3.

But unless there's a lot of heartburn about this out there, I don't see a need to change it. Just one of those things....

Go to forum: Starmada

2,995 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Game Design)

smokingwreckage wrote:

I'd say perfect equality of fighting potential of two forces in a given environment is not likely to happen, but can be approximated.

Actually, I think perfect equality of fighting potential is possible; see chess. I also think a very good approximation is possible even in a more complicated set of rules with variable forces; see Starmada. big_smile

But the original TMP poster was talking about "balance" in a completely different way, I think. Frankly, I had a hard time following his premise.

Go to forum: Game Design

2,996 Reply by mj12games

(50 replies, posted in Miniatures)

Demian Rose wrote:

20 days and counting...

I guess I should mention that the April 24 date is a guess... I'm hoping that Iron Mammoth can get stock to us by then...

If not, very soon afterwards! smile

Go to forum: Miniatures

2,997 Reply by mj12games

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

OldnGrey wrote:

Starmada X Ver. 1.0 January 22 2004, gives the ECM Slave unit a Defence rating of x1.3

The ECM Slave unit has a multiplier of x1.2

Although, it is no longer in the game... smile

Go to forum: Starmada

2,998 Reply by mj12games

(1 replies, posted in ARES)

tabascojunkie wrote:

When dealing out cards for initiative, is it recommended to re-shuffle the deck before every deal or just shuffle at the beginning and work down til the deck runs out?

It doesn't really matter... but there's no harm in doing it if players feel better that way.

Go to forum: ARES

2,999 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

oh yeah, I originally tried to give D12 torps to my Austrians for TMW and you said "too powerful."  smile

Yes... too powerful for the Austrians.

big_smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

3,000 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Gunnery -- advanced Fire Control could be bought with the same construction costs as the Babbage Engine.  Instead of spreading fire, it would increase the gun ranges from 5" to 6" bands.  Basically a 20% increase in gun range.

I'd actually prefer a +1 to-hit, or allow re-rolled misses, before messing with the range bands.

Stealth -- wanna do the German u-boats?  Use the Gyroscopic Stabilizer cost.  Where as the Gyroscopic stabilizer gives a defensive bonus by allowing you to turn as if you were a size smaller (in terms of your hull).  The stealth kit reduces your size by one step when figuring gunnery modifiers (IE -- a D8 gun firing on Small targets used to have a +1 penalty, not it has a +2).

Here's where your range bands can be changed -- allow a ship with stealth to use 4" instead of 5" bands.

Using the size class mods is not a great idea, since it relies on the use of another optional/advanced rule. I've been trying to keep them independent of each other.

Longer range torpedoes: D12 torpedoes have been taboo for fleets as they are AWFULLY powerful.  But why not use them here at least to represent the advanced Japanese torps?

Have they been taboo? I don't remember that... smile

RADAR: Like searchlights, except you get one roll of 3D10 for VS to S hulls, 2 attempts for M to L and 3 attempts for VL or bigger.

Fine.

Go to forum: Iron Stars