You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
You could, I guess. I just don't picture a BB firing illumination rounds out of a 12" or 15" gun.
Well, a ship would be silly to waste fire from a 15" gun for illumination rounds, unless it needed to do so for range purposes.
It's likely that secondaries will be used most often for this purpose, but there's no reason to legislate against primaries doing so if desired.
So if the ship is stationary, it could perform multiple manuevers in a row without moving forward, as long as it expended the appropriate movement points? Just clarifying. Thanks!!
No. What I mean is, there are no special rules for a stationary ship. If it's stationary, it's stationary.
I keep reading about ships (modern and WW2 era) using 5" guns for illumination. I can't find anything about WWI. But in my mind, 5" guns would be secondary mounts on an IS ship.
Rather than limiting it to the designation on a particular ship (pri. or sec.), mayhap we should limit it by die size? e.g., a gun has to be d6 or larger to fire starshells... This has the effect of disallowing light guns from performing this task.
Also, special guns (lighting projectors, etc.) should be disallowed from firing starshells.
FWIW, my thoughts on the "sizes" of Iron Stars guns were as follows:
d4 = 4" or less (light guns in Grand Fleets)
d6 = up to 7"
d8 = up to 10"
d10 = up to 13"
d12 = up to 16"
This still restricts us from modelling the 18"ers from Japanese WW2 battleships, but we can worry about that when we get there... 
During the End Phase, any ship which did not fire its secondaries
Just out of curiousity, was there a reason we defaulted to secondaries instead of light guns? What weapons historically fired star shells?
Attached is Dan's proposed approach in PDF format (all zipped up). Und ja, it's a good bit more streamlined than my original ideers. I should stay at what I'm best at.....and game mechanics ain't it
Talkin' with Kevin, and I think we've come up with something better...
During the End Phase, any ship which did not fire its secondaries during the preceding Combat Phase may use them to fire star shells at a point on the table. Normal firing arc restrictions apply.
An attack is then made against that point, using normal range modifiers.
The number of "hits" scored indicates the radius of the resulting area of illumination:
1 hit = 1"
2-3 hits = 2"
4-6 hits = 3"
7-10 hits = 4"
11+ hits = 5"
Place an appropriate marker at the targeted spot.
During the following Combat Phase, any ship within the appropriate distance of this marker has been illuminated. Markers are removed at the beginning of the next End Phase.
This does a couple things:
1) It places shar shells in the same portion of the game turn as searchlights.
2) It takes away the requirement of targeting a specific ship.
3) Although speed/size mods do not apply, it still gives small ships an advantage, in that they can try to move away from illuminated areas before they can be attacked.
Dan
Previous versions of the rules stated that a ship that does nothing else can pivot in place, regardless of MP cost or maneuvering restrictions. However, this capability was removed in X... it made a ship which lost its drive too maneuverable.
So if that capability was removed, what is the current rules on it? Thanks!
The rule is, a ship must expend the necessary number of MPs to maneuver. If it doesn't have enough MPs, it can't. Period.
Soviets are red, Russians are DARK grey...racially, the same group, politically not the same group.
I'd just like to go on record as saying we haven't yet decided that the Soviets will indeed be red...
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mj12games@yahoogroups.com
> Correct on all counts, except that the modifiers should be
> either target size or speed, depending upon which set of mods
> you are using for normal gunfire.
> ==========
>
> Hold on...
> You're not firing at a point in space, you're firing at a
> specific ship.
> Correct?
Correct -- but IS only uses a set of modifiers for size; unless you use the optional mods for speed, which replace those for size.
Dan
That works fine for me. Makes it a lot less to remember, as well -- so target modifiers are range, and maybe speed? We're suggesting that the acting ship is firing at a point in space because its crew saw/detected something to arise suspicion. But if that fleeting shadow was hauling tail, it will add to the difficulty of illuminating it.
Correct on all counts, except that the modifiers should be range plus either target size or speed, depending upon which set of mods you are using for normal gunfire.
Dan
Bad, schmad. It's a house rule for my little group, and ya don't gotta use it.
True enough... but I think you're on a good track. Keep it up...
I do agree that the roll for scatter might be a bit much, since nothing else in IS scatters. Mayhap it would be a better idea, and a compromise between area effect and targeting a specific ship, to do this:
Fire your secondaries at a specific target (you gotta have some reference point at which to aim, even if it's a vague shadow in the night). Effect is centered on this target, but the radius of effect is based on the number of "hits":
1 = 1"
2-3 = 2"
4-6 = 3"
7-10 = 4"
11+ = 5"
Thus, if you score a single hit, you've effectively illuminated the target and not much else. However, if you manage to get more than 10 hits (from a single battery, this would be highly unlikely) then an area 10" in diameter is lit up like a Christmas tree... this includes friendlies as well, so there's your difference between star shells and searchlights.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mj12games@yahoogroups.com
> This is a much better approach, IMHO.
> ==========
>
> Well, I'll disagree.
> Scatter is bad, and having multiple size templates is bad.
> 'Nuff said.
Perhaps... but I was saying it was better than the previous proposal. I still think targeting a specific ship is the best method.
But I don't want to stifle innovation...
Dan
I am a little disturbed that any search you did turned this up.
No search... it was a featured product on the front page of RPGnow...
Although I won't deny it intrigued me -- and is not completely unrelated to searches I may or may not have performed in the past...
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4719
I knew there was a market we here at MJ12 had failed to tap...
This approach lets the whole process be limited to one roll, two max. And it makes sense to me because a ship that's trying to find the enemy isn't going to be firing a dozen flares in a dozen different directions. It's going to be concentrating ALL of its attention on a specific area.
This is a much better approach, IMHO.
Dan
1. Has there been any consideration for the manueverability of stationary ships?
Previous versions of the rules stated that a ship that does nothing else can pivot in place, regardless of MP cost or maneuvering restrictions. However, this capability was removed in X... it made a ship which lost its drive too maneuverable.
2. Drones are described as acting like fighters. Can drones be engaged in a dogfight by fighters? I would think not, but the rules don't specify. Also, does this mean that drones can fly around willy-nilly or perhaps sit and wait, or do they have to actually move toward a target?
Drones may be engaged in a dogfight, and may indeed initiate one on their own. Drones may fly around willy-nilly (or, in fact, higgildy-piggildy) and sit in place if they so choose.
I added some unofficial Soviet ships in the IS shipyard. The only thing I've heard in terms of what's going to happen to them canon wise...
I think the first generation of Soviet ships (i.e., those in the next supplement) should be coversions of Tsarist vessels. After that, they can start working on their own designs... using the Martian tech they recovered from Tunguska.
Dan
One piece of tech I was working on might supplement the standard searchlight rule, and centers on the idea of a ship using its secondary mounts to fire star shells/flares/whatever to illuminate surrounding space.
I love the concept, but I wonder if it couldn't be implemented differently...
Basically, allow your secondaries to make an "attack" against a single target, as per the usual rules. For this attack, armour is ignored, but size/momentum mods apply.
If any hits are scored, the target is illuminated during the -following- turn. This can be done by placing a black "illuminated" marker next to the target. In the end phase, flip the marker to its white side, and remove any markers already on their white side.
If it seems too easy to illuminate a target, we can up the minimum number of hits...
One thing to consider, if you exchange a large number of light guns for a small number of heavy ones, you've also just changed your hit location chart so that your hull is going to get hit a lot more often. Each hull lost will be worth less (maybe) because your overall cost will probably be lower, but you'll be losing them more often.
This is factored into the point cost -- the number of hull hits on the d20 is used as a divisor to the defensive rating. Thus, a ship with Hull 1-6 would have twice the defensive rating as one with Hull 1-12, all other things being equal.
That said, the Bantam class is a much better ship with 4d10(x2) LPs as primaries instead of the 4d10(x3) conventional guns. Those strong secondaries make up for any slight weakness against light-armor targets in my book.
But the strong secondaries remain a constant, whether you have LPs or not... by reducing the x3 damage to x2 for a 5% increase in point cost (166 to 175), you're not gaining much hit potential against armour of 3 or less.
But I agree -- it's definitely an imposing design.
you should be seeing Starmada and Iron Stars show up at e23 any day now.
No Defiance?
I sent over the above two products to start with; Defiance will be next on the list -- I wanted to give Josh as much time as possible to get the errata fixed...
What is the status here, Dan? I am really curious -- especially after the explosion that recently took place between me and Andrew Hackard (the former head editor of Steve Jackson Games)
Er... did you ever explain what you meant by "explosion"?
Anyway, you should be seeing Starmada and Iron Stars show up at e23 any day now.
e23.sjgames.com
Has anyone designed a vessel armed only with primaries which are lightning projectors? I have, and I played a couple of turns against a standard fleet to see how they went. One thing I can tell you is that you do get an increased range advantage over most other vessels...:D
Two things on the LPs:
1) They are indeed RNES "proprietary".
2) They suffer from the same issues that posion gas does; i.e., their effectiveness is dependent upon the target. Against low-armoured targets, you end up wasting their cost -- against high armour, they are probably more effective than their cost.
Thus, there is the potential for abuse...
Just to let Aresian know -- The other table saw your Goalkeepers replacing the Gammas normally used in TMW's Scenario 6# "That Dirty Little War." I didn't get to watch everything, but some general observations.
The "other" table?!? As in, you had two games running at once?
Man, I'm jealous...
Demian-
Please update your profile on the forum to match your new e-mail address... every time someone sends you a private message, I get a notice that your e-mail is down...
MJ12 has seven of the top ten sellers in the miniatures category at RPGNow...
And I didn't think of it until working up the Kosmoflotilla, but these ships would be mostly ported on Earth and making runs out into space as required right?
Actually, no. The ships remain in orbit -- I picture Cavorite spheres as being the main transport from land to space.
And the one question that's been magging me since I got the Merchant War.....why hasn't anyone been to the moon yet?
What makes you think no one has?
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
