351 Reply by Blacklancer99

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

2)  I'm not sure that downgrading each step will work.  for one, the range component of each bolt is a factor that gets washed out, so a G-torp and an F-torp are the same if you ignore the range.

Well, since the R torp has an additional "Step", it has an additional turn on the board, hence more more "range". At least that was my thinking.


It would also essentially double the effectiveness of phasers against torps (as there are fewer steps to take)and they are already pretty effective at wiping out a plasma torp.

That is probably true. I for one do not particularly like the phaser ROF increase, which I think makes them too effective against drones and plasmas...I'm thinking it would have been better to make them dual mode with Mode 1 being Phaser 1/2 with range based IMP instead of ROF, and mode 2 being phaser 3 as is. That way you have a lot less shots that can hit plasmas/drones, and if you want them to be slightly better at hitting by selecting Mode 2 you would have to sacrifice offensive fire power for the turn. But that's really another issue altogether  wink

3)  I think both the Bolt and the Torpedo mode should be slow firing - that's an essential part of the plasma flavor to me - you throw your big rock and the hope you can hang around long enough to get another chance.  The little Plasma D racks could be normal speed firing if you used the ammo rule, since they are "pre-loaded".  Would be an interesting way to represent those, especially in their close defense mode targeted at drones and such.

Agreed.

PS  Next week I'll mull over Maulers - Hellbores should be out this spring if the posted ABD product schedule holds

Awww, why wait for somebody else to do it when you can rack your own brain!   :geek: I like to pretend maulers don't exist anyway!
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

352 Reply by Blacklancer99

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

I have been trying to think of the simplest way to approach plasma torps so that the torpedo is better than the bolt, see if this makes any sense…

Step 1: Instead of having the plasma torpedo be a seeker flight and attack like one, what if you launched the torp like a seeker, it moves like a seeker, but it attacks with the statistics given in RA for the “Bolt” (with the exception being for range, which is ignored)  Bolting a torpedo is covered later…

Step 2: Torpedos all have the same speed; I'm thinking 9.

Step 3: In the first turn after launch, the seeker retains the same direct fire capabilities of its given class, but on each subsequent turn, the torp will have the attack statistics of the next class “down”. In other words, on the second turn of its time on the board, the Type R torpedo you launched last turn know attacks as a Type S, and so on…In addition, each hit from phaser fire lowers the “class” by one. This is a simple way to give the torpedo to “diminish” as others have mentioned.
Step 4: “Bolting” torpedos is supposed to be much less efficient, so create a second mode for each plasma torpedo representing a Bolt Mode, probably with the same ranges and ACC given for the plasma torps as they stand now, but with IMP & DMG reduced to 1's, and no Slow-Firing trait.

By using something like this you have large-ish weapons which are better at firing torps than bolts, and the torps “diminish” in strength as they stay on the board, which gives bigger torps a longer endurance, and therefore a greater stand-off range. I never played FC, but torps of this fashion are more like the SFB torps I remember from long long ago. Of course, this type of thing would really only be “fair” if used in the Trekmada setting, and I think there would really have to be another mechanic for generic Starmada designs to have weapons that fire seekers. Of course, there are those that might like the combination of cloaking and powerful but slow-firing bolts to simulate the cloak-shoot-cloak tactics the Romulans use…
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the issue.
Cheers,
Erik

PS next week I will mull over Hellbores!  lol

Go to forum: Starmada

353 Reply by Blacklancer99

(35 replies, posted in Starmada)

pickledteak wrote:

Have you gotten the chance to play around with your system some more?

I'm in the process of doing something very similar in scale and scope with my gaming group. We plan on playing fully by PBEM/Vassal/GoogleDocs. Were you using PBEM for turn resolution the entire time?

But before I get into any more rules for our game, I thought it would be nice to try out yours and see how we fare. I definitely like the feel you have going with this system.

Thanks!

Hi, unfortunately the player that was helping me test the system fell off the face of the Earth (or so it seems) before we got too far into a campaign. I did a play around with some of the system generation elements, but other real life stuff has kept me from doing any more play-testing of the system as a whole. What we played out was done totally through Vassal/PBEM and it seemed to work very well, even if the evil die roller hated me  wink  I'd be very interested to have somebody else take it out and kick the tires...when you play something you made you tend to do what you meant for the system to do, if you know what I mean. Having somebody else play it out might find more problem areas and loopholes that I overlooked. Nothing is ever truly "rules-lawyer" proof, but at least if there are no horrible problems I will be happy! Glad your interested, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say about it!
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

354 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

In black and white terms it would, by altering the VP conditions, absolutely "unbalance" a game.

You could, however, apply a point modifier to address this:

Poor: +10% / -20%
Fair: +5% / -10%
Average: None
Very Good: -5% / +10%
Exceptional: -10% / +20%

The first modifier is applied to your point limit, while the second is applied to your opponent's victory threshold.

Well see now, if you had said that in the first place!  lol
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

355 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

Brazouck wrote:

I think it is a good idea but aren't you afraid of unbalancing the game ?

In black and white terms it would, by altering the VP conditions, absolutely "unbalance" a game. Especially in "one-off" games I can see where there would be an issue as a player might be upset that his design didn't get a "fair" chance because of morale. Personally I don't have a problem being at a "disadvantage" in game, because I enjoy playing battles that aren't between to points-perfect matched opponents ("we're outnumbered, outgunned and out of time...let's see how many of the b@#&@*^s we can take with us!":) )
But, as Cricket says:

This rule is optional

  wink

Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

356 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

JohnRobert wrote:

This seems as good a way as any to do it. The biggest problem with an absorption screen in Starmada is costing the Defensive Rating so that it balances in play with more conventionally shielded vessels. I do not know how to do this yet.

Agreed that there is a pointing problem (if mixing shield types like Traveller does), but I have no idea how to solve it. I'm sure one of the math wizards could break down how doubling the effective shield rate while such a field is on, and then accounting for the possibility of filling your capacitors and thereby destroying your ship would effect DRAT...It seems like plugging the effective shield rate into the DRAT formula and then modifying it for capacitor "strength" could work somehow, but I've never been good at word problems  sad
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

357 Reply by Blacklancer99

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Glad to have generated some discussion  smile

The ideas that I wrote up came mostly from looking at doing setting conversions. There are lots of settings where there are things like scouts and close escorts that I don't think are very well represented in S:AE, as much as I love the actual gameplay of the system.

- Space is very big and such a thing should not be automatic. Such a thing exists in ACTA but is not automatic.
- I don't think that every ship should count. Maybe only one should be enough.

I never played ACTA, but I did buy it once upon a time so I will have to look at how it is handled there. I think you are probably right that the ability should not stack, like the "loaning" of specials.

Sci-fi movies/series are not what I could call 'realistic'. They usually show space battles as if ships were one or two klicks apart, fighters moving in atmosphere, etc.

Who said anything about realism?  wink  I almost always default back on what you see or read in science fiction for what should happen in a game like Starmada. After all, doesn't it promise something like any ship, any setting, any universe on the tin?  smile

Technically speaking, it's difficult to use in a game. Does this ship use energy shields? Are they powerful enough to protect another ship? Are they able to move close enough to protect each other and thus avoid collision? etc.

I kindof envisioned this as a desperate, last ditch chance at survival...something that would only be done in the most dire times of need. Difficult to accomplish successfully to protect a battered consort.  In short, just the kind of thing to be expected from any ship named Enterprise  wink

One thought I had was to allow weapons with the Anti-fighter characteristic (which I gather is considered weak for the multiplier) to shoot in the fighter phase. These weapons can interupt movement of any fighter flight to fire on it, resolving the effects immediately before the fighter enters a new hex. A given ship may only fire at a flight once for each hex entered (i.e. if the flight starts 2 hexes away, you'll only get one chance to fire an Anti-Fighter weapon at it before it is in the attack hex). The use of Anti-Fighter in the fighter phases would be like Dual Mode - players must decide during the orders phase if weapons with this ability would use it and if so, they would not be able to fire in the normal firing phase. Obviously, each weapon would only fire once in each turn.

I pretty much agree with that 100%

This would promote putting escorts with your capitals, but also wouldn't introduce the "So I put my Shields 0 ship with the single G arc catastrophic extra hull damage area effect weapon in the same hex as my shields 5 armor-plated ship with no guns..."

Agreed...the single greatest problem with any system with a construction system is the min/maxing of designs. I personally hate it, generally don't find games based in designing first and playing second fun. So, that being said, all of my goofy ideas are aimed at better representing fleets that have been featured in other products or literature, not "one-off" games. I totally agree that it would be easy to "munchkin" some of these types of things. I like your idea of stacking squadrons, and would be an interesting steeping off point for playing a Starmada type game one level "up" the command chain, treating squadrons like ships are currently done in many respects.

Good stuff.
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

358 Topic by Blacklancer99

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Sometimes, S:AE can feel a bit like a free-for-all…a deep space donnybrook. While this can be, and is fun, I've been playing around with some ideas to try and give a reason to have escorts/squadrons/battlegroups beyond “I still have 125 points to round out my force.”  Some of these things we've discussed on the forum before, some build on the ideas of others, and some come from other games but seem to work for S:AE. I've tried to put together with a few things that would work without changing any other rules, and I was wondering what others might think, so here goes.

1.    When shooting through a hex containing a starship to attack a different target there is a -1 penalty to hit for each hex containing a starship that the shot must pass through to reach the intended target.
The idea here is that having a ship in between a target and an attacker not so much blocks line of sight, but “interferes” with targeting, whether that be with EW/decoys/etc…

2.    In the Orders Phase ships may “loan” Fire Control or Countermeasures special equipment to another vessel for the remainder of the turn.  To “loan” either special equipment, the ship doing the loaning must have at least Science(100). A ship may loan this special equipment to additional vessels for each additional 200 SUs of Science that it has. The vessel receiving the effects of the equipment must be no farther from the loaning vessel than 2+the Equipment Tech Level of the loaning vessel (minimum 1 hex). A vessel may only receive the benefits of Fire Control or Countermeasures once, and additional “loans” or existing equipment have no additional effect. Ships “loaning” Special Equipment no longer receive the benefits of that equipment themselves.
That's right, combat scouts rear their ugly head  smile

3.     In the Orders Phase a vessel may “loan” Point Defense Special Equipment to another vessel for the remainder of the turn. To do so the loaning vessel must be in a hex adjacent to the ship receiving the benefit of the Special Equipment.  Only One vessel may loan Point Defense to a given ship in a turn. Ships “loaning” Special Equipment no longer receive the benefits of that equipment themselves.
A bodyguard/Goalkeeper for the big ships!

4.    Opportunity Fire Ballistic & Fighter Defense: If a Flight (Fighters/Seekers/Strikers/Boarding Pods/Breachers) moves into a hex adjacent to a starship without attacking (on its way to another target or just moving) the vessel may engage the flight with Opportunity fire. All to-hit rolls made by the ship conducting Opportunity Fire suffer a -1 Penalty. Only Anti-Fighter Batteries or Drones (if using KA Drone Point Defense rules) may conduct Opportunity Fire. Anti-Fighter Batteries firing at this time must be marked as fired and may not fire in the Combat Phase.
There is nothing more frustrating than watching flights of small craft simply zip past your escorts to pummel your dreadnought.  :evil:

5.    During the Orders Phase a vessel may “loan” Shields or Screens (but not Armor) to another vessel located in an adjacent hex. The ship receiving the benefit of the loan must not have any other Shields or Screens active. The loaning vessel can shift any amount of Shield/Screen power to the other vessel, however, the benefiting vessel only gets the protection of ½ of the total shifted, rounded down. For example a ship with 4 Levels of Shields sends 2 Shield levels (leaving itself at Level 2 Shields) to an adjacent vessel, which is now considered to have Level 1 Shields for the remainder of the turn. Likewise a ship with 16 screens loans 8, retains 8 for itself, while the recipient gains 4 screens for its protection.
There plenty of examples in Sci-Fi where one ship extends protection to another this way.

Anyway, those are the ideas. Crush them if you like, but remember that if you do, I will probably cry...and I think we can all agree that nobody wants to see that.
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

359 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ok, so I have been trying to think of a simple Black Globe/Energy Absorber shield solution for Starmada, and this is what I have come up with.
1.    Create a standard, all-aspect shield (rating 1-5). Shield Rating is reduced as normal by damage received in combat.
2.    Create a Capacitor Track with 5 boxes for each rating of the shield.
3.    Treat the shield as 2x current rating for purposes of IMP rolls (so a Shield with a rating a 1, becomes 2, 5 becomes 10, you get the idea). IMP rolls of 6 always penetrate, 1's are dropped and do not transfer any energy to the shield (grazes  wink )
4.    For “hits” that "Impact" against the black globe's rating, check off one box from the capacitor track for each damage die of the hit.
5.    When the capacitor track is filled and absorbs 1 more damage die the ship is destroyed (do not pass go, do not collect 200 space credits, do not roll damage, the ship is vaporized!)
6.    Each End Phase, the Black Globe radiates damage from the capacitor track. The damage radiated is equal to the current shield rating (after damage allocation).
7.    During Orders Phase, the shield can be shut down (or turned on if it was already off)to prevent it from absorbing any more damage on a given turn, but the ship is then exposed. A Field that is off can only radiate 1 point from its capacitors each turn.

Pros: This method ties everything to the Shield Rating and not the ship's size or any other factor. Bigger ships with beefier shields should be able to remain at full combat capability deeper into a fight due to the reduced likelihood of taking weapon or engine damage.

Cons: Weapons with high IMP and DMG rates can overwhelm the Shield and destroy the ship. Prolonged battles can be a problem as hits accumulate.

I know this ignores a lot of the peripheral effects and functions (especially in Traveler) of these shields, but I think it hits the main point that they are great at keeping a ship from being damaged, particularly in actions that are over quickly.
I didn't think it was necessary to load the game down with the myriad of ways that a system like this could affect things. This is particularly true if you are thinking of applying it to different settings where the particulars are a little different (I seem to remember Langston fields being much more “malleable” than black globes allowing small openings to shoot out of and for sensors rather than relying on flickering for example).

Ok, I have donned my fire retardant suit, so, what do people think?
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

360 Reply by Blacklancer99

(5 replies, posted in Discussion)

cricket wrote:

"Gneisenau"

Gesundheit.
big_smile
E

Go to forum: Discussion

361 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

Simple, and an interesting option. You could call it crew quality if you wanted, I think, and use the exact same process. Better crews would stay in the fight longer, and therefore be more effective. I know, it's still morale at its core, but quality is something that seems more quantifiable than morale. That might be even more "useful" in a campaign setting (Generate quality when ship is deployed and modify as the campaign progresses? Then modify it through participating in battles and so forth) I'm not sure I would use it in a "1-off" game though, as it would affect the points balance which is so important to that type of play (where design/points usage can be almost more important than tactics at times). Well, that's my 2 cents.
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

362 Reply by Blacklancer99

(13 replies, posted in News)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

Dan, I was just noticing that when you do a search within a topic, it appears to me that I am only getting results from things posted after the server migration. Can someone else verify this, and if it is the case, can someone please please please fix it!

Just re-created the search index.

Thanks Cricket, I may now continue my quest...

Go to forum: News

363 Reply by Blacklancer99

(13 replies, posted in News)

Dan, I was just noticing that when you do a search within a topic, it appears to me that I am only getting results from things posted after the server migration. Can someone else verify this, and if it is the case, can someone please please please fix it!  sad
Oh, and I miss the avatars.
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: News

364 Reply by Blacklancer99

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

OldnGrey wrote:

Sounds just like a plasma torpedo. It does not have to be called a plasma torpedo though.

Paul

My understanding was he was looking more for something that wouldn't be reduced by hits (until it reached its max and was destroyed), or have the turn ACC mods of the Plasma Torps either for that matter.
E

Go to forum: Starmada

365 Reply by Blacklancer99

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

I've been semi-working on a setting that, for some reasons, requires a heavy torpedo, something that can be hit by ship-board weapons (so requiring either striker/seekers), but not part of a 'shoal' of smaller torpedoes. My first thought was to simply have a 'fire-linked' option to simulate a heavy torpedo, but then wondered how to get around it being able to take several hits before being 'destroyed'.

Does anyone have any idea how to help?

I had thought about this before for a setting specific thing too. I thought maybe as a house rule of using the Defense Rating of a Fighter/Striker/Seeker to simulate hits. I was modeling something that could take 3 hits so I thought if I gave it DEF 3 and marked off 1 for each point of DMG it took that should work. Tried it out  in a test game and it seemed to work ok, and as long as it was setting specific it didn't threaten to mess up the pointing of fighters in general. I actually think it "felt" better than giving a fighter flight a high DEF and seeing starship weapons hit it to no effect, which I just hate. I know, a high DEF could represent elusiveness or other survivability traits, but it just sucks to whack a fighter flight for several hits from your battlecruiser's big guns and see them all survive (ignoring high IMP and DMG to boot!) And yes, that's a true story  sad
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

366 Reply by Blacklancer99

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

mj12srwstlouis wrote:

Lastly, I know I'm missing something, but how does a torp hit at long range? I keep trying to roll a 7 on a d6 but keep failing.

On page 22 of S:AE (core rules) there is a section on Minimum/Maximum rules. Basically in a nutshell, to get a 7+ you need to roll a 6, then you re-roll to get a "final" number (from 6 to 9). Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

367 Reply by Blacklancer99

(10 replies, posted in Game Design)

cricket wrote:

The rules are done... I'm just finalizing some of the formulas and deciding on the best way to roll the thing out. I'm leaning towards an initial release with 20 teams: the AL and NL champs from 2000 through 2009.

Hey Dan, any update on this?  I got a copy of the Bill James Handbook for my birthday yesterday, and it made me think about this game. Is there any hope that it will be out before Spring Training? I don't mean to pester...it's just in my nature  :oops:
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Game Design

368 Reply by Blacklancer99

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

prader wrote:

In Romulan Armada, the owning player of a ship with Plasma Torpedoes has the option of firing them in direct fire or seeking mode. But this option doesn't seem to "cost" him anything in terms of SU's, which I think is fine for Romulan Armada  purposes but in a homebrew campaign setting where players have the option of creating their own weapons I would view it as an unfair advantage.

What is a fair way for costing a weapon that can be fired in direct mode or as a seeker with essentially unlimited ammunition? I'm thinking some variation of "Dual Mode" but am concerned about it going too far the other direction and being prohibitively expensive in terms of SU's, which I'm not looking for either.

Maybe the simplest way to point it would be to add in the CR cost for Carrier(X), where X= the carrier capacity of all of the flights that a given ship can possibly "launch"/fire in a turn. This should help reflect the added combat flexibility of the weapon system in CRs without adding the the used SUs of a design. I'm not sure using the Carrier capacity 1:1 is the best idea, but it was the first thing that came to mind (maybe the square root of Carrier Capacity  smile ?).
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

369 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

bcantwell wrote:

My thought on PF's is that they need a new ship trait that reflects the fact that these ships have very limited combat duration and don't have any (much?) of their hull space taken up with crew quarters, supply storage, etc.  Consequently these should have more available systems space for a given hull size than a fully autonomous ship.  This would require that they be accompanied by a tender which would have the opposite trait - having less available system space than normal since the tender also carries crew space and stores for the PF's.

Brian

Yeah, there is a bit of a black hole for PFs/Battle Riders/LACs in the rules, especially for campaign play. Maybe a trait something like "Deep Space" for ships that have the "legs" for interstallar travel. If you make it independent of Hyperdrive, for settings where that would apply, then ships with both a Hyperdrive and Deep Space Capability would lose space that couldn't be used for offensive or defensive systems. On the flip side, a PF type vessel without the hyperdrive and Deep Space capability have proportionally greater volume that can be used for purely tactical systems. Add in a Tender Trait for moving them around, and that should about cover it. I'm hoping that Cricket will come out with a canon version for Starmada, maybe in the process of doing the Andromedan ships from the SFU stuff. Starmada is already very good at most stuff from lots of settings and large, non-fighter sub-craft is one area that I think is a bit lacking.
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

370 Reply by Blacklancer99

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Happy Holidays!
And don't forget the tiny tots with their eyes all aglow!
[attachment=0]Village of Damned.jpeg[/attachment]

Go to forum: Starmada

371 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:

AFAIK, all races in SFU-adapted to Starmada use tech 1.
Could you give us an example of a PF in terms of equipment, please?
I don't remember how they looked like.

Marc

For example a basic Klingon G1 PF has a Disruptor, 2 Phaser 2's, 2 Drone Racks, an Anti-Drone rack, a Transporter, one marine, and one shuttle. I found that I could comfortably make it a hull 1 ship if I dropped the drones to 1 rack and halved the range of the energy weapons. As they are classified as "Nimble" I included Overthrusters.
Chees,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

372 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

Over-gunned is the definition of a PF!

And thus my dislike  wink

I played around with the Klingon G1 and found that while, as you said, you can't do them as Flotillas, you can make them as Hull 1 ships pretty well. Maybe just build them as Hull 1 ships and use Flotilla rules?
Just a thought.
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

373 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

I'm working on Star Fleet Universe Fighters and PF ships.  I think it will be some time, if ever, that we get them officially as they aren't used in FC (except for Hydrans).  Since I'm new to Starmada I have a few questions.  I have both the core rules and the Rules Annex.

1.  Dual-mode fighters.  If the Fighter has a dual-mode of Striker is the unit removed from the board after it uses the Striker mode?  I thought no, but it is one-use.

If the striker mode of the DMF is used, it cannot be used again, but the flight remains on the board.

2.  Dual-mode fighters.  If the Fighter has a second fighter mode, is that mode able to be used multiple times?  Yes?

My understanding is that fighters can be designed with a second weapon that is not a Striker mode weapon, and therefore can be used again.

3.  Creating PFs.  Help?  PFs are the quintessential eggshells armed with hammers.  I thought the flotilla rules would best reflect  that, but flotillas are so small that none of the weapon systems will fit inside.  Would playing with Tech Levels help that out or should I redesign the weapons for PFs?  Maybe a really tough Fighter flight would best represent them.

Personally, I never really liked PFs. That aside, the problem in making them tough fighter flights is that you lose their weapon's range. Tech levels seem to be what the designers used to make the designs of the SFU ships "fit".  It might also be possible to "tone down" or tweak the weapons suite of a PF (PF-classed weapons with equivalent damage damage and effects but shorter range?) to get something that is representative without being a 100% accurate conversion. Personally I find that the construction mechanics of Starmada a great for finding "broken designs" from other systems. This usually occurs with over-gunned ships done without a construction mechanic other than, "hey this looks cool!"
Hope this helps a little.
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

374 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:

Not a bad idea, although I would forget the subsequent dr. There are enough of them currently.

Marc

Like I said, we never tried it, it was just a thought to keep the allocation randomized a bit.
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

375 Reply by Blacklancer99

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:

Ah, sorry. In Klingon Armada, the owning player roll a die for each shield hit. On a 3 or more, it hits the facet facing the fire. Otherwise, the player choose the facet hit.
To warrenss2, I don't think so as the hit has been determined to be a shield hit. How would you convert it?
Thus, if that facet is destroyed and the die roll is 3+, what should you do with the shield hit?

Marc

I think warrenss2 was referring to the result of a hit on the attack roll (no shield in the way, ship gets hit), while what was really asked is what happens when a shield is rolled during damage allocation, correct? When playing with Trek-style faceted screens and the roll indicated the damage to the facing shield that wasn't there anymore we moved to an adjacent facing of the controlling player's choice. We toyed with the idea of rolling a d6 and on the odd number the damage going to the facet to counterclockwise, and on an even number to clockwise, but we never tried it.
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada