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
The assumption is the attack happens not at the moment the seekers are one hex away, but at the point during their travel most advantageous for the defender...
A question came up though....How does a Proximity weapon target seekers? Do you hit yourself if the target is you and the marker is face up?
No. A proximity weapon fired against a seeker counter (face up or otherwise) ONLY attacks that seeker counter.
The intent is that marines are not "lost" unless they successfully board the target ship.
Just a quick update... My understanding is that Nova Rulebooks start printing TODAY (yaay!) and they should be shipped to pre-order customers by the end of the week.
However, I think this scale is probably not correct. Is hull linear to mass, or is space requirement linear to mass?
I think of SUs as being the closest approximation to hull displacement.
FWIW, we're working on Grand Fleets (3rd ed). With the scale we're using, a 1000-ton destroyer gets 3 hull, while Yamato gets 30. A 100-kton carrier would get 40.
The name of the file is Starmada_Nova_Rulebook.pdf.
Considering that is NOT the name I gave the file when it was uploaded, this confuses me greatly...
I will look into it.
Every time this topic comes up, I mention this... so why break with tradition?
Historically, dreadnoughts are (rather primitive) battleships... When/how did the idea that a "dreadnought" is a "large battleship" come from?
I don't know. x2 is kind of pedestrian. Can we have it be something involving log (base pi) of the seventh root of the hull size or something?
How about i^pi?
The good stuff seems to always be a bit overpriced.
Yeah. Just wait until I tell you how much it will cost if you want to roll TWO dice instead of one. 
I'm not sure what the multiplier or SU cost will be, but I'm guessing they will both be fairly large.
I'm thinking x2 would about cover it.
Roll the dice for catastrophic, then double (or triple) the result.
Conversions state SAE shields = Nova Shields, where did the rest come from?
It is true that for the sake of simplicity, the existing conversion chapter assumes shields = shields.
However, "It should be noted that 'shields' is used as a generic term for starship defenses—it is possible that the 'shield' rating may in fact be due to point-defense lasers, neutronium armor, reflective hull paint, magic beans, or any number and/or combination of different systems." (Admiralty Core Rulebook).
So, it's theoretically possible that when converting an Admiralty ship to Nova, one could instead replace the shields with the equivalent number of armor boxes, ECM Rating, or combination thereof.
Let's all remember the "Conversions" chapter is meant as a starting point for people who want to understand what their Admiralty ships might look like when made into Nova designs -- there's nothing preventing you from completely re-imagining your ships, as we did for the "default" background ships.
It was about a comparison between SAE and SNE. In SAE, fighters attacks are unaffected by both countermeasures and stealth.
In SNE, countermeasures becomes ECM and stealth remains stealth, but both affect now fighters attacks (that's was one of the reasons I didn't understand why fighters are now affected by those).
Ah, I get you now.
(by the way, in the Nova conversion rules, you should say that SAE shields could be converted either as SNE shield, armor, ECM or a mix)
Good point.
Hmm... I'll have to check with ADB regarding the corrections.
In the meantime, here's a more detailed breakdown of the errata:
Of course, with ECM and stealth, the need of fighters is vastly increased in Nova.
I'm not sure I understand this comment (nor, relatedly, do I "get" BeowulfJB's comment that shields of 3+ make fighters "useless").
ECM/Stealth/Shields all increase the average number of attacks required to cause one point of hull damage. This increase is consistent; i.e. it applies to all types of attack equally. Why is there a perception that a specific level of ECM/Stealth/Shields affects fighters disproportionately?
But... I thought the rating of the D7 was 282, not 275.
From http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2187&p=17706#p17706:
A couple of errors were discovered in the computations used to determine point values for the included ships; however, the difference is very minor (an aggregate of -2.2%). We felt we should mention it since some players may try to recreate the ships and wonder why they get the "wrong" values.
Out of curiosity, when/where did you purchase your copy of KA? I thought we had corrected the point costs in later printings...
I am assuming that the ship is a 9 hull. When I start adding all of the various systems, it seems to be way over the space limits. That's the first and main thing I encountered. But also I think the combat rating is too low, meaning I had a value of something around 250.
Okay. Good to know.
First: the space requirements have been kinda thrown out the window when it comes to the SFU ships -- we're trying to replicate the capabilities of ships in SFB/FC. Just think of it as the effect of some implied tech level modifiers... 
Second, I'll go through the combat rating computations step-by-step:
OFFENSIVE RATING:
Phaser-1: RNG 15, ROF 1, ACC 4+, IMP 1, DMG 1 (Range-Based ROF)
-> Base SU Requirement = 15 * 1 * ( 1 + 0.25 ) * ( 1 + 0.6 ) / 4 * 2 = 15
-> Total SU Cost = 15 * ( 12 + 3 ) = 225
-> ORAT = 225 * ( 6 + 15 ) / 15 = 315
Phaser-2: RNG 12, ROF 1, ACC 5+, IMP 1, DMG 1 (Range-Based ROF)
-> Base SU Requirement = 12 * 1 * ( 1 + 0.25 ) * ( 1 + 0.6 ) / 6 * 2 = 8
-> Total SU Cost = 8 * ( 14 + 6 ) = 160
-> ORAT = 160 * ( 6 + 12 ) / 12 = 240
Disruptors: RNG 18, ROF 1, ACC 4+, IMP 2, DMG 1
Overloaded: RNG 18, ROFG 1, ACC 5+, IMP 4, DMG 1 (Carronade)
-> Base SU Requirement (Normal) = 18 * 1 * ( 2 + 0.25 ) * ( 1 + 0.6 ) / 4 = 16.2
-> Base SU Requlrement (Overload) = 18 * 1 * ( 4 + 0.25 ) * ( 1 + 0.6 ) / 6 * 0.7 = 14.28
-> Base SU Requirement (Combined) = 16.2 + ( 14.28+14.2 / 2 ) = 23.34, rounded up to 24
-> Total SU Cost = 24 * ( 8 + 4 ) = 288
-> ORAT = 288 * ( 6 + 18 ) / 18 = 384
Drone Racks: 3 * 60 = 180
Probes: 5 * 12 = 60
Shuttles: 2 * 15 = 30
Tractor Beams: 3 * 28 = 84
Transporters: 5 * 10 = 50
Total ORAT = 1343
DEFENSIVE RATING:
Base DRAT = 9 * 60 / ( 30 - 14 ) = 33.75
Drone Racks: 3 * 2.4 = 7.2
Marine Squads: 14 * 1 = 14
Shuttles: 2 * 0.6 = 1.2
Total DRAT = 56.15
COMBAT RATING:
CRAT = ( 1343 * 56.15 ) ^ 0.5 = 274.6, rounded to 275
Gladly, although it would be helpful if you gave some details on where you think you're going wrong. Are you getting a different combat rating than in the book?
There are directional defenses, why not directional armor?
This is one reason I want to change the name. When I say "front-loaded" I mean the armor is moved to the "front" of the ship display, not that it is at the front of the ship...
It would be really cool to have this made official and replace the existing armour rules. That way the pricing could be revised and you'd actually buy the amount of armour you wanted instead of getting 2/3 of the armour you wanted (which I guess just means armour is 50% more expensive).
It's not going to be made official (even as an optional rule) until I've got some playtesting data behind it. There may be some aspects of this I haven't worked out. Thought experiments will take you only so far.
If, however, you wanted to experiment with building front-loaded designs from scratch, you could take the armor score from p.46 and add 1.17. For example, a ship of hull size 7 with 12 armor points would have an armor score of 4.05 (2.88 + 1.17).
I think Cricket is just trying to simplify the ship sheet by not moving all of the boxes to the first section. Mostly I think it's because OldnGrey will kill him if he has to add that to his Shipyard sheet.
Well, actually, I'm more concerned about messing with the coding behind the Drydock, but Paul's continued happiness is a beneficial side effect.
More to the point, however, is that this is an optional rule to allow players a desired effect when using existing ship designs. If you want to design ships from the ground up using this rule, we can work on that later. For now, I need to confirm the theory is sound.
If you ever allow an anti-armor weapon function , it could make a difference depending on if that function used the difference in those two block for whatever.
Ahh, I see.
Well, leaving the boxes where they are would mean that, in the case a ship's armor is not neatly divisible by 3, the "odd" hull will always be in the first (remaining) section.
Yaay, Kevin! It's amazing what a little coffee will do.
On another note, I'm open to other names aside from "front-loaded armor".
Ablative?
in the 5 armor that becomes 3 Front-Loaded armor, will it matter where that 3rd armor goes: Armor area 1 or Armor area 2 ??
The idea is to use the same ship display (divided 2-2-1) but just ignore the middle section (2-X-1).
The 3rd armor doesn't "go" anywhere -- it stays in the third section, where it was to begin with.
(I'm not sure I'm understanding the question... :?:)
Will it matter if the extra armor is in first or second batch when there isnt a neat 3 to 2 armor divider ratio, or is there any rounding?
My thought is to "ignore" the middle section of Armor, which neatly takes care of the rounding issue. e.g., 5 armor (2-2-1) becomes 3 (5 * 2/3 = 3.33), 7 armor (3-2-2) becomes 5 (7 * 2/3 = 4.67), etc.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.