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
Just got confirmation that the submission was approved: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/122821/starmada-nova-rulebook
With SNE, everything changed. Fighters move and fire at the same time as ships, losing their biggest advantage (not that I'm complaining) ... BTW, with the SNEmove sequence, it's possible that fighters will be unable to catch enemy ships if they must move before nearby ships.
I may have found one reason why you found fighters to be underpowered -- you were moving them at the same time as ships. Fighters are meant to move AFTER all ships have completed their movement.
I'm thinking of adding this to the section on "Fighter Combat" (p.16):
In order to keep things manageable in larger games, during the Combat Phase, all fighter counters in a single hex are activated at the same time. Thus, only count the number of hexes containing fighters (not the total number of counters) when determining the activation sequence (p.9).
Comments?
Anyway, I guess it's the way I want to use shields is making me bias, but I always feel it's weird that shields 6 is always 6. In my mind piercing should reduce shields, so you need more powerful ones to resist piercing.
I dunno -- write it off to my concerns about completely negating anything. If you've got shields, you should always have at least a slim chance of them working...
My bias aside I was just interested in why the Piercing +1 idea was changed.
It was a way to provide an anti-shield weapon without multiple traits.
If you really want them, the "old" versions of piercing could be reintroduced:
Piercing +1 [P+1] = 1.54
Piercing +2 [P+2] = 1.93
Piercing +3 [P+3] = 2.17
Piercing +4 [P+4] = 2.28
Wait, seriously? This is worrisome...
Why? If you wish to keep the 50% restriction, go right ahead...
Also, on fighters, the Imperials have always had a pretty solid anti-fighter defense, between the Fire Control and the giant piles of close-defense cannons
That's kinda the point -- after all, the Imperials fight the Arcturans more often than anyone else. 
- Fighters... I would be too kind if I said they were crappy. They lost all of what made them so powerful (not bad when I remember how they wreaked havoc on enemy ships in SAE). But they are still as expensive, so, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I will take them again.
They have lost their ability to fire first. In exchange, their firepower has gone up by 33%.
Some questions:
- What are attack dice modifiers that are not cancelled by fire control (aside battery mods)?
None. Fire control can cancel any -1 penalty except the arc mods.
- Are fighter fires affected by enemy ECM?
Yes.
It seems odd that Piercing now has a better effect against shields 3 than 4, or 2 than 1.
Because there's more to "pierce"?
If you look at expected vs. actual damage inflicted, piercing becomes much better as the target's shields increase:
Shields 6 = No change
Shields 5+ = +25% effective firepower
Shields 4+ = +33% effective firepower
Shields 3+ = +100% effective firepower
Shields 2+ = +200% effective firepower
Having a little trouble with fighter traits, here. The acronym Tgh (for Tough) doesn't seem to register. Anyone else having this difficulty? All the other traits I tried worked out fine.
Fixed.
Well, first of all, the Chaos conversion s Mark did were stored in the sandbox, which was cleared out a few days ago.
I have a ZIP file of the designs that were in the sandbox.
I was wondering if this was an accidental or deliberate omission.
Oh. :oops:
It was accidental on purpose... I only went through the Rulebook and Rules Annex when prepping the Conversions chapter.
Also... since you are the boss, was my hunch that Antimony and Harloss fought correct?
Sure.
If a fellow were inclined to indulge you in this - what materials are currently canon for the default setting? I saw the timeline in the Nova rules, but is the only other source the Imperial Armada book from SAE? Any reference to this setting in any of the other games?
The material from the SAE Imperial Starmada Sourcebook and the timeline in the Nova rulebook are all that is considered "canon" at this time. Everything else is up for negotiation/discussion.
Just one thing, there still isn't a costing for converting the SAE Fighter-Exclusive trait. I'm guessing it would follow the non-piercing and starship-exclusive conversions and be a straight modifier to the BAS. Is it because it was a trait found in KLA/RA?
As discussed in other fora, I am not comfortable including "exclusive" traits for the time being. So when converting Fighter-Exclusive from SAE, multiply the BAS by x0.55 and apply the pinpoint Nova trait. When converting Starship-Exclusive, multiply the BAS by x0.70.
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=59
EDIT: Corrected the link. :oops:
In another thread you said that you were going to change it to explain that only the range based combinations in the chart were allowed.
If I said that, I was addled in the brain... The only range-based combinations possible ARE those in the chart.
Version 1.0 still has not been changed on page 48 regarding a weapon cannot have two range based traits.
My book says "A weapon cannot possess more than two range-based traits"... :?:
I'm hoping to add a plain text option for the Drydock...
Is is possible to get the account reset?
Sure, but I need your email addy.
*sigh*
Couldn't you have found this before I released version 1.0?
You are correct -- Dx2 and Dx3 are not "stackable". Taking an example Admiralty weapon system, let's work through together, shall we?
BIG FRICKIN' GUN: ROF 1, ACC 4+, IMP 2, DMG 4 (Double Damage).
The initial BAS is 1.35 (1 + 2.25 x 0.60).
The ACC 4+ increases the BAS to 2.03.
The DMG 4 increases the BAS to 2.17 and adds the Dx3 trait.
"Double Damage" increases the BAS to 2.32 add adds the Dx2 trait. However, since a weapon can't have both Dx2 and Dx3, you can keep one (doesn't matter which) and apply the appropriate modifier from p.47 for the other. In this case, we'd probably keep Dx3, and apply a x1.87 factor, resulting in a final BAS of 4.06.
Thanks for doing this... I would really love to see the default setting become more fleshed-out.
So, in fact, no more than simply destroying it.
I feel that's bizarre.
From an in-game perspective, capturing and destroying are the same -- each result removes an enemy combat unit from battle.
Yes. On p.21: "Once all available boxes have been checked, the target ship has been captured. Remove it from the game, and award the opposing player VPs af it had been destroyed."
will you be posting a folder with counters/markers and other tidbits on the catalog page? I had thought they might be included at the end of the rules with the blank ship displays.
Full-color counter sheets will be made available from the Starmada page.
Pre-order customers, please take note... The ZIP file has been updated to version 1.0.
It can be downloaded here, with the username/password provided when you placed your order: http://zips.mj12games.com/mjg0130.zip
What's the rule for splitting a battery into three or more targets? Say, I have a single battery that should, in reality, consist of six point defense guns?
I would assume that such a battery would be divided into multiple banks to begin with...
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.