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
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...
I really prefer having a certain number of dice assigned to each actual weapon, and being allowed to add them together myself, even if we do use a sliding scale of dice, based on range, ECM, etc.
IMHO, there's nothing more tedious than assigning separate targets for a bunch of individual weapons. Thus, the rules were written in a way to... shall we say, "encourage"... players to concentrate fire as much as possible.
So, yes, the intent is for all weapons in the same battery with the same firing arc to be combined into a single bank. You can separate them out into separate banks -- and in the case of expendables, I can see good reasons for doing so -- but is it really "Byzantine" to apply a -2 modifier if splitting fire between two targets?
What about RT for HIJKL?
Added to the Drydock. Multiplier 2.04.
BTW, how do you modelize weapons carried outside the hull?
For example, in Starfire, ships can have external mounts for missiles which do not take room inside the hull.
But they do have mass -- thus, I would not give any kind of discount for external mounts.
Someone asked for blank ship displays...
I am uncomfortable with the amount of rules data reproduced on the QRS.
Already been covered, PS = HIJKL.
Actually, PS = HIJK.
FWIW, in order to have ECM 5 and Stealth 5, you would have to devote all of the space on a hull-13 ship just to those two systems.
How should that effect the combat sequence or indeed should it? Should we recalculate it to 1-1-1-2-1-2-1-2? This would produce some weird issues if the losses had occurred later and some had fired and some not. Or do we just carry on and once I had run out of un-destroyed ships to fire stop?
The "activate multiple ships at once" rule applies to the entire Combat Phase, even if the larger force is reduced due to enemy weapons fire.
Okay. After digesting the comments over the past week to ten days, I am making the following changes (as opposed to "errata") to the rulebook:
* Removing Carronade. It's useless now that weapons can have different ranges in different modes.
* Removing Long Range Sensors. The math just doesn't work the way I thought it did. 
* Changing the point costs of double damage, triple damage, and catastrophic as follows:
Cts ... x3.09
Dx2 ... x1.87
Dx3 ... x2.69
This "discount" is consistent with that given to the IMP stat in The Admiralty Edition.
In terms of game balance, no, space units do not matter all that much. The point of "space" is simply to keep different player's designs somewhat comparable in terms of hull size to combat rating ratio.
Just to confirm, these new arcs will be present in the finished edition, correct?
No. These arcs are being added to the Drydock per individual user requests, and are consistent with the rules on Custom Firing Arcs. However, the rules themselves will be limited to the twenty arcs currently listed.
So, is it legal to build an "escort" with ECM 5 and Stealth 5? Sound annoying - is there an upper limit on ECM+Stealth?
Technically, no... there is no upper limit.
I'm just a bit suprised that as there are items coming directly from SFU (shuttlecraft, probes, etc.)
While it's true the immediate cause of their inclusion in Nova was the recent SFU conversions, it should be pointed out that shuttles and probes exist in other settings, as well... 
On the other hand, we are free to do as we like.
True enough. The number of fighters represented by each flight is much less important than the SU and ORAT cost.
Actually, rounding is not addressed at all -- that's kinda deliberate.
However, if you keep all fractions out to two digits, you should be just fine.
FWIW, I'm expecting to add port-wing (PW) and starboard-wing (SW) to reflect the weird arcs on some Klingon ships... They would be the same as [ACF] and [BDE] in Admiralty. Modifiers will be x1.51 each.
Unless already used by another fire arc (I don't see any like it), PS (new way) could be better than CD (old way).
Had already added [PS] as a stand-in for [HIJK]. Using [CD] based on Paul's suggestion ("cross-deck").
No. One bit of errata that needs to be added: Dx2, Dx3, and Catastrophic weapons lose their abilities against fighters.
Added [CD] arc to the Drydock. Multiplier x1.16.
Hmm... perhaps I misread, but I recall LRS modifying only Defense Score. Are range changes due to LRS applied for weapon battery ORAT pricing?
From above:
Long Range Sensors applies a flat 30% modified to a ship's ORAT. (Well, technically, to its DRAT, but since the two are multiplied together at the end, it's the same thing.)
Sorry for confusing things -- my comment about "increasing ORAT by more than 50%" was incorrect.
However, the cost of adding long range sensors to a ship with range-12 weapons is slightly less than the cost of changing all those weapons to range-15.
ORAT seems like the less important of the stats since the space is what determines how much you can fit on the ship and thus how much punch it packs.
But ORAT determines how much you can "fit" into your fleet, and ensures two fleets are evenly matched. ORAT is MUCH more important than space.
PS: What's the intended way to make expendable weapons with multiple shots? Add multiple banks?
Multiple banks is the only way.
Just FWIW, the point-costing for weapon range is no longer linear. By adding long range sensors, you are increasing your ships' ORAT by over 50%...
You can crunch all of the numbers you want, but in the end here's what I see as the result:
I pay 500 points for a ship, with an ECM of 1.
My opponent brings a mix of ships, one of which costs about 60 points and has Scout.
That means my opponent has 440 points worth of other ships that are presumably more offensive than the Scout ship.
But because my one level of ECM has been negated, my ship has just lost 16%, or 80 points, of its value.
You "lost" 80 points of your 500-point ship.
But (using the revised limits, above) the two scouts in my 500-point fleet cost me 106 points. If we both increase our fleet sizes to 800, then your 16% loss becomes 128 points, which is comparable to the 106 points I'm paying for my scouts.
Now one level of ECM is negated, and per the rules on ECM the Scout ship can negate the other level of ECM by using its own ECM offensively (assuming I'm interpreting the rules correctly on that).
True. But that reduction only applies to attacks from the ship using EPM -- it does not transfer to the rest of the fleet.
Is there a reason you couldn't just use "tough" fighters to simulate gunboats?
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.