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
cloaked ships should move last, regardless of initiative and number of ships for both sides.
That's a good point.
Its a bit late, but I'm starting to share the concerns voiced by some about weapons in the forward arc being 'larger' in terms of SU than aft arcs.
I don't understand the problem, to be honest. Or, rather, I do UNDERSTAND it, I just don't agree it's worth changing.
However, the bigger concern is feasibility. The modifier is applied at the SU stage because the SU cost is a primary factor in the ORAT calculation. Applying arc modifiers at the ORAT stage would require recalculating from scratch.
I'm playing around with the Nova edition and converting ships from Sword of the Stars and end up with [FX4][PX7][SX7][TT5][PH5][SH5]
[...]
Is there a more elegant way to do this?
I'm afraid I don't really understand the question... ?
Also, what are the "PX" and "SX" arcs?
Why do the weapon displays start at a really high value when all of the weapons have a bank modifier?
Because the number in the first column represents the total firepower of all weapons in the battery.
It is possible to adjust the display as Kevin suggests, but it's not something I expect to do with "official" designs.
1) Do fighters fire at the same time as everything else? I guess this comes under the rule "fighters are ships".
Yes.
2) I was using some stock ships in the rules with a weapon listed as "Anti-fighter". I think I was doing it wrong to start with; The -1 is a column shift isn't it, it doesn't make you need 6's to hit does it?
All modifiers are column shifts.
3) Unless you use the optional split fire rule you can end up wasting fire from good anti-fighter weapons, once you've done 2 damage to kill 1 flight. I was thinking of ruling that if flights are stacked, then damage rolls over. This discourages stacking around a poor arc. Anyone see any serious issues with this?
Not really.
So, uh... noticed a little weirdness with some weapon pricing.
Weird. This never came up before, even though the effect was present in the Admiralty Edition:
1) One [AC], one [BD] weapon in a battery with RNG 2-4-6, ROF 1, ACC 5+, IMP 1, DMG 1. Thrust 6. SUs = 12. ORAT = 24.0.
2) One [AC], one [BD] weapon in a battery with RNG 3-6-9, ROF 1, ACC 5+, IMP 1, DMG 1 (Carronade). Thrust 6. SUs = 12.6. ORAT = 21.0.
Suggestions?
Friendly escorts block line of sight, and scouts can be used to circumvent only enemy escorts. Is there any particular reason you can't use scouts to circumvent friendly escort LOS blocking?
No. The first sentence on p.22 should read "Players may ignore any escort ships..." (i.e. remove the word "enemy").
Also, how do Long-Range Sensors / extreme ranges interact with the combined range-based traits? For example, if I have a Guided Ballistic weapon, do I take -2 or -3?
If a weapon has the ballistic trait, apply the -3 modifier, regardless of other traits.
Also I don't get why it's harder to hit the seekers with the various traits. I'm guessing this is a points issue rather than a realism one.
Without those penalties, players would shy away from making their seeker weapons triple damage (for example), since it takes just as much defensive firepower to eliminate a "standard" attack die as a "triple damage" attack die.
Do seekers have a range modifier to hit the target? I guess you have to remember what range they were at at the time?
The idea is you determine the appropriate number of attack dice at the time of launch (which includes any range modifier), and place the appropriate marker on the game board.
I know the Majestic has done sterling service in this position but a ship with a some Armor might have been clearer.
Good point.
It's not exact, but you can assume the largest modifier represents 1 weapon, and extrapolate from there, since every +2 doubles the number of weapons. (A +1 modifier is roughly x1.4)
For example, with banks of [FF5][FP4][FS4][AP5][AP5][AA7], the "AA7" can be assumed to represent a single weapon. The "5" arcs would thus be 2 weapons each, while the "4" arcs would be 3 weapons each. This gives a total of 13 weapons.
Then, take the first number of attack dice, divide by the number of weapons, and use the result as the BAS. Thus, if the above battery starts with 10 attack dice, the BAS would be 0.77 (10 / 13).
Just as confirmation, having no armour boxes will result in 0 being added to the defence score for purposes of determining SUs/DRat, correct?
Yes.
Every one of them winds up damaging the armor, while what I'm looking for is an attack that simply does damage to the hull without taking armor into account at all.
Would this not cause the same problems as "ignores shields" did in SAE?
FWIW, I'm using "morale" as a combination of experience and motivation...
It appears, unless I'm misreading things, that Cloaking no longer provides an element of hidden information. This is quite saddening to me, since that was the best part.
This was not a game-balance decision, but a playability one. Without written movement orders -- or simultaneous movement -- as the "default", I thought it would be too hard to track where the cloaked ship had moved and/or give the cloaked ship too much of an advantage/disadvantage by moving first or last. (And I don't want any options to depend on any others -- i.e. "if you use cloaking, you have to use written movement".)
I'm open to tweaks that add a bit of the unknown back to cloaking... perhaps allowing a ship to move X number of hexes upon de-cloaking to simulate uncertainty over its "true" location?
So far, unless I've missed something, the only thing I feel like was missing was customization rules for fighters/fighter flights and drones - I think I'll miss the old system here more than anywhere else.
I was hoping the fighter traits would suffice -- are there things the old system did that the six traits on p.15 don't cover?
Also, while we do have Piercing for reducing the effectiveness of Shields, there's no equivalent to reduce the effectiveness of armor or ECM (except the ECCM optional rules, but that's not a weapon feature). I'd also like to see the equivalent of the old Ignores Shields, and Ignores Armor would be useful for modeling meson weapons from Traveller, but would have to be a pretty darned high multiplier, I think, to be allowed.
I was toying with the inclusion of a "halves armor" kinda thing, where every hit checks off two armor boxes...
Agreed; I was surprised that that didn't appear in the rules, as it seemed a decent idea (though there were weird breakpoints at 2:1 vs 2:1 - 1).
That was something I threw into a late draft, but it really had no playtesting behind it. I think it's easy enough to implement without being part of the actual rules if players think it would be useful.
The drydock seems to indicate that this does not apply to additions from Carrier and similar; just want to verify that this is correct.
Correct. The additions from fighters, drones, etc., SHOULD have the x1.67 built in.
As mentioned elsewhere, p.47: DRAT calculation should have a x1.67 multiplier.
I agree that something is broken in defenses, but in a different way.... Given a hull 12 with 12 points of armor (armor score 2, which it generates correctly), it generates a DRAT of 40.08.
Not broken -- another piece of errata.
I added a factor of x1.67 to the DRAT to make the final combat rating results comparable to those in SAE, but failed to add it in the rulebook... :oops:
Alas, poor Cloaking, though...
Poor cloaking... why?
Note that the link leading to the drydock doesn't appear anywhere except here.
Because it's not "live" yet. The link is provided in the rulebook, however... 
BTW, is it possible to download it?
Sadly, no.
The username/password are only to download the file. The PDF cannot (for now) be edited.
In the book the Close Defense Cannons are [FF2][PH4][SH4] as I designed it. In the printout they get rejiggered as you can see.
I might be doing something wrong, cause the space remaining is -31, but I don't know what.
Remember, the 2, 4, and 4 are attack modifiers, NOT the number of weapons.
If you were to build the ship with 2xFF, 1xPH, 1xSH, you would get the proper result.
I have suspicion that this should be Hull * 2^(Defense Score / 2), because of the way defenses work.
Your suspicion is correct.
That's why I'm doing this "pre-release" stage... so we can catch all these minor glitches before going to print...
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.