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
Thanks! Does this mean no faceted shields in Starmada Nova? How will that work with the Romulan Armada, etc?
Faceted shields won't be quite the same as you think of them in SAE, but they exist.
Tease... tease...
Is it possible it might be out in March?
Yes.
would the shields in the ADB universe act more like Armor?
Yes.
Should the player having to move many ships asks first his opponent which ship, at what time, etc, or what?
The ships to be activated are chosen, opposing player first, then they are moved/fired in whatever order is desired by the acting player.
Should the player having to move many ships asks first his opponent which ship, at what time, etc, or what?
The ships to be activated are chosen, then they are moved/fired in whatever order is desired by the acting player.
Are we going to be provided with information to convert older version ships to the newer version? My main thoughts are running toward the conversions of Klingon, Romulan, Alien, etc, Armadas.
Yes, a process will be included to "upconvert" existing Admiralty designs.
I would understand such a a rule as long as the opponent may choose one of your ships if you have to move more than one ship.
This is the intent. If I am moving two or more ships at a time, my opponent chooses one of those ships during each of my movement opportunities. I have altered the wording to read, "If a player is moving more than one ship at a time, the opposing player chooses one of the ships to be moved."
/sighs
I definitely hope there is an option for simultaneous movement...
Not only is there an option, there's an explicit reference to it right there in the main rules. 
Fighters will have their own movement phase.
You all have been so patient, here's a tiny reward: The first 11 pages of the Starmada Nova Rulebook!
This book has been out of print for years. No downloadable version was ever authorized by our license with FFG.
You're missing the DMG value in your hypothetical scenario, so I can't say if you're right or wrong. I will say you are correct in your interpretation if the intended DMG value is 5.
I could bore you all with the various and sundry reasons for the delays... but that won't get the book into your hands any more quickly. Suffice to say that life can get complicated...
I'm reluctant to give any more estimates for fear of starting a riot -- I will say the rules are finished. The difficulty now is in giving it the final polish and making decisions on what should or should not be included.
I hope to give some firm updates this weekend.
Here's a possible alternative...
No rules update (sorry) but here's something pretty for y'all to look at.
I would not support any system that divides the turn into more than three segments. Don't have a specific reason for that limit -- it just seems reasonable.
But in the recent editions (eg SX, SAE) Dan focused more and more to vector movement which is now the main movement system, while the old standard is only optional. I am not happy about this change because I think the focus is not like traditional Starmada anymore and I hope at least there will be in the new edition an optional rule for the "old way" non-vector too.
There will continue to be a viable option for those who wish to retain "cinematic" movement.
Over the past few iterations of Starmada, I've become slightly concerned about the special status granted to fighters. While it does serve to distinguish them as a separate "class" of unit, from a realism point of view (if one can refer to that in a space combat game) starships vs. starfighters is not the same as surface ships vs. aircraft.
So, I've been considering a shift to treating fighters as nothing more than really small ships. They would retain the benefits of being small (-1 to be hit) but would lose the abilities to "forsee" ship movement and inflict damage prior to suffering return fire.
The question to you is this: Good idea? Not so much?
Sorry. Real Life<TM> has been intruding more often than I would have liked. But work proceeds as quickly as I can manage...
I happen to like it because it keeps ships in fighting shape a bit longer; I am mildly concerned that ships will erode in fighting capabilities too quickly with Dan's case, and am aware that my concern is more a play style preference.
I have attempted to keep the modifiers consistent with the average drop-off in performance seen in earlier versions of Starmada.
For example, in SAE, when a ship lost half of its hull boxes, it (on average) also lost 33% of its weapons. Accordingly, in the new version, a ship that has lost 1/3 of its hull, but not yet lost 2/3, has its firepower reduced by 33%.
ECM
Covered in Starmada by "ECM".
Deflector Shields
Covered in Starmada by "Shields".
Ablative Shields
Covered in Starmada by "Armor".
Armor
Inclusion in Starmada would require an additional type of defense. Perhaps a special trait?
Component Armor
Not sure I get the difference between, for example, "Armor 1" and "Component Armor 2".
Hull
Would be covered in Starmada by increasing hull size.
Prismatic Globe
Definitely would require a Starmada trait.
Cloaking Device
Covered in Starmada by "Cloaking Device".
Ebon Globe
Again, Starmada trait.
Each weapon hit, ideally. I know you're more or less abstracting everything into batteries.
"Banks", actually.
Right. You're more or less abstracting out individual weapons in favor of aggregated firepower factors.
Not nearly as much abstraction as some have feared. (Don't stir the pot again, Ken... )
Especially if you're forgoing weapon-level resolution at the game table.
DR wouldn't have worked in the Admiralty Edition, either. Relatively few weapons had a DMG value of 3+, which means even a DR of 2 would essentially make a ship invulnerable.
Each hit is reduced by N points of damage that comes in.
But what constitutes a "hit": Each weapon? Each battery? All weapons fire from one ship to another in a single game turn?
Does damage follow your dice-column-shift methodology?
Not sure what you mean... there are two ways of simulating damage to weapons:
1) The "simple" way, where a single roll is made at 1/3 and 2/3 damage, with the result determining an overall attack modifier applied to all weapons, or
2) The "complex" way, where a roll is made for each weapon mount, with that mount becoming either damaged (-2 to attacks) or destroyed.
As to putting it into the point costing system - not easily! You more or less need to decide what the statistical average damage of a baseline weapon is and price your armor thresholds on how much they interfere with that, and all weapons with lower damage than that.
This is the main reason I wouldn't be able to put DR in the game -- at least not right now.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.