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
Well then, that was a screw up, and completely unnecessary.
Feel free to tell us how you REALLY feel... 
The effect of the Bridge Hit crit should be that a ship's movement is the only thing that's affected for a turn.
Somewhere along the line, the following was added to the text:
"In addition, the ship cannot make any gunfire or torpedo attacks."
Okay lets see if I am reading this right. Effects that removal is rolled for are therefore not cleared during the end phase of that turn, but can be rolled for on the following turns end phase, thus staying in effect for at least 1 turn.
That is the intent, yes.
The PDF text I've got states the Bridge Hit marker is removed at the end of the *next* Movement Phase.
So assuming nothing changed from the pre-release text to the released version, the marker is removed during the following game turn.
The text was changed to read "Torpedo Phase" to ensure there was at least one turn where the ship cannot make any attacks -- however, I failed to keep the "next turn" in there. :oops:
This option can be used to simulate starships with very tough defenses indeed, by increasing the maximum shield rating from 5 to 8.
When attacking a starship with a shield rating of 6 or more, re-roll any impact die that comes up 6 (before modifiers), and compare the result to the following:
Roll 1,2 = 6
Roll 3,4 = 7
Roll 5 = 8
Roll 6 = 9
In starship construction, the defensive rating of a starship with a shield rating greater than 5 is computed as if the shield rating were 5. An additional multiplier is then applied:
Shields 6 = x1.5
Shields 7 = x3.0
Shields 8 = x6.0
Ten-sided dice.
Should that be "the next turns torpedo phase"?
Yes.
The general rule of thumb should be that any given critical hit remains in effect for a minimum of one complete game turn.
If you're waiting for the "official book," I have no clue how long it'll take.
Well, me having the ship charts would be a good start. 
cricket wrote:Yes.
I take it that this will be put into the next sourcebook?
Paul
As it is a clarification to an existing rule, I'm not sure where it should go. Probably an erratum to the Core Rulebook.
The simplest method to handle mines is to state that each mine counter is considered separate fighter flight.
I started writing a huge rant here, but I will summarize by saying that I find the inability to make truely specialized, niche weapon systems to be a bit annoying.
I'm not sure I understand... there's nothing keeping you from making specialized weapon systems. But loading up on traits that incur a penalty against ships so that your anti-fighter (or mine-sweeping) weapons take up less space smells a bit like cheese...
for the record I wish there was a AntiFighter Exclusive trait at the very least
Then you might wish to pick up Klingon Armada.
Reading the description of mine clearing in the core rulebook it says (paraphrase) that weapons firing at mines get a -1 penalty like weapons firing at fighters. Do weapon traits (namely no hull dmg and non-piercing) that cause a negative to hit against fighters also increase the penalty for shooting at mine patterns?
Yes.
Is that not in the rules?
Consider it an official erratum.
Thats my vote at least. What do you folks think?
So, essentially... reinstate the space station rules from the Compendium?
1. The aft shield is too strong, it should be 2-1 like all the other shields except the front. Looking at the D7 in FC its forward shield is 30 and all the rest are 22.
Had to put the "extra" shield point somewhere -- tucking it away on the aft facet means it will have little impact on the game by itself, but can still be absorbed as damage without weakening the forward shields. It was either that or have a layout like this: F2, FP3, FS3, AP2, AS2, A2.
2. Not sure why the Disruptors are longer ranged than the photons. (18 vs 15). In FC their max ranges are both the same, and the current setup has overloaded disruptors with a max range of 12.
The disruptors were given a longer range because they retain a much better chance to hit at 13-25 hexes in FC/SFB.
3. Not sure why the overload disruptor has a higher to hit than the regular disruptor, their targeting is identical in FC. Id rather see the overload at 4+ and 2 Imp, 2 Dmg. Same to hit as the standard disruptor and a little less damage possible overall.
Had to be some tradeoff, some reason to choose between overloaded or standard disruptors at close range. In FC/SFB, you have to make sure the additional energy is there. Previously, the tradeoff was the "slow-firing" trait, but playtesting comments (yours, I believe ) suggested that was inappropriate for disruptors. So, I put in the decreased accuracy. However, on average, the decrease isn't as bad as it appears: the standard disruptor has an average to-hit chance (across all range bands) of 50%; overloaded disruptors have an average to-hit chance of 42%.
Oh, poo.
The reference to counters should have been removed. I am sorry for that -- they don't exist. 
And a D7 (per a request over at starfleetgames.com):
Here's the "final" version of the Fed CA:
You could create a bunch of ship types, hulls, weapons systems, propulsion systems, etc all with the aim of being able to replicate your favorite universe without having to figure out the stats.
This could work, but only at the sourcebook level -- there's no way we'd be able to list ALL of the different weapon types that people will want to use cross-genre. There's just too many.
I have emailed you offline...
Received and reviewed. Thanks.
The switch was essentially forced on me, since I had to have a PC for work.
FWIW, as a sign of protest, I have a Mac sticker on the front of my HP laptop.
Tractor beams pull.
Repulsors push.
In your world, perhaps -- in Star Trek, "tractor beams" do both.
This is something else. Maybe it's a lockdown beam? Freeze ray? Gravity cannon?
Why does this have to be something else?
Personally, I think tractors/repulsors that affect other starships could be much more interesting.
And IMPOSSIBLE to point-cost.
What software do you use to make your books?? Adobe, Word, Quark?
I use Word.
Used to use Quark, but when I shifted from Mac to PC (I know, I know) I started using Word. With my limited abilities, I've never really exceeded Word's functionality...
I would have assumed that a given weapon has the same stats (excepts for arcs), but in the Imperial Sourceboook, Lightning Turrets have RNG 12 on some ships, 15 on others.
There wasn't really a convention involved... I was just too lazy to designate different classes or "marks" of the same weapon system.
One of these doubled the range of weapons because the space station was stationary. What are peoples thoughts on this? :geek:
That wasn't exactly the rule.
Space Stations in pre-X Starmada were considered to have "Long Range Sensors", which doubled the long range band. Thus, a weapon with a range of 15 would, on a station, have range bands of 1-5/6-10/11-20.
Many science fiction settings include “tractors”: beams of energy that are somehow able to push or pull objects. Typically, tractor beams are used for non-combat purposes, such as moving cargo, guiding shuttlecraft to safe landings, and occasionally towing incapacitated starships. However, they have a limited tactical function as well.
For the purposes of this rule, it is assumed that tractor beams in Starmada are too weak to have a significant effect on the movement of enemy starships: however, they can be useful in disrupting the operations of opposing fighter flights.
During the End Phase of each turn, starships may attempt to “hold” enemy fighters with their tractor beams. To do so, a fighter flight must be selected as the target for each tractor--all targets must be chosen before any dice are rolled. If desired, have each player secretly record targets and reveal them all at once. Otherwise, players may alternate resolving tractor attempts in a manner similar to that used for combat resolution.
Once targets have been chosen, roll a die for each tractor: if the result is greater than the range to the selected target, the target has been “tractored”. Place an appropriate marker next to the target.
Multiple tractors may be directed at a single target; however, double- or triple-tractoring a target has no further effect.
A fighter flight that has been tractored is unable to move or attack during the upcoming Fighter Phase. All “tractored” markers are removed at the end of the Fighter Phase.
(Note that any fighter flight is considered a valid target for a tractor beam, regardless of its size, speed, or other characteristics. For this reason, care must be taken in deciding whether to use tractors: this rule is based on the assumption that opposing fighters will be “standard” flights as described in rule 5.0: Fighters. However, players in a setting with a wide variety of powerful fighter types may find this rule to be unbalancing.)
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.