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 Taltos
Basic VBAM is not cumbersome, and surprisingly filled with details at the same time. Now, there are lots of optional rules that can extend play until it is complex as you could wish.
From a Starmada perspective, it offers a consistent way to cost and generate ships for campaign play and to consistently approach technology implementations.
I also love a good battle report, and this one was right up there.
Some thoughts to the discussion mix.
For a ship determined to back and up and keep range, you can generally assume that the designer skimped on the side and rear arcs. Fast ships and fighters of any kind swooping to the sides can rain on his parade.
When I deploy fighters I tend to include some interceptors, just in case. Particularly Assault/Interceptors - they chew through enemy fighters like butter. Especially if dogfighting.
I hadn't thought of 'may re-roll to hit' as anti-fighter either. nice. I tend to use range based ROF, or just a ROF 3 on a really short ranged weapon (3 or 6) to keep the price down.
Starmada seems to have a philosophy of elegant combination of many orthogonal options -- witness the way weapons are now defined, compared with the Compendium way.
Given that, it feels odd that spinal weapons have to be defined separately from regular weapons. Among other things, they can't have any of the other weapon options. The differences between spinal weapons and normal weapons are:
- Spinal mounts have a special narrow forward arc. I'm not sure if this is important.
- Spinal mounts are really big. We could just raise the ceiling on PEN.
- Spinal mounts take damage as the ship is damaged. This used to be a way to prevent a single hit from crippling a ship based around a spinal mount, but that can happen now with a Q hit. Maybe some kind of "several hits to destroy" option is in order.
- Anime spinal mounts have area effect. Two different area effects are conceivable: one hex and along-the-beam.
- Anime spinal mounts effectively have ROF 1/2. Fractional ROFs should be allowed in general, although it might reduce bookkeeping to limit these to 1/n, where n is a positive integer.
I'd like to see all of these things moved into the regular weapon options, so we don't need special rules for spinal mounts.
Now I am with you: X evolved the regular weapons while the spinal mount stayed largely unchanged.
We don't play with it enough, and when we do it is on smaller sized ships so I have not given it much thought.
Through a gift error, I have "VBAM: Starmada Edition" but not the campaign book. Still, it's apparent that the VBAM rules are extremely detailed. Simple campaign rules would only take up a few pages in a Starmada rulebook.
Ah.
And that clarifies that one.
It looks like there are some rules tweaks in order. Specifically:
- The various errata and clarifications in the FAQ
Easily to do an update to the PDF (which you noted later).
The book is another matter...
- Whatever Dan decides to do about "the ROF problem"
Problem may be overstating it.
Issue.
And I don't have any heartburn about it. 
- Some generalization to make bring regular weapons and spinal mounts under the same rules
Not sure what you mean here.
- Add campaign rules (I of course plug my "Maximum Burn" rules)
While I fully understand the max burn bit, :wink:
with "VBAM: Starmada Edition" out, I wouldn't know why this one wasn't addressed. :?
Beyond that, I'd like to see a book with (a) more and better artwork and (b) lots of scenarios. In my humble opinion, scenarios should name specific ships, not just "spend 500 points".
Agreed. I like deeper feel to the scenarios.
As for the rest of your plan, I would leave that in more capable hands to discuss...
If I know Dan, his head is cranking away on this right now.
For the Masses is another game in the Mj12 stable.
Fantasy mass combat, usually 15mm or so scale.
It has a unit creation formula, too, that gives us fits from time-to-time...
I mistyped... actually, the correct numbers are:
(3+1) x 1 x 1 = 4
(1+1) x 1 x 3 = 6So, in fact the 1/1/3 weapon is more expensive than the 3/1/1.
Hmm.
Which actually fits with what I wrote earlier.
1/1/3 has a smaller variable component compared to 3/1/1, which seems fair in considering this in its cost.
That's all true, and the math speaks. 
But the reason there is a perception of DMG having more value is that it isn't a "variable".
I mean, increased ROF give me more dice to roll or more chances to inflict pain and suffering wear it belongs - namely my opponent's ships.
More DMG is a known value indicating applied pain and suffering... no more die rolling.
That all said, each value (ROF/PEN/DMG) has their own weapon ability off which to key for great effect, and that is what makes weapon design so fun.
In terms of Starmada X, has anyone ever looked at C&C rules for your fleet? I'd like to see a fleet enjoy certain advantages in terms of manueverability or coordinating its firepower as long as its flagship is kept intact.
The Starmada Edition VBAM book has some ideas on this line...
Which (for the earlier post on campaign rules) are about as comprehensive a source as you could want.
How about typical ROF, PEN, and DMG numbers? I see the point values go up quite a bit as you increase the numbers for later steps. I've been looking around the Shipyard group, and some of the fleets in the Files directory use a lot of variety there. I haven't seen as many instances of setting those over 1 so far skimming the Brigade stats in the book (I'm looking at the PDF, and maybe I haven't gotten to some that do yet).
I know--I won't really get it until I've played some. Things are busy, and I can occasionally find time to fiddle around while online. But setting aside space and time at home. I've given my son warning we're going to try Starmada out soon.
andy
I am pretty sure that the German / ONESS ships in Brigade play with R/P/D some.
In the work I am doing for the Stars Divided VBAM supplement I have found that a DMG of 2 on Extra Hull Damage is particularly nasty.
Welcome!
I'll let someone else tackle the counters question, but the rules with the X book are comprehensive so the custom fighter rules and anything else you want are in the book you ordered.
And the book is complete, anything else you may want is up to you. You will have everything, and then some, that you will ever want to play.
The weapons became unbalanced when the player gave the ships a movement of 1, shields 5 and then has the cannons with Extra Hull Damage, Continuous Damage, and Increased Damage with must re-roll penetration to get the cost back down..... ect. It is more the fact that I actually saw him do 21 dice of damage in one shot to someone else that was annoying....... he set his weapons to fire in ACE and then parked the ships right on the edge of the board they were using.......
I have to admit that if someone did that to me I would just fly around and force the map to float, or hyperdrive out and not play with him again. Definitely not in the spirit of fair play. People have called my Stealth Gen/LRS combo cheesy - I hold up your story as vindication for my fair efforts.
I guess the issue is the minimizing / maximizing withing the game system, not the issues on the weapons themselves... the extra crew casualties w/ no hull damage would make sense with a race that is out to steal technology, or someone like the Ferengi from Star Trek TNG. However, I would expect to see something like this on a few ships within their fleet ( maybe with oversized engines for maximal towing capacity) // rather than on every ship in the fleet.
there is nothing requiring that ships vary in abilities, and frankly if he over specializes and you find an exploit then the whole fleet becomes vulnerable...
The other thing was one player that would design a bunch of hull 6 an 7 ships with really high tech levels (usually +1 in all categories, or +2 in weapons and +1 engines and shields) while his larger ships were set at zero in all categories, to keep their cost low. He would have fits if he was forced to use the same tech levels across the board.....
Uneven tech levels make sense, if you consider the history/origin of the ships and their implementation over time for a fleet. It doesn't make sense simply to control which of your ships is the best. Granted given that the CR should balance, it shouldn't greatly effect your game play, but you never know...
Maybe there would be a way to push a better balance within the system.... or make it the standard that everyone agree with certain rules before a game starts.
Sad when it comes to having to mandate fair play for some players... but I do like your later suggestion of a "fairness guide". That could actually have some interesting design discussions in it.
I kinda like the color as is. 
Gives it a melancholy, desperate stand feel.
Quality picture.
Wish I had that kind of talent.
if your target hasn't got AFB, then he won't like ten drones hurling into him and detonating.
Just to clarify....
I don't like that when I do have AFB. 
A cloaked ship (or a ship that attempts to cloak) may perform no actions other than movement.
so there's your answer
A point. :?
I guess I meant that it is a little confusing to go on then and specify prohibited actions in a what reads like a finite list... but I accept that the ruling is sufficient as proposed.
I can't tell from the new text if launching mines whilst cloaked is allowed or not, so it may still need refinement.
Well, I am biased because I love this kind of thing.
To feel like the ships matter and have history to them in a universe where there has been real attention and passion put into the work is just fun.
Just grabbing sheets and fighting is fun, too, but lacks enough depth to hold my interest for too long.
And while I pride myself on being able to put together "fluff" you always manage to show me up, Tyrel.
Now, as part of a core rulebook?
Probably not.
I am working on something similar (though it needs a rework after reading this :cry: ) for some material I have, but I intend to put it outside the main text and offer it as a freebie extra or a cheap supplement for the interested.
Oh, and intentional or not, I pictured a Battlestar in my head as I read the Kolanis design description...
Does the Barnards Star Confederacy have any famous heroes in its past?
You could name one or two after them "Washington" or "Churchill" that sort of thing, either some character made up in your setting or some true history figures that inspired them.
You have also tapped on using Earth geography for the Wolfians. You could do something similiar if the Barnards Star Confederacy had a core group... call it New Warsaw, Sahara, or whatever...
You could mix it up too. (Depending on the history.) If the NUEA got there first and gave it the run of the mill name and then as Barnard developed they may have just kept the old one...
for my money nothing beats a ship with Stealth Generator, LRS, and 18 range weapons of any flavor
Another nice one is Shield Resonant with PEN of 2 or 3
Sometimes it isn't about countering a tactic - like the extra crew casualties, but about being more effective yourself
ah, you plan for a 3rd player makes sense.
As to the victory conditions... I can't say. They seem all right.
To my mind, in that sort of a situation victory only comes if it is fun - win or lose.
Seems like a pretty slick way to teach it.
Nice idea.
I would go with just wiping the damage - computer reset for the systems on board - and go from there. Maybe make the damage carry for a turn or two as the reset takes place.
When the 3rd ship arrives, will you then take the single opponent and let the newbie take the two ships?
I'd only see ramming as acceptable as a last desperate measure - we aren't going to win, we are already leaking air, the guns are gone... lets take the bastards with us!
I would not expect it to be a regular/preferred battle tactic.
Nice.
Did this come from setting/story or from a specific game session?
If a session, is there an AAR?
Taltos wrote:How would a weapon counter EWS or LRS both of which affect firing weapons rather than represent any sort of defense?
Good point. I believe the proposed enhancement would only affect ECM and Stealth.
And since we have EWS which effectively cancels ECM already, perhaps we should simply state that this new ability only counteracts Stealth?
Or instead are we speaking of an item of equipment? :?
But, LRS and Stealth sort of counter each other now...
I am going to go stratch my head on this one some more.
I am confused as to how a weapon could
...ignore ALL forms of electronic warfare? This means ECM, Stealth, LRS and EWS.
How would a weapon counter EWS or LRS both of which affect firing weapons rather than represent any sort of defense?
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Taltos
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.