Skip to forum content
mj12games.com/forum
Majestic Twelve Games Discussion Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Welcome to the new Majestic Twelve Games Forum!
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!
Search options (Page 7 of 13)
Pages Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 13 Next
Dan,
I thought the model in AE for dmg being cheaper and the "special traits" being the flat cost was perfect. Only problem was the starship ex which was just too good a deal - and frankly always appeared on weapons that you would never have used on fighters anyways. You want the smaller dmg boost ones to be the mainstay and the super traits to be for rare and exceptional weapons.
Currently there is a slight disadvantage to taking DMG 2 or 3 over just taking more dice and unlike "catastrophic" don't really add any significant "cool factor/fluff" to the weapon.
-Tim
I don't think there was anything broken about fighter exclusive - just its big brother starship ex. My suggestion is to have one trait that lumps anti-fighter and fighter ex. together. Seems logical that they would go hand in hand. Any larger weapon that people want to be good at shooting sown fighters they can simulate with accurate, fire control or diffuse.
I agree that starship ex will just lead to it being selected for the discount. So instead of that why not offer a very small discount on damage 2 and 3? Right now there is little incentive to take those traits as you get the same net effect by just buying more BAS dice. Certainly dmg 2&3 weapons are not as good against fighters than just having more dice due to the overkill factor. How about 1.95 and 2.85 respectively? That would be attractive enough to take for the min-waxers and would effectively limit the weapon to anti-ship duty.
-Tim
I didn't even contemplate something other than an initiative bonus being in the works for command.
Here is my crazy suggestion (which builds upon a lot of what is here):
-Command is a resource. You get a number of command points equal to the highest command in the force at the start of the turn - lesser commands don't add to it but are redundant incase the "command ship" gets destroyed
-Command points can be spent i a number of ways:
1) Bonus to hit - either make an enemy ship +1 to be hit by everyone (think Admiral Ackbar), or give rerolls to a weapon battery on a ship or +1 to hit or something.
2) Bonus to thrust - give a ship +1 thrust for the turn
3) Bonus to defense - make a ship -1 to be hit (or boost shields etc)
4) More stuff I can't think of
-A ship can only receive one command point per turn
I realize it might be hard to price that, but having "resources" in games is really fun and tactically challenging - not sure if any of you ever played Warmachine but focus is where its at!
-Tim
Just wanted to say I love what you've done with seekers - and I am really looking forward to the update to Romulan Armada because of it!
Its nice that you included drones for those that want to go that way, but all my "missile/torpedo" type weapons are now going to be seekers.
-Tim
I'm kind of liking the no anti-fighter or no-starship exclusive/interceptor/bomber thing right now. Might I suggest you just add these all in at a later supplement?
If you want to make an anti-fighter weapon just make a short range accurate weapon.
-Tim
cricket wrote:I've been reluctant to add an anti-armor trait because "armor" isn't supposed to represent iron plates bolted onto the exterior of the ship, but instead reinforcement of the ship's entire structure. Thus, it's hard for me to envision a weapon that could "bypass" it...
But "armour" could be in my universe big plates bolted onto a ship - or "armour" could be ablative shields in another universe - in both cases I'm sure you could envision a weapon that was superior against them. If in a setting it is just "reinforced Hull" then in that setting the anti-armour trait could be left out.
I think its a bit of a balance issue - not in friendly play but if you are playing a a semi-competative environment shields are not looking so attractive as they can be countered by "piercing" whereas armour can't be countered - that is unless catastrophic is rolled after getting through shields - in which case its kind of anti-armour because ECM and shields would just be much better at "preventing" the damage... or is it, my head hurts...
I think command is still good an fluffy. Getting the first shot off, does mean a lot, even if its only one ship. You can easily have a ship worth 40% of your fleet and getting to go with it first could mean you make it or break it. Our group actually implemented command into SAE based on what you did for SFO, but we halved the cost because of the alternating activation thing.
-Tim
My wish list also includes command! I also think if you can make any changes you really need an anti armour won trait to balance it with shields. An anti ECM would be nice too but we could get by with firecontrol and eccm.
-Tim
I used to play Star Fleet Battles and in that game cloaking did not include "hidden" movement unless an additional 33% was paid for the ship. So I'm not opposed to any of:
1) Cloaked ships move at the same time as non-cloaked and everyone knows where they are
2) Cloaked ships get to move after but are visible to prevent ships from "reacting" to their movement
3) Cloaked ship movement is hidden
I just think that the "price" of a cloaking system should be reflected in the advantages it confers. The other thing that needs to be worked out is if the cloaked ship gets detected and if that changes when they get moved (in the case of 2 or 3 above).
Given that you cannot attack a fully cloaked ship (unlike SFB), it makes me wonder how much reacting to their movement really matters.
-Tim
I agree with the command comments. Would like initiative sinking (especially with fighters) to be looked at too. Ignore traits concern me. Are 'halving' traits not an acceptable compromise?
-Tim
I think they would be more like gunboats than fighters, given that they'd have to follow more complex movement rules and have weapons with longer ranges than 1 hex.
-Tim
I had some thoughts on an "anti armour" wpn trait. I don't think a system that lets you bypass x% of the damage directly to the hull to be that effective. For cases where the ship has relatively low armour to hull, a system like that makes no net difference. If the ship has more armour than hull it does help, but only if there are no other weapon types being used against the same target. This is a problem as neither "piercing" (vs shields) or fire control ( vs ECM) are less useful based on the magnitude of the defence or if other weapons are used.
My suggestion is to use one if these two:
"armour eater": each time this weapon scores a point of damage to armour cross off an additional point of armour.
OR
"armour penetrator": for each point of armour damage this weapon causes roll a d6. On 4,5,6 also cross off a point of hull.
I like the penetrator more as it really makes it feel like the armour is being defeated.
-Tim
While I agree that it would be handy to have some reference for the arcs and traits, I for one really hate it when people show up with ships that they have designed but they don't know what they do! At least if you have to open the rulebook to figure out the arcs and traits you want you'll have read about them.
-Tim
I too would like to see some weapon trait counters to ECM and armour, but I agree with Nomad that the "ignore this" traits really messed up SAE for our group. Say a weapon trait against ECM that could either half their ECM rating - like the sound of an armour defeater too (say half damage rounded down to armour and the rest onto hull).
I like the fighters as they are - and I'm definitely okay if more "subtle" type traits get added in the future (I think the list is definitely fine for the core rules). Killer strikers also were a bit problem for our group. I think the Nova limitations keep it under control. If things ever get out of hand with drones one solution might be to look at using different modifiers for drone traits than for fighter traits - because since drones die after they attack they should have to pay proportionatly more for offensive traits and less for defensive traits.
It would be nice to have a "damage systems" type weapon trait and "command" ship trait.
-Tim
So here's a thread for comments/feedback that is not strictly errata!
First off - game looks amazing. Can't wait to get some lead on the table and try out the new system. The game overall looks a lot less abusable than Admiralty with all options used.
My only little concern right now is regarding sequential combat and fighters. Overall fighters seem to have about the right power level - so its not the fighters themselves I'm concerned about - its the crazy initiative sinking you can do if you have a whole bunch of fighters accompanied by a small number of very heavy hitting ships. I could see cases where it would be very easy to outnumber your opponent 3:1 and then get to fire with the majority of your fleet's firepower in the first fire phase you get.
Cricket I know in one of the previews you showed you had added a phrase that if you (due to serious outnumbering) were able to move/fire more than one ship at a time your opponent got to select one of the ships. That would really help against something like the above situation.
My other thought is that you only allow ships that have a target in range to participate in the combat phase - so cloaked ships and fighters/other ships that don't have eligible targets can't contribute to initiative sinking.
-Tim
Dan,
Will those of us who purchased now be able to download any updates?
-Tim
Its out now for download, go get it!
Lots of awesome stuff in there Dan - need some time to digest it all. I noticed you've added quite a few things that will make the Star Fleet adaptation more streamlined - which is a very good thing.
-Tim
Awesome downloading now! Gonna have to take an extra long lunch break today 
We're just having fun with him. Its pretty amazing how much stuff Dan cranks out - I mean all I've been able to achieve gaming wise in the last couple of weeks is to source some new foam for one of my old carrying cases! Which by the way means I'm all ready to play some more starmada!!!
-Tim
Good news - where's the "Pay Now" button? 
-Tim
Did the baby come out and change "The Plan"?
I know when my first was born, the plans definitely got changed!
-Tim
Lol, I thought swtor was something naval related. I played both KOTORs, but getting into a mmo right now is not a good idea for me!
I really wish there were more naval games for the xbox. I played Battlestations Pacific - really wish they'd come out with an Atlantic/Mediterranean version of it.
-Tim
Thanks Bruce,
I'm a rules addict, so I'll definitely be buying Grandfleets 3 - but then again I'll be buying some others - that will bring my count for naval games up to about 7 - oh well.
What is Swtor?
-Tim
madpax wrote:I come back after having thought about armor. I thought it was a mean of protection that could be decided as you want, and not simply a translation of SAE armor plating, which will always lend to a fixed number of armor boxes, depending of the hull size. Too bad, I was envisionning some use of variable armor in order to translate starfire designs... 
Marc
Don't confused the "AE conversion rules" with what you can do from scratch in Nova.
-Tim
Great news!
If I wait to buy all the StarFleet stuff at the same time does that PDF also come with the extra rules? I'll definitely get them either way, just would be convenient if it were all in one package.
Glad to hear the Nova edition PDF will be ready soon - I'll be standing by with my finger on the "pay now"!
Good that you are getting the nova edition out now before the baby arrives - I know my time got very limited after our first child - and man having a 2nd kid doesn't help with the free time either! Congrats!
-Tim
Posts found: 151 to 175 of 303
Pages Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 13 Next