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 Blacklancer99
I'm not sure what to call it
How about CHUCK NORRIS! or is that already taken?
Erik
PS It would have to be spelled in all caps, bold, with the exclamation point.
It would be really cool to have this made official and replace the existing armour rules. That way the pricing could be revised and you'd actually buy the amount of armour you wanted instead of getting 2/3 of the armour you wanted (which I guess just means armour is 50% more expensive).
I can totally see this making "anti armour" weapons far more useful - given that the armour itself would be more useful.
-Tim
I think having both armor options available for use is a good thing, especially for doing conversions of settings where things sometimes work differently than others.
Erik
On another note, I'm open to other names aside from "front-loaded armor".
Ablative?
Ablative is usefully descriptive, and therefore good. People have been clamoring for Ablative Armor for at least an entire version of Starmada as well 
I kinda like "All-or-Nothing" for front-loaded armor and "Incremental" for the regular way of doing it. Both are descriptive of function and both have roots in real world armor design (even if slightly different).
Cheers,
Erik
Keeping two armor sections could be disturbing with this options, just because someone coult forget that and apply damage to hull instead of armor 2. I don't see the reason why all armor couldn't be located in the first section.
Marc
I think Cricket is just trying to simplify the ship sheet by not moving all of the boxes to the first section. Mostly I think it's because OldnGrey will kill him if he has to add that to his Shipyard sheet However, I can't see any reason at all why you couldn't just do it on your designs.
Cheers,
Erik
Blacklancer99 wrote:True. I guess in my mind all 9 armor boxes were jumping up and down yelling "pick me, pick me!" in surprisingly high-pitched voices (one would have expected armor to be more of a Basso Profondo). Six then gleefully pranced forward while three shuffled home, hoping that tomorrow would finally be the day they are chosen. So really, I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Heh...
Don't know if you're a "Black Books" fan, but I have visions of Manny in the wine cellar...
Alas, never seen it...I hate missing a reference :oops:
Erik
Blacklancer99 wrote:Ok, so I build a ship with 9 armor, 6 go "forward" and 3 are essentially removed from the design.
Actually, only 3 move "forward", since 3 were there already.
True. I guess in my mind all 9 armor boxes were jumping up and down yelling "pick me, pick me!" in surprisingly high-pitched voices (one would have expected armor to be more of a Basso Profondo). Six then gleefully pranced forward while three shuffled home, hoping that tomorrow would finally be the day they are chosen. So really, I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Erik
Blacklancer99 wrote:My reading of the initial post was that you were "losing" the third armor section ("paid" for as normal construction) for the benefit of shoving the second "forward".
Indeed -- the point is to allow for "ablative" armor through a special rule, rather than a separate construction process. You build your ship normally, print out your ship display normally, and just cross off one section of armor before the start of the game.
Ok, so I build a ship with 9 armor, 6 go "forward" and 3 are essentially removed from the design. This was what I thought initially and led me to say what I did about a "surcharge". Probably not the best word, but what I intended to convey was that you are "paying" for 9 dispersed armor, but getting 6 front-loaded armor, not just paying (less) for six armor total which are then placed in a single block.
Cheers,
Erik
underling wrote:If you actually lose 1/3 of the armor you pay for because of the front loading, then that would make more sense from a point costing perspective.
It may be poorly-worded in my initial draft of the rule, but the intent is that one section of armor (probably the middle one, instead of the last one) is crossed off before the game begins. So in effect, you're losing 33% of your armor.
My reading of the initial post was that you were "losing" the third armor section ("paid" for as normal construction) for the benefit of shoving the second "forward".
erik
In Starmada, "armor" is intended to represent general reinforcement of a ship's hull, providing ongoing resistance to enemy weapons fire. It is not meant to be seen as "plates" of armor bolted onto the outside of the ship which must be blown off before damage can reach internal systems. However, some players may wish to simulate just this effect; therefore, the following optional rule can be implemented.
When using the Front-Loaded Armor rule, check off the third section of armor boxes at the start of the game: they will not be used. As ships take damage, check off all of the boxes in the first two sections of armor before moving on to the first section of hull boxes. In other words, in a normal game, damage is applied like this:
ARMOR 1 -> HULL 1 -> ARMOR 2 -> HULL 2 -> ARMOR 3 -> HULL 3
When using the Front-Loaded Armor rule, damage is applied like this:
ARMOR 1 -> ARMOR 2 -> HULL 1 -> HULL 2 -> HULL 3
I like this option, particularly to model "ablative"-type shielding. I especially like that you essentially pay a surcharge to gain the benefit.
Cheers,
Erik
I've been doing a mix of both setting weapons to BAS 1 and working from there and designing them in SAE terms first. I have found that the conversion process often doesn't quite produce what I was hoping (either in terms of traits, or BAS), so I am trying to do more from scratch as SNE weapons. One thing I've found as helpful is to make a series of weapons and then start plugging them all into the shipyard ship sheet, 1 weapon each all with the same arc. That way I can get a good feel for the proportions of each weapon in terms of SU used, and I can play around with them that way. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it's how I've been trying to get a feel for how SNE's weapon designs work.
Cheers,
Erik
In SAE they were called Independent Fighters. I'd like to see this introduced into SNE because there are ample examples of fighters operating without carriers in a number of Sci-Fi settings. Another good example is the Battle of Yavin from the original Star Wars with all the fighters launching from the moon rather than from carriers. I had been using the trait mostly to model planet-based fighters like that, not just hyper-capable fighters. My justification was that making a fighter atmospheric capable cut into its total combat capability. I have been toying with the idea of making "orbital fighter platforms" with carrier capacity and absolutely nothing else (no engines, shields, weapons, etc...) as a kind of way to fudge independent fighters, but it just doesn't feel right.
Cheers,
Erik
I want to give my friends a suprise..."Tora,Tora,Tora"...<LOL>
Hmm, if she's the Hornet, shouldn't that be "30 Seconds Over Tokyo"?
Erik
cricket wrote:All page references correspond to the Nova Rulebook—Version 1.1 (April 2011).
Shouldnt that be Version 1.1- April 2012 ?
He might really mean April 2011. After all, time seems to work differently for Dan 
Erik
It seems like now we're at the point where we've got weapon abilities that only apply some of the time, and that some of the time now only applies to some of the ranges?
We may need a reference sheet simply for the exceptions.Kevin
I can accept that logic. That being the case then, I would personally rather see Scatter not apply at all, and reserve that ability specifically to Pinpoint.
Just my opinion.
Dan will do as Dan thinks is best!
Cheers,
Erik
Naevius wrote:Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?
I could see allowing scatter to counteract the -1 penalty vs. fighters/mines/seekers.
Hmmm. Would it be too ridiculous to only apply that at Short range when the attack dice would normally be at their greatest?
Cheers,
Erik
I like the changes too. I particularly like the expanded list of Traits that are ineffective versus fighters. I think that will make a nice line between anti-ship and anti-fighter weapons, without the addition of any "exclusive" traits. I also like the previously discussed changes to the fighter rules.
Cheers,
Erik
That's something strange. Directionnal defense gives you a small advantage (a +1 over a very small part of the arcs) and a bigger disadvantage (the opposite) but costs nothing?
Seeing the usual SFU ships, I would say that DD gives you an advantage over FF, disadvantage over AA, and nothing elswhere.
Marc
I think it's more important to view DD in terms of "fluff" or modeling a setting than in terms of min/maxing the designs. In fact, I that is good advice for just about everything in the game.
Erik
Blacklancer99 wrote:I agree with you, and I think probably the pointing of Armor needs to be adjusted somehow, rather than the function. Also, I was thinking about the whole "we need an Ignores Armor trait" line of thinking. How about a trait that says something to the effect that on a successful attack, only the first point of damage/hit is "absorbed" by the Armor, with the remaining damage/hits going directly to Hull. Call it Penetrating? For example a weapon with Penetrating scores 3 hits on a ship with 3 armor boxes in each section and 5 Hull, one box of Armor is ticked off and two hull. It would allow the armor to have some effect, and therefore not be useless, but it would allow it to be "bypassed" or mitigated like some other defenses. No idea how you would point that though.
ErikMy preference on this is to not have any kind of "Ignore Armor" trait.
I just don't think it's needed.
That being said, since it's being discussed, I thought I'd throw out the following, which is similar to what Erik has posted.The ability could be called "Penetrating."
When damage is caused by penetrating weapons, damage alternates between armor and hull, starting with armor; i.e.the first box marked off is armor, the second box hull, the third box armor, and so on. When damage is caused by this weapon and the last hull of a section is eliminated, a systems check must be taken eventhough armor may remain in the section.In effect, this allows half the armor (if my thought process is correct) to be bypassed by this weapon.
Kevin
I like your idea much better than my pitch. It seems like an excellent compromise between Armor having a purpose but having the ability to get past it to some degree.
Erik
Blacklancer99 wrote:Ok, the way I look at it Armor is strengthened and reinforced Hull so if you add extra hull the result should be the same in gameplay terms. However, by calling it armor, it is a way to conceptualize the vessel better than if I simply add hull. Let me explain. If I have a 12 hull heavy destroyer with 2 boxes of armor in each section, it's an armored 12 hull ship. If I simply add six hull to the ship, it becomes, to me, an 18 hull ship with no armor, and therefore a totally different kind if ship. Oh, and because that 18 hull ship has lots more SUs, shouldn't I put more stuff in it? I think most people would be REAL hard pressed to have all that extra space and keep their hands off of it. Whoops, now the CR goes up.
So, to me it's all about conceptualization over simply construction. When I see the 18 hull ship all I can think of is all the empty space, which I just don't like. Anyway, that's my opinion before my first cup of coffee...it might change once I'm awake.
Cheers,
ErikErik,
I agree about how you (and I) might think about it but thats just 'fluff'. In game play and design there is no difference between armor/screens/whatever and some extra Jacuzzi/cinemas/holodecks for the crew! One of the joys of design within Starmada is the logic of the system. Trying to fit everything you want into a certain size hull/cost (CR) has some reflection of real naval design. But now in NOVA Armor is simply 'fluff' which I think is a pity.As for an anti-armor campaign, BeowulfJB while house rules can fix the problem locally now is the time to raise the issue before Dan closes the dissuasion and starts printing.
I agree with you, and I think probably the pointing of Armor needs to be adjusted somehow, rather than the function. Also, I was thinking about the whole "we need an Ignores Armor trait" line of thinking. How about a trait that says something to the effect that on a successful attack, only the first point of damage/hit is "absorbed" by the Armor, with the remaining damage/hits going directly to Hull. Call it Penetrating? For example a weapon with Penetrating scores 3 hits on a ship with 3 armor boxes in each section and 5 Hull, one box of Armor is ticked off and two hull. It would allow the armor to have some effect, and therefore not be useless, but it would allow it to be "bypassed" or mitigated like some other defenses. No idea how you would point that though.
Erik
So I was wondering, what are the chances of, for example, all the major mj12games miniatures games being available in a large bundle of books, possibly at a discount rate?
Just an idle thought.
I've been thinking of buying Iron Stars, basically because I haven't yet
However, I have been a wee bit conflicted as I can buy the bundle from Drivethrurpg much cheaper than I can get them from MJ12's catalog. The same would be true if I didn't already have all the Starmada books. I would rather give MJ12 the business, but I just can't bring myself to part with double the money to support MJ12. I guess if I was really a supporter it wouldn't matter huh? Unfotunately the difference is more or less gas in my car, so reality wins out again. But, a slightly more affordable bundle would be easier to justify! Since I already have a fair amount of stuff a "mega bundle" of all things MJ12 would be unnecessary, but I think there is a place for game-specific bundles.
Erik
hmmm....
I always design my ships within a setting so armor is just part of that setting.But as a direct test I stole
the Commonwealth STEADFAST-class Armored Cruiser (apologies to the designer) from the drydock sandbox and directly changed the armor into hull converted it to Commonwealth STEAD-OF-class Un Armored Cruiser ! The break points did change with Damaged now being one box fewer and Crippled more more, due I suspect to rounding. The CR remains the same and there is no difference in the game performance of the ship but you now have 1073 SU spare as apposed to 117 for the Steadfast. :? You can see the results in the sandbox.
Conclusion armor is pretty pointless in the game. :shock:
Ok, the way I look at it Armor is strengthened and reinforced Hull so if you add extra hull the result should be the same in gameplay terms. However, by calling it armor, it is a way to conceptualize the vessel better than if I simply add hull. Let me explain. If I have a 12 hull heavy destroyer with 2 boxes of armor in each section, it's an armored 12 hull ship. If I simply add six hull to the ship, it becomes, to me, an 18 hull ship with no armor, and therefore a totally different kind if ship. Oh, and because that 18 hull ship has lots more SUs, shouldn't I put more stuff in it? I think most people would be REAL hard pressed to have all that extra space and keep their hands off of it. Whoops, now the CR goes up.
So, to me it's all about conceptualization over simply construction. When I see the 18 hull ship all I can think of is all the empty space, which I just don't like. Anyway, that's my opinion before my first cup of coffee...it might change once I'm awake.
Cheers,
Erik
Okay, I'm going to be a bit more direct: please remove the QRS.
Subtlety...often lost in translation
I'm thinking of adding this to the section on "Fighter Combat" (p.16):
In order to keep things manageable in larger games, during the Combat Phase, all fighter counters in a single hex are activated at the same time. Thus, only count the number of hexes containing fighters (not the total number of counters) when determining the activation sequence (p.9).
Comments?
I like it. In the end it probably won't get used too much, but I just like the idea of squadron sized attacks instead of just flight sized. Hmmm, might have to mandate a house rule that all fighters of the same type based on the same carrier must be grouped together, up to the normal stacking limits, just to keep things moving along
Erik
What would be needed?
Using my new arc reminder means it is easy to use the arc overlays already there. Most of Nova is the same as AE so I suspect not much is needed. Maybe a change of the fighters and reload?Paul
just off the top of my head there would have to be additional markers for several different things like jump, cloak, etc, the mine templates would have to be changed (the ones there size based on rating), and then all the little charts would have to be updated. I'm sure there are otehr little things, that is just the first things I thought of.
Cheers,
Erik
That would pretty much be the cherry on top of the release of SNE. Seems like the existing Vassal module done by MadSeason could be modified pretty readily. Unfortunately, he seems to dropped out of the scene, and I know nothing about how it could be done, and have no time to do it if I did.
Erik
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Blacklancer99
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.