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
Do you recommend a different mechanic or combination of mechanics?
Well, if you're just looking for a really powerful weapon, the existing IMP/DMG mechanic should fit just fine. If you want to have the gradually-degraded mechanic of pre-AE spinal mounts, then we'd have to add something else.
From p.11:
Note that a starship's hull size is not reduced by hull hits—e.g. a hull size 6 ship is always considered hull size 6, regardless of the number of hull hits taken.
From p.53:
During each End Phase, a starship may roll a number of repair dice depending upon its hull size:
So, the answer is no, the number of dice does not change.
Screens are just a cheap, and munchkin :wink: , way to have level 5 shielding in the direction of the enemy nearly every turn. Besides the plotting time, there's the reduced damage which makes the game last much longer.
This may be true in a one-on-one duel, but once there's more than 2-3 ships on either side, the distribution of screens becomes much more important...
Well, the point of "fire linked" is not to limit the targets that can be engaged, but to make all weapons fired at a given target succeed or fail together.
It's really a matter of flavor than anything, since on average, the number of hits scored will be the same whether the weapons are fire-linked or not.
I purchased the electronic version of the rulebook. It says that it is version 0.0. How can I get version 1.0?
You should have gotten a notice from RPGNow when the version was updated...
This is just silly. First of all, even if you were considering your own ships as "cloaked, dectected" you wouldn't avoid damage, those ships would attacked with a -1 to hit penalty, and enemy ships in the area will be attacked with whatever penalty is appropriate to the tech they are using. See:
This highlights another issue. If you are using area-effect weapons against a cloaked, detected target, should there still be a -1 penalty? Obviously, the answer is going to be "it depends on what the area-effect weapon is simulating".
While it may set off the "realism" detectors in some players, I still have to stand behind my original ruling -- area-effect weapons get to make a separate attack against all valid targets in the affected area; but other than that they are the same as any other weapon (i.e. cannot affect cloaked ships, unless detected when a -1 penalty applies).
Doesn't matter since you can reallocate screen strength in any direction in Starmada.
Unless you want to force screen allocation at ship design, which changes the SSD (now you have 6 Shield/Screen tracks), you won't be able to simulate SFB shielding very well.
I've been trying to avoid this discussion, since I don't want to get bogged down in conversions until the contract is finalized, but... 
My approach would not be to "simulate" SFB/FC per se, but to present SFB/FC designs as they would be in Starmada.
So while I too would lean towards screens as a way of maintaining some of the SFB/FC flavor, I'm not sure I would see it as critical to have shields in Starmada behave just like they do in SFB/FC.
Does version 2.11 handle combining ranged-based traits as listed in C.4.1 of the ISS?
No.
The combination of range-based traits cannot be achieved through any mathematical process -- it is a subjective decision, which is why I had to include a chart in the book.
Do you really mean to be using screens? If so, then 4 or 5 would seem a small number for a heavy cruiser...
there is no reason to think that just because you can't see a ship that it can't be damaged is there?
For what it's worth, my "ruling" on this has nothing to do with assuming that cloaked ships are literally immune to damage (as has been pointed out, minefields and asteroid fields would still have an effect), but to have a rule as simple as possible that does not lead to major abuse.
So, a more correct way of phrasing it would be to state that cloaked ships cannot be damaged by attacks from opposing starships and/or fighter flights, even those with the area effect trait.
Well, let's be careful here. Mines and Asteroids include specific language that indicate that cloaked ships DO take damage from those sources
Good point...
:oops:
Well, as indicated above, I think that's where we are at.
Cloaked ships are immune to damage. Period.
I saw that the shipbuilder has been updated, but the piercing modifier is still wrong. It still says 1.4.
The modifier was changed to 1.4 in revision 1.0 of the rulebook.
In the charts, but in the text it says that vessels with, for example, a +1 in Engines would multiply the SUs by 70%.
The text is wrong -- the chart is correct.
And the last sentence clears up another point for me. You round off, then apply TLs, then round again...
Indeed. This is what the Shipbuilder was doing wrong.
You are both correct.
Hmm... maybe an explicit reference to the fact that you cannot attack a cloaked ship should be made.
And you're right -- a cloaked ship is only vulnerable to area-effect weapons if it has been detected.
You can download it from the web site:
http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/shipbuilder.xlt
I just updated it, so you may need to re-download.
The version on the web site is always the most current... which, at this time, is 2.11 (including the tweak on when to apply TL mods).
Can the owner of a Stealth Generator choose to not have it turned on if it's to his best advantage? If yes, would this be a per game decision? Per turn decision? Decided when?
I'd have to say no.
That way lies madness...
Isn't an onager an ass?
Anyway, nicely done!
Although you should have used Ditto for target practice... that would have been funner.
Thats because the shipbuilder uses square roots, while the book says 70%. I use the 70%/100%/140% rather than the square roots...
Um... that's not right. The book says 71%/100%/141%... :?:
Anyway, for a hull-8 ship, the engine factor is 103, while the shields factor is 108. For an engine rating of 6, the total SU cost is 618, and shields 5 takes 540 SUs.
Apply a .71 modifier to each for TL +1 and you get 439 and 384.
It would appear the problem in the Shipbuilder is that the TL mod is being applied BEFORE rounding, instead of afterwards. I'll fix it.
The Stealth Generator increases the range band by one. Period.
As discussed in the referenced thread, however, I'm open to discussion on a more "comprehensive" interpretation...
What is the cost difference between range, accuracy, impact, and damage? Are they all equal or is on cheaper to buy than another? Is there a more cost effective option over another?
They are progressively "cheaper"... i.e., if a 5/1/1 weapon is considered to have a value of 10, then all other things being equal:
A 1/5/1 weapon is worth 8.4
A 1/1/5 weapon is worth 7.0
When fighters are in a hex attacked by an area effect weapon, do you roll an attack once for each FLIGHT or once per each FIGHTER? My assumption at the moment is FLIGHT.
Area effect weapons roll once per target in the affected area. Each fighter flight is a separate target. So, your interpretation is correct.
When attacking fighters that have a defense value, does piercing help?
The rules state that a fighter flight's defensive rating operates in the same manner as a shield rating -- so I would have to say yes, it does.
2a) I assume that only one die is ever rolled to penetrate fighter defense, even if the attacking weapon has IMP > 1. Is this correct?
Yes. Page 26 states "weapons with IMP and/or DMG values greater than 1 waste these capabilities when attacking fighters", while page 56 says "For each hit taken by the flight, roll a die". Take these two statements together, and it is clear that weapons have an effective IMP of 1 when attacking fighters with a defensive rating.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
