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 92 of 146)
Topics by mj12games User defined search
Posts found: 2,276 to 2,300 of 3,626
Couple things:
1) Nothing has been finalized... while talks have been underway for several months, the contract has not been signed. I consider this to be a mere formality, as terms have been agreed to in principle, but just the same, I believe any discussion of specifics at this point would be premature.
2) Where's the trust? 
I've managed to shepherd Starmada through a decade and a half, and it's only gotten better with time. I would hope nobody thinks I would agree to anything that jeopardizes that.
3) Even if some people are disappointed with the final product (which is, I fear, inevitable, considering the baggage -- good and bad -- that comes with Trek/SFB) remember that Starmada is not a single game that can be "ruined" with a particular setting or sourcebook.
I happen to be thrilled with this development and am VERY excited about the potential in the product/products.
Star Ranger wrote:Sorry to let the cat out of the bag Dan, but there have been hints on the ADB forum for months so I was surprised nothing had been said about this over here before this.
Two reasons:
1) Didn't know if Mr. Cole wanted the idea out there before it was finalized.
2) Didn't want to jinx anything.
Now that it's being discussed, I can say that I'm thrilled to be doing this, and once the ink is dry we should be able to jump on it pretty quickly...
Well, damn... that's news to me...
(I mean, of course, the VBAM thing.)
wminsing wrote:Any reason this wouldn't work?
None at all.
Honestly, I think people are assuming Fire-Linked is more complicated than it is. All weapons fired against a single target succeed or fail based on the roll of one weapon's ROF dice.
Example: 5 weapons, each with a ROF-2, are firing at a single target. Therefore, two dice are rolled, with each success indicating five hits.
In the case of a fighter flight, as with any other weapon, one fighter is eliminated per hit.
You may be misreading the fire-linked trait.
It does not require you to fire all weapons at a single target -- it does mean that all weapons fired at a given target are resolved with a single roll of {ROF} dice.
BlackKnight wrote:I think that I found an error with the shipbuilder. I was playing around with it today and I noticed that if you set the acc on Battery Z at 4+ and chose the anti-fighter special ability it doesn't affect the final su cost.
I can't replicate the error... :?:
OldnGrey wrote:Dan,
The shipyard allows for VBAM ships to be Atmosphere capable via Engines greater than hull and engines of tech level+2.
VBAM:SE gives a third option, Special atmospheric equipment but does not give SU or CR details for streamlining, aeorodynamic qualities.
Any thoughts?
I think that there should be a hull size limit for Winged ships.
In all honesty, I don't think it matters from a Starmada perspective -- unless there's an in-game reason to allow ships to descend into an atmosphere. As the ability to land on a planet is more relevant to the strategic level, I'd leave it up to whatever system is being used (e.g. VBAM).
I'm frugal... but not so cheap as to take my wife on a honeymoon to London, Kentucky.
For those who might have been wondering why I've been incognito for most of the month of February, I've been traveling a bit. First it was Florida for a conference, then it was a week-long, much-delayed honeymoon in London.
But I'm back now ... so those of you who have been waiting for me to do things should start seeing results soon. (Yeah, right... )
rob wrote:So if I am moving at speed X and dont change my speed on the next turn I will continue to move at speed X...
True. But remember, you still need to write "X" in the movement orders, not zero.
but can I spin on my axis? And how much does it cost per hex facing?
Oh and if not why???
Yes, you can using the pivot optional rule.
Remember -- you are NOT accelerating/decelerating with your movement plot. You ARE writing your desired movement.
So, if you are traveling at speed 6, and you plot "3S1", your new speed will be 4 (i.e. "decelerating" by 2) and not accelerating by 4 to a speed of 10.
OldnGrey wrote:Oh No! Have you been got at by Ga**s Works**p?
Will it mean a Starmada Dwarf each month?
Is it a ploy to sell the rules in bits?
Sheesh... Don't publish anything, they complain there's no support.
Publish many things, they complain the rules are being sold in bits.
Can't win. 
Cartman wrote:Something I like in other games is the concept of morale for fighters. A fighter group that has been decimated may not feel it is such a good idea to go back for another pass. That could blunt the effectiveness of fighters. But OTOH that would entail further bookkeeping... so I don't know.
I'd be careful in doing anything to blunt the effectiveness of fighters -- this includes making them attack simultaneously with ships -- unless they have been shown to be unbalancing.
If, however, it's just a question of "feel", then there are other options for fighters -- one of which you will see in an upcoming supplement...
FlakMagnet wrote:It doesn't change my opinion something feels wrong with the current system in which fighters can launch and attack unopposed in a single turn. Assuming one lets an enemy carrier get within 10 hexes.
...
Still, it's one of those "if only they'd..." annoyances that gets me thinking about how else it could be done.
The "simple" answer would be to have fighters act just like ships -- plotting movement and simultaneous combat resolution.
But the reason we went to the separate fighter phase is that I didn't want to plot moves for dozens of fighter flights.
Inari7 wrote:Or I apply 13 hits and then re-roll my original 4 dice.
That's the question.
Ah, I understand now. You apply the hits and then re-roll each DIE that was successful, not one die for each hit scored.
mundungus wrote:One of the points of Drake notation was to be able to cut and paste the text into other documents (e.g., email messages). This doesn't work at present, because the text is spread across multiple cells.
Can we get it all in one cell in the future?
Answer to your question: no. Excel won't allow automatic line breaks within a single cell.
But I'm not sure it's a problem. If you select all the cells, copy, and then paste into a text document, you should get one line per cell.
Inari7 wrote:How does Repeating and Increased Hits work together?
I'm not sure I understand the question...
Each time a Repeating/Increased Hits weapon scores a hit, you apply the indicated number of hits, and then re-roll...
jmpehrson wrote:Fighters and drones have always been an important part of our games. One consideration we'd like to incorporate into our weapon designs is the ability to fire at different times in the play sequence. We have broken it down as:
Fire prior to fighter/striker/seeker attacks (defensive fire against attacking fighters/strikers/seekers only)
Fire simultaneously with fighter/striker/seeker attacks (basically, defensive fire against attacking fighters/strikers/seekers only)
Fire during normal ship combat (standard)
The question we have for the Starmada designers is, what would appropriate modifiers (SU cost and CR impact) be for pre-fighter attacks and simultaneous fighter attack weaponry? We see this mod being applied as a weapon trait and possibly a modifier to the Anti-Fighter Batteries offered in ISS.
All opinions are welcome.
I would never allow fire BEFORE fighter attacks... not only does it take away the fighter advantage, it trumps it -- which then leads to questions about fighters that activate before defensive fire that happens before normal fighter movement... 
If you were to allow for weapons that can fire during the Fighter Phase, I'd start with a x2 multiplier to the SU cost. Then, I'd "activate" ships during the fighter activation sequence.
elrics wrote:There will be more support for TSS in the future, I hope?
That's the plan, but I confess the slimmed-down version was included in the Sourcebook as a way of gauging interest...
Boneless wrote:Anywho, do you have any ideas on costing a weapon like this? Maybe take the greater cost of the two modes and then multiply by 1.1 or 1.2? Hardly any math at all, and total freedom of design. Could even say 1.1 for two modes, and 1.3 for three:
It strikes me that taking a page from ARES would be helpful in this case...
Basically, to determine the final ORAT of a battery, determine its ORAT in each specific "mode". Then, add the largest of these values to one-half the second largest, one-third the third-largest, and so on.
No one's even mentioned the new version of Sovereign Stars previewed in the Imperial Sourcebook...
thedugan wrote:Todd, can you send me those models, I'd like to play with them....
Don't you have ENOUGH to do?
Actually, x2 is easier to cost than +2...
Dugan sent me the pics offline... I like 'em.
Posts found: 2,276 to 2,300 of 3,626