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 netWilk
Pages 1
I was playing around with the weapon designer, and noticed that Slw2 & Slw3 weapon modifiers, while adding adjustment to the weapon's BSUR, will only generate a single Slw on the Display & Drake tabs.
It just showed up, thank you!
Will the Unity upgrade be available to Warehouse 23 customers, the way other Unity updates were available?
Thank you,
netWilk
I don't understand the problem with seekers here. During turn N, ships are alternating fire, and thus would place seekers face down when they fire. During turn N+1, you resolve seekers effect after the target ship have been activated to fire.
So even in the worst of world, a ship targeted by seekers would have one opportunity to fire at them.
Except during simultaneous play ships do not alternate fire, or at least according to the rules "The order in which attacks are made is irrelevant. It is usually best to resolve all of one player's attacks first, followed by the opposing player." This also affects Flares...
I was thinking of how seekers would work in the round of firing. With interactive sequence, there usually will be few opportunities during the back and forth to take potshots at just fired seekers. With the one player does all attacks, followed by the other of the simul mode, the side firing second will have the advantage of not having their seekers susceptible to 2 rounds of fire. Are there any house rules floating around with solution (say require all seeker fire to happen before all other weapon fire)?
Edit: same issue would apply to flares as well.
Thanks,
Lucas
Any news on the update/conversion kit?
Thanks,
Lucas
Why would you consider anything but the first decimal place when rounding to an integer?
Andromedan wrote:Now, why Phaser-3s would get it (and why they have Anti-Fighter in SAE) would be because of the purpose of the Phaser-3s which is purely defensive.
Yes.
Problem is, some FC ships dispense with Phaser-3s, since Phaser-1/2s are their defensive weapons. Say the Federation New Fast Cruiser, Armed Cutter, Tholian Patrol Corvette or Orion Slaver You might want to fudge some Ph-3s onto them.
Will Phasers 1, 2 and 4 have the Pinpoint trait in Nova, since they are not penalized in SFB for firing at drones? It's missing from the Admiral's Edition version.
Would be possible to make customized firing arcs use 30 instead of 60 degree slices? That would get rid of over-payment for mixed letter arcs like SFB's CGHI/DGHI. And we already have the clock based arc definitions. 
It's a lot easier to compact them with just a marker for the groupings. The layout is a lot more complicated and dependant on the amount of hull/armor with separate groupings. I'm actually unclear on weather you have to go through all the armor to get to the hull, or if you alternate between armor group -> hull group -> armor group.
You alternate, so first group of armour, then the first group of hull and so on. So perhaps putting the display as armour/hull/armour/hull/armour/hull would be the best solution.
Okay, sounds great guys!
@Oldngray - I don't disagree with you on the principal of solar wind - however if this is to be used in an "Age of sail" adaptation, may as well go that way to start - plus the only popular space faring race that uses solar wind that I know of are the eldar - and in gothic they did get the treatment like this.
-Tim
I think the problem is that realistic solar sailing is very boring because you can only accelerate directly away from the sun. Since there is no ether to push against, reaching is not possible. While this is a very fuel efficient way to change your orbit, in tactical situations it is not very useful.
Perhaps make solar wind sailing require etheric movement?
Will there be support for custom arcs? (ie. those not covered by the 24 ones listed, say A, B, E, F)
I can see the partial VP rules being quite useful to differentiate between a quick raid (use partial) vs desperate defence (don't use partial) scenarios, applying them different to either side in such a conflict
Which time zone is Dan in?
Marc, there is an error in the Hellbore/ESG rules. I'm pretty sure the rule is correct and the example is wrong (it came up during proofreading - early copies of Distant Armada had errors). The in-universe explanation is that the ESG soaks up some of the damage from the Hellbore before it hits the shields, so the lowest shield rating of the target is used, with 1 added per ESG.
Any chance we could get the updated rulebook uploaded to e23?
My preference is for the first one as well.
If weapons still have the IMP attribute, perhaps have Armour DR reduce the damage inflicted by 1 for each point the IMP is lower than DR. So IMP 1 against DR 3 would be reduced by 2 points, etc.
What is the reason for the incompatibility between Flotillas and Bases? Flotillas sounds like a great way to do PFs and I was wondering if there was a way to make the two of them work.
I have a question about Distant Armada ESG description.
On page 13 it says:
For each ESG on a starship, its shield rating is treated as one lower (minimum zero) for purposes of determining hellbore impact dice.
I thought impact dice were determined by the weapons IMP rating, and there is nothing mentioning that hellbores behave differently.
On page 14 it says:
For each ESG on a starship, its shield rating is treated as one higher (maximum 5) for purposes of defending against hellbore cannon
So what is the exact effect of ESG?
The problem is that most of today's naval combats will be resolved with guides missiles/torpedoes fired from long ranges, so Starmada system is not the right scale for it.
Pages 1
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by netWilk
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.