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
cricket wrote:Naevius wrote:Does this replace/eliminate the rule about penalties applied to weapons with various traits when firing on seekers? ("Attacks against seeker markers incur...")
No -- those penalties apply based on traits possessed by the seekers themselves, not the weapons firing at the seekers.
And shouldn't scatter provide some benefit against seekers?
My concern is, since attacks vs. seekers will usually happen at short range, you can use "scatter" to artificially inflate the effectiveness of anti-seeker weapons (3x the dice for less than 2x the cost).
Oops. Mis-read that first rule completely.
Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?
* p.25 -- Add the following to the third-to-last paragraph: "Weapons with the catastrophic, diffuse,
double damage, scatter, and triple damage traits lose these abilities when attacking seeker markers."
Does this replace/eliminate the rule about penalties applied to weapons with various traits when firing on seekers? ("Attacks against seeker markers incur...")
And shouldn't scatter provide some benefit against seekers?
cricket wrote:Even if armor is conceptualized as steel plates bolted to the exterior of the hull, it makes little sense to think that all of it needs to be blown away before any damage seeps through to the inner hull/systems.
Agreed, I prefer to think of armor as a general reinforcement of the ship's structure and systems. Which also make 'armor piercing' an impossible trait.
If armor is marginally effective, make it much cheaper in terms of SU cost.
Or, leave the hull-based damage checks as they are, but front load all the armor first. (So that you have to chew through ALL the armor AND 1/3 of the hull before the 'damaged' check is made.) Then have armor-ignoring systems would make more sense.
BarkingMonkey wrote:can I take the rules at their word that a shield class 6 vessel will never have more than the first two (shield) boxes crossed out due to damage? (The last ICON is in the third box, with no icons in boxes 4 & 5.)
I believe the rules are saying you can only check off 4 boxes (2 damage checks of 2 each), and thus would always have one box left. However, in this case the shields would no longer have any effect.
Quick question after a skim of the rules:
Why would I ever design a weapon battery with more than one bank, thus incurring the the complication of firing arc modifiers? (By the way these modifiers are mentioned early in the rules but not explained until much later.)
Is there any limitation on the number of batteries I can have? Or any fixed battery cost I missed?
Related question: Page 10 states that a target must be designated for each bank, but I believe this should be battery?
Blacklancer99 wrote:Alex Knight wrote:zarathud wrote:Does anyone else have some printing issues on a few of the starship data cards? I am not sure if this is just my book or a general print run issue.
On both Federation Heavy Cruisers, the Battery X arcs are listed as [AC] [AC] [BD] [BD] [GHI] [GHI] and then there are some unreadable characters printed after the second [GHI]. Are there additional weapon arcs that were garbled in printing?
On both Klingon D5 War Cruisers, both D5W New Cruisers, and both the Kzinti Battlecruisers, the Battery Z arcs are not fully readable. It looks like the arcs are [C] [C] [D] [D] but there are extra unreadable characters printed over these arcs. What are the correct arcs?
Yes, the one we have here in our store has the same printing error. The Fed CA additional arcs should be two [JKL] arcs. As for the D5, D5W and Kzinti BC, I am not sure because I don't have my Fed Com cards with me and I don't know those arcs off hand.
It's not all of the copies though as mine is fine. I got mine loose and hole punched though so maybe it's only a problem with bound copies? The Z battery Arcs for both the D5 War Cruiser and the D5W New Cruisers are [CGHI][CGHI][DGHI][DGHI]
Edit: the Kzinti BC Z-Battery arcs are the same
I have a bound copy, and it is fine.
It shows as "Increased Damage". There is no "Increased Damage" in the rules.
Thanks for the answers. The questions on ROF vs IMP/DMG were independent...I just wondered why ROF isn't cheaper than having more weapons (which can cover more targets, after all.)
I agree the standard deviation of high DMG is greater than that of high IMP despite them having the same expected value. The couple of games I've played so far haven't been enough to show it making much difference...:)
Why would I ever take ROF = 2 on one weapon versus two weapons at ROF = 1? Shouldn't ROF be priced slightly lower? (Where cost = SU usage)
Why is IMP pricier than DMG? The expected value of increasing either is the same; DMG does have a higher std deviation.
Why are ships smaller in AE? (Not a big deal, but hurts conversions, or seems to.)
What happened to "Ignores Shields"?
Apologies if these are answered in an old thread...
PS: This is my umpteenth forum name - perhaps I can avoid losing this password...
Posts found: 10