Toying with some thoughts on how to encourage settings... stay tuned.

That was the intent. Glad at least someone likes it.

Yeah, I struggled with the layout of the new ship card for quite some time. Just didn't seem to find an appropriate place for the hex diagram, which I wasn't sure anyone was using, anyway.

I'll keep plugging away...

Yep -- that would be a major change (or rather, rollback from X), and one the Admiralty debated a bit. But in the end, I felt the benefits of taking Q hits back out of the game countered the drawbacks.

But, remember, this is the Core Rulebook: the order of the day is "options, options, options".

Well...I can say there is at least one setting project well underway at present. Complete with a mini line.

Pardon me while I go cry... I was really proud of the graphics...

No, you didn't miss anything -- although there should be a mention in the construction section about the upper limit of 5.

The spreadsheet allows values greater than 5 because of the "screens" option. If you pay close attention, you'll see that if you enter a value of 6+, the box on the data card changes from "SHIELDS" to "SCREENS".

People had been pushing for those for quite some time. Glad they're being accepted into the family.

I really like what I have seen.  I had some questions about how some of the weapons traits interact with fighters (like does double damage roll 2 dice when attacking fighter flights or does its effect only work on capital ships)? Otherwise looks great.

With so many options, great pains were taken to be very specific in terminology and wording. So, to answer your question:

Rule 5.4 states "In addition, each hit scored on a fighter flight automatically destroys one fighter; no impact or damage rolls are necessary."

Option C.4 (Double Damage) states: "The double damage trait does exactly what it implies; the effect of each damage die from such a weapon is doubled."

Since damage rolls are not made against fighter flights, and the double damage trait only affects damage dice, the answer would be that the double damage weapon trait does not come into play against fighter flights.

Dan used a program called DOGA L3 for the graphics. It's capable of more realistic-looking results, but Dan wanted that 'anime' look - and I think he got it. I tried to nudge him a bit away from that, but he felt it fit in with the theme of the earlier releases this way I think.

There's also the concern about the PDF having real graphics-heavy pages for people to try printing on a wide variety of home printers. Some (if not most) printers are simply not up to the task - and the ink expense would be sorta high.

The alternative would be to make two seperate versions, and for Dan and I to collaborate on the graphics and put in more like we did in the Iron Stars books.

..but that would delay it for another few months....woud you prefer that?

I suspect that the setting books will have more and better graphics, but no promises (not from me, anyway) - I don't drive the bus.

<GASP!> ..must...not....loose...consciousness.....

THUD!

<wheeze...wheeeeze....>

Some like them, others don't need them, some measure the quality of the publications by now many there are, and how they look.

Glad you like it!

No, it was a completely un-solicited opinion - I can be devious, but I'm not THAT devious - or that obvious....

You know, it's not often that I actually laugh out loud after reading something.

Anime? I actually got a bit more of a Freespace/SW vibe from the graphics, myself. Mmm... Freespace...

Fair Questions....

In the current case, I'm thinking that the current graphics are about right - we've only recieved one 'complaint' so far - and the graphics are limited to either "splash art" or illustrations of the mechanics. A purist wouldn't object to it, I think.

With a setting book, I think that people are going to want to see the ships and maybe the 'aliens'. I don't think that we actually need to reach the Games Workshop level of graphic intensity.

While the graphics-heavy content works for GW, what differs is that they have their stuff in actual brick-and-mortar shops. With that type of contact, I think you might need the extra "WOW!" effect to sell the game to what might be an indifferent or vacillating customer. GW needs that extra push, because they have a LOT higher overhead.

Given what appears to be GW's average target audience (this isn't a put-down, just an observation), I think they'd see dractic drop-offs in sales if they went a lot lighter on the pix.

It would slow down the delivery of the settings books, but if given enough advance information, I think that Dan and I could get the art done in a reasonable time frame - a month or so delay. There needs to be more playtesting to see if the ship perform as desired, and that could be done as Dan or I complete the graphics.

True to an extent. I think the need for graphics depends very much on the audience that you're aiming at:

- Some are happy with white paper and the typed rules.

- Some (like me) like consistent, coherent rules AND some cool pictures.

- Some buy it, it sits on a shelf, and they pull it down to ponder, look at the pictures, and read the little stories they put in the margins - and it rarely gets played. <sigh> I don't want to be there.

It's current incarnation is about right for the target audience, which appears to me to be somewhere between the two of us - and that's fine. If we ever get to the point that we need MORE art, I'm constantly dorking with ways to move faster and do better graphics.

Dan's actually fairly good with DOGA now, but I still think I texture better.

..I do take longer though.

Dang it, is this off-topic now?

That's odd... one of the few things I would NOT take from FT, SFB, or even B5W or SBFCS is the graphic nature of the SSDs.

To me, it seems much cleaner (and more functional) to have everything in a pre-determined spot on the sheet, with the vital stats listed right there.

Just a personal preference, I suppose.

Besides, can you imagine coming up with 5 million different icons for weapon systems?