Quoting p.17: "A starship's previous speed is 6, and its movement orders are '6'. The thrust requirement is zero (6-6). Note that this is the only way for a ship in motion to achieve a thrust requirement of zero--therefore, a starship without engines will continue to move in the same direction and at the same speed indefinitely."

So, yes, a ship can "go indefinitely" -- in fact, it's the only thing a ship can do without using thrust.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. The system is written so that you just plot where the ship is to go -- the thrust requirement is there merely to ensure the ship has the engine power to do what you want. Not, as in tri-planetary and other "vector" systems, where thrust is plotted and then it is determined where the ship ends up.

Umm... people in glass houses...

You're right; mathematically speaking the correct term would be "absolute difference" -- but in everyday usage I had thought "difference" would be appropriate.

Exactly. The speed for a plot of "U" is zero.

Quoting p.17 again: "Next to this is a space for the ship's speed, which is simply the sum of all forward movement recorded in the movement orders."

Without any forward movement, there is zero speed.

If you're going speed 2, and you want to be going speed 2 in the opposite direction, you just plot "U2" (or "1U1" or "2U"). Regardless, your thrust requirement is 4 (previous speed 2 plus current speed 2).

Assuming you are asking if two turns must be separated by forward movement, the answer is no, they do not. Orders are restricted only by having no more than two one-hexside turns or a single U-turn.

I believe it is 0, but look to dan to confirm. You basically just spent your turn 2 to over come the inertia of your ship and bring the bow about.

I'm also very confused as well (and YES sleepless to boot since it's 2 AM  ). Oddly, I get the general "feel" that was intended for the new movement rules and I'm sure I will like the end result... just when I'll have any hint on how they're supposed to work. I must say also that they are very poorly explained. I can already picture a revision on section 3.0 for SAE version 1.1 :wink:   

So...

If I understand the rules and what has been said in this thread correctly, the system is NOT inertia-based like in Full Thrust... notwithstanding the opening paragraph of rules 3.0. For instance, if on turn 2 my speed is 8 and I use 4 more thrust points to accelerate on the following turn my speed for turn 3 becomes 12; ie on turn 3 the ship moves 12 inches (or hexes).

So in SAE that's NOT what is happening - speed does NOT add up from turn to turn, meaning as with S:X you cannot go faster than your current engine rating. It also means, like S:X, that on turn 3 if you traveled at your max speed and on turn 4 you don't wish to move at all you stay in that hex; you make a dead stop.

So what has changed from S:X is only the way you calculate turns (or course changes), how you perform them and if you get engine damage then inertia principles apply.

How's that??

Im glad you like SAE... starmada admiral edition. I had them since they were small little separate race books stapled... then there were small bound books, then version X, which I didnt like and compendium which i liked and still play.

I dont like the fact there are no pre-defined weapons for newbies to sit and play. I like the compendium the best so far. I can sit down with friends and just give them pre made races.

You're welcome. I think.

Now I'm confused.

Yes.

Now who's being catty?

Look, I'm not above taking constructive criticism -- and the fact that you didn't understand the movement rules in the first go means I should look to see if there's a clearer way to explain them. Nor did I ever say you can't read or understand proper English.

But to claim to have found a "severe grammatical error" in a post that was rife with them seemed... ironic... at best. That doesn't mean I take your concerns or critiques lightly, or that I dismiss your intelligence.

The plot is '3'.

Turn 2: move order: '3'      end of turn speed: '3'

Again, you're confusing cause and effect. You plot what you want to do. Period. You do not apply thrust and then determine where your ship goes.

Your new speed is zero. So your thrust requirement is 6 (previous speed 6 plus new speed 0).

Ah I think I get it ...

I hate to bring Full Thrust in as a reference again but I just want to confirm the part about acceleration/deceleration : it works just as in FT. If I have a ship with engines of 2 (like a big battleship) that just keeps going on a straight line and starts at velocity 0 and applies its max engine rating every turn to accelerate, then on turn 2 the velocity become 4, (moving 4 hexes forward), then on turn 3 it becomes 6 (moving 6 hexes forward) and so on. Say on the 10th turn when a velocity of 20 has been reached, if the ship wants to decelerate back to a velocity of 0, then it'll take 10 more turns to achieve that. Exactly as in FT.

However ...

The integrated example (3.4) on Pp 18-19 is contradicting this. On P.18 during the first turn the ship moves 3 hexes, it has a speed of 3- it does not busts its TR, good enough. On P.19 during turn 2 the final movement orders are 2S2 so you add another 4 to your velocity... so according to a 'FT-like' style of movement, your total velocity during turn 2 should be 7 (3 from the previous turn, plus 4 that turn), yet it says the ship only moves 4 hexes.

:?:

But I think bringing in Full Thrust is part of the problem...

When thinking in terms of effect, yes. A ship with an engine rating could have a speed of 20 after ten game turns. However...

Aha! There's the problem. You're not adding to your velocity -- you're just saying "I want to move 4".

Think of it this way:

At the end of turn 1, the ship was moving at a speed of 3 in heading 0*.

At the end of turn 2, the ship is moving at a speed of 4 in heading 60*.

If you were to plot these two end-points on a hexgrid relative to a single hex (point A is 3 hexes in one direction, point B is 4 hexes in a direction 60* to the starboard/right/clockwise), you'd see that the distance between points A and B is 4.

THAT is what the movement system is doing. You still plot your moves as you would in pre-Admiralty Starmada, but the "cost" of each set of movement orders is computed in a different way to reflect the inertia carried over from turn to turn.

Assuming we are ever able to explain this adequately, any suggestions on how to better phrase it in the rulebook?

YES! I finally got it ... I think ... hope so 

I even had Dydimus send me a very detailed example.

Dan, you're absolutely right, if you think in terms of FT it'll get confusing. Now when re-reading section 3.0 I see that it is not that badly explained after all, BUT it is confusing IF you start with another system is mind while reading that section. The basic thing to remember here is that the overall effect of movement plotting shows you *exactly* how you get from A to B, exactly like in S:X. It is *how* movement cost is calculated that is different. So basically it is an inertia-based system WITHOUT the basic problem associated to systems like FT's, which was that you never knew exactly where you'd end up (which is quite unrealistic).

The only thing which I'm 99% sure of but I'd still like to confirm is this: you do NOT add trust requirements together to see if the move is a "go"; ie your move is valid as long as each individual maneuver's TR does not exceed the current engine rating.

So going back to the example on P.19 for the second turn : 2S2 = the TR for accel/decel is 1 (speed 3 previous turn minus 4 current turn); the S maneuver's TR is 4 (4 = current speed > 3 = previous speed). *IF* the TRs were added then the total TR for the whole plotting of turn 2 would be 5 (1 TR accel + 4 TR for the 'S' turn) *BUT* that's NOT how the rules work. There are 2 maneuvers here within the same turn: moving a total of 4 hexes (2+2) and a starboard turn. As long as the *individual* TR of each maneuver does not bust the current engine rating then the move's a "go".

Also, there is not set order on when to perform each maneuver, right? Taking the example above, (2S2) that could either be S4, 4S, 1S3 or 3S1.  So it's all good as long as you don't bust the TR.

If I got everything right then those rules are quite awesome.

despite what you think, i wasn't coming down on your writing style or being catty myself.  I was just trying to explain my frustration and confusion.

Ive been a fan of mj12 (starmada, sovereign stars, ares)  for ages. i honestly passing a message for my wife to proof read. i will continue to support your mj12 prods. Ive turned on at least 4 people to it. 

If i ruffled your feathers, apologies.

Im sure what ever you do will turn out nicely in the re-write

thats it.

Enjoy your holiday.

As mentioned before, I am the one who must apologize.

I'm glad you've been a fan -- and I appreciate the offer for proofreading. I may take your wife up on it next time 'round.

Now, getting back to "business" -- do you think the two edits I proposed would help you better understand the system? Theoretically, it should be playable after a single read-through -- clearly, it's not quite there yet.

Looking through the new rules, is there anything 'balance-wise' that would be lost if just using the old movement rules over these new thrust-based rules? I like the fact that the new rules streamline damage allocation quite a bit but I fear that any time saved there would be lost in the plotting phase calculating the new movement system. Starmada is already a pretty lite system, so I dont mind having a less than realistic movement system but if the game balance is designed around the new movement rules then perhaps I might try and get players to grit it out.

Any input from a balance point of view?

Thanks!

I don't want to sound repetitive, but remember that you WILL have to plot something.

The plot is the movement you're going to perform and NOT the activity of your engines.

If you're travelling 6 hexes/turn, and have no engine rating left, you'll still plot '6' every turn -- you just won't be using any thrust to do it.

Technically speaking, if you plot NOTHING, you'll drop to speed zero and have to spend 6 thrust.

In essence, the system is backwards from FT and other vector-ish systems. I wrote it that way because I think it's so much easier to think in terms of what I want the ship to do, and not in terms of what thrust I need to apply in order to get my ship to do what I want.