• Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Topic: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

Just thinking of a potential defensive bit of kit that could be used.

Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing (actual term depends upon whether using shields/screens or KEB defences)

Fluff: Since the first fighter flight flew and since the first weapon that could partially negate ships armour/shielding, ship designers trying to improve the protection of the design have looked for ways to negate the fighter and those off-shoots of ionic weapons. Most come to the conclusion that there is not much that can be done. Others, however, figure out that re-inforcing the weak spots of a ships defences are the key. Whether it be secondary shield generators simply closing the gap, or girders and bulkheads near the inevitable weak spots of a ships armour, the ship designers sacrifice space for protection.

Effect: Whenever fighters or weapons with the 'Halves Shields' ability attack a ship, the ship defends at full shield/armour strength, just as Ionic Shielding against 'Ignores Shields'

Costing: As Ionic Shielding

Ionic Secondary Shielding/Advanced Armour Backing

Fluff: Some designers in their time come up against both ionic weapons, their offshoots and fighters. To combat all three, these designers really pull out all the stops...

Effect: Combines Secondary Shielding and Ionic Shielding effects (defending at full strength against Ignores Shields, Halves Shields and fighters)

Costing: Space: 20% of shield space units
DRat modifier: x2.0

What do you think?

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Just thinking of a potential defensive bit of kit that could be used.
...
What do you think?

Not bad. It certainly won't unbalance games -- if anything, the costs you list are a tad high.

My hesitation is that this encourages "one-upsmanship" -- if you have secondary shielding, I'll just add a weapon that "ignores secondary shielding". At some point, it has to stop... smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

cricket wrote:

......At some point, it has to stop... smile

Yeah...when the target goes BOOM! *insane chuckle* :wink:

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

cricket wrote:
murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Just thinking of a potential defensive bit of kit that could be used.
...
What do you think?

Not bad. It certainly won't unbalance games -- if anything, the costs you list are a tad high.

My hesitation is that this encourages "one-upsmanship" -- if you have secondary shielding, I'll just add a weapon that "ignores secondary shielding". At some point, it has to stop... smile

Not really--there isn't a weapon labelled 'Ignores Ionic Shielding'

big_smile

The reason I gave the costs are because, although the Halves Shields ability is of less effect than Ignores Shields, its also affecting fighters who now have to attack a vessel with 5 shields as if it had five shields, which might just mean fighters become one part of an effective battleplan, rather than the whole of the battleplan.

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Not really--there isn't a weapon labelled 'Ignores Ionic Shielding'

... yet.

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

That should be amended to 'never'.

Really, the idea of a weapon that ignores a defence set up against a weapon that essentially has the same special effect as the new weapon is too much one-upmanship. Where would such a race end? I'd prefer it to end at this stage. If you have a Halves Shields weapon and I don't have secondary shielding, well, you're in luck. If I do bring them along, though, you shouldn't be allowed to essentially say "Hah, but now I've got this weapon that can bypass your secondary shielding!"

Onto something else--how would you playtest this ability? Two ships, one with normal weapons and secondary shields, one with weapons labelled Halves Shields and normal shields? Fighters?

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

Hello everyone!

The idea of blocking "Halves Shields" to reduce the effects of fighter attacks is interesting, but not necessary.  If you equip your ships with level 3 shields and point defense, fighter-attacks that hit these ships will only penetrate on a roll of 4 or 6. 

When you consider that only 1/3 of the fighters that attack your ship actually hit it, and then combine this with only 1/3 of these hits getting thru, it means that only one in nine attacking fighters will cause damage to your ship.  If you have anti-fighter batteries, it means the attacker is loosing 3 fighters for every 2 internals being scored:  Ouch!

What does everyone else think?

Steven Gilchrist
Jacksonville, Florida, USA

PS:  I am going south for the holiday and playing Starmada with my nephew and Gaming Glenn at his store, Dragon's Lair, just outside Fort Lauderdale. We are playing Wednesday 11/21 @ 1pm and possibly on Friday

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

Thing is, I don't like PDS any more...:) And I want those that don't like PDS to have an option for anti-fighter and anti-Halves Shields defence too...

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

And I want those that don't like PDS to have an option for anti-fighter and anti-Halves Shields defence too...

Anti-Fighter Batteries ( X )

Many starship designers, not content to rely on friendly fighters to protect their starships from enemy fighters, have chosen to equip their designs with anti-fighter batteries ( AFB ), tiny weapons which can only attack at extremely close quarters.

Whenever a fighter flight attacks a starship equipped with AFB ( X ), it loses a fighter on a roll of X or less, just as if it were attacking another fighter flight..

SU Cost: + (10 x ( 6 / ( 5 – X ) – 1 )%
ORat: -
Drat: x (6 / ( 6 – X ))
Hit?: No

Note: The current Anti-Fighter Batteries is equivalent to Anti-Fighter Batteries (1) which gives:

SU Cost: + (10 x ( 6 / ( 5 – 1 ) – 1 )% or +5%
ORat: -
Drat: x (6 / ( 6 – 1 )) or x1.2
Hit?: No

This is consistent with the current rules.

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Secondary Shielding/Armour Backing

Still sticking with secondary shields.