Topic: Admiralty Edition Design Question

jmpehrson wrote:

A quick design question ...

Note:  use of the word fighter includes fighters, strikers, and seekers

Since fighters now have the possibility of getting a Def roll (saving throw) after being hit, why do weapon traits like "Non Piercing" and "No Hull Damage" make it harder to actually hit the fighters instead of just increasing the fighters defense roll?  Piercing doesn't make such weapons any more accurate against a fighter, why should Non Piercing make them less accurate?

Two interrelated reasons:

1) Because non-piercing weapons receive a "discount" for this penalty, which is not a penalty vs. fighters without the -1 to-hit.

2) Each option is distinct from the others. In order for your solution to work (providing a bonus to the target fighter's defense value), you would have to require that the ustomized fighters option be used along with the weapon traits option.

Dan

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

I was going to ask why non-piercing had that fighter rule, too.  I know it wouldn't be a penalty vs fighters, but it is still a penalty (because there are a lot of things out there that aren't fighters).

It would have been a nice rule to use for anti-fighter guns.  I know those may appear in the future, but the fighter penalty didn't seem necessary for this trait (and the other similar one, which I forget at the moment), at least to me.

andy

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

Passing this on from someone else: (I think I know the answer...but may as well pop the question)

What about seeker boarding pods?

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

go0gleplex wrote:

Passing this on from someone else: (I think I know the answer...but may as well pop the question)

What about seeker boarding pods?

What about them?

smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

cricket wrote:
go0gleplex wrote:

Passing this on from someone else: (I think I know the answer...but may as well pop the question)

What about seeker boarding pods?

What about them?

smile

Is dey possible/allowed?   8)

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

go0gleplex wrote:

Is dey possible/allowed?   8)

I guess so.

Capacity requirement is 10.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

cricket wrote:
go0gleplex wrote:

Is dey possible/allowed?   8)

I guess so.

Capacity requirement is 10.

That'll make someone happy.  His fleet is built around marines more than the ships!  lol

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

Seeker pods!

Great! Send a large empty hull through them and sit back, watching them stick themselves to it sailing off into the sunset.

Imagine the minefield in Galaxy Quest.

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

OldnGrey wrote:

Seeker pods!

Great! Send a large empty hull through them and sit back, watching them stick themselves to it sailing off into the sunset.

Imagine the minefield in Galaxy Quest.

Ooooo....that's just evil! :twisted:

I like...

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

go0gleplex wrote:
cricket wrote:
go0gleplex wrote:

Is dey possible/allowed?   8)

I guess so.
Capacity requirement is 10.

That'll make someone happy.  His fleet is built around marines more than the ships!  lol

Huh...
I must have missed the memo.
You know, the one explaining how a starship combat game became more about some marines on a ship than maneuvering the ship and using its big shooty gun thingies.
:wink:
Kevin

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

underling wrote:
go0gleplex wrote:
cricket wrote:

I guess so.
Capacity requirement is 10.

That'll make someone happy.  His fleet is built around marines more than the ships!  lol

Huh...
I must have missed the memo.
You know, the one explaining how a starship combat game became more about some marines on a ship than maneuvering the ship and using its big shooty gun thingies.
:wink:
Kevin

Well...he thinks that if he uses the big shooty things the ships he's after won't be worth repossessing.  *chuckles*

(refrains from Jarhead propaganda) *innocent grin*

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

My fiance' used weapons that did no hull damage in Starmada X to simulate "Ion Cannons" similar to Star Wars. They didn't specifically destroy the weapons or items... but instead disabled everything.....

She would then board with her marines, or use a "tug ship" (basically a small hull with high engine ratings) to tow the "disabled" ship away....although she prefers marines...

Then again, her species that she created is based around slaving.....
The crews are taken back to her bases, and implanted with control chips...
At least the ones that aren't eaten are implanted....LOL

John

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

Nahuris wrote:

Then again, her species that she created is based around slaving.....
The crews are taken back to her bases, and implanted with control chips...
At least the ones that aren't eaten are implanted....LOL

You're a lucky man, my friend. smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

cricket wrote:
Nahuris wrote:

Then again, her species that she created is based around slaving.....
The crews are taken back to her bases, and implanted with control chips...
At least the ones that aren't eaten are implanted....LOL

You're a lucky man, my friend. smile

No kiddin.

Re: Admiralty Edition Design Question

We met over a 40K game....LOL
Her Dark Eldar over-ran the terminators I had borrowed from a friend.
It was pretty much a mutual destruction... and well, coffee afterwards.....

John

P.S. She even enjoys scratch building her own ships.....