Those nine points of hull damage also reduce the ship's capacity to repair already damaged systems, make it more susceptible to capture, and, should the ship have less than ten hull points, result in the absolute destruction of the ship.

The thing is, with EHD, even with the most unfavorable damage roll, you're absolutely guaranteed one hull hit for every damage point rolled on top of any other damage done, which isn't the case for any other weapon system in the game. Continuous damage weapons don't have that guarantee, or even of getting a second roll at all due to its mechanics. Extra system damage is nice, but it's hull damage that has the most direct, concrete contribution to removing a ship from play.

Also, if the target-ship has armored hull, andyour first roll is a 1, then you do no hull damage and then stop. :shock:

You are correct. I recall that post from Dan also.

Wait... If I roll an 1,3,5 with extra hull damage I'll do 6 damage? So in my previous example the 1,2,3,4,5,6 will do 9 point of damage?

If so then maybe EHD isn't so bad, but it seem overpriced in comparison to CD, since damaging system like engine of shield could transform a powerful ship in a sitting duck...

Or CD is underpriced... but at this point I leave this issue to more math oriented people

The rationale is as follows:

Extra Hull Damage: Normal damage (1.0) plus an additional hull hit (which occurs 50% of the time, so this is the "same" as rolling an additional two dice).  Thus, 1.0 + 2.0 = 3.0

Continuing Damage: Normal damage (1.0) plus 50% chance of an additional die roll (+0.5) plus a 50% chance of an additional die roll (+[0.5 x 0.5]) etc... According to the solution to Xeno's dichotomy paradox, this results in a sum of 2.0 (1.0 + 1.0). However, since the CD weapon can never score more than a single hull hit, it's not quite as effective as rolling the equivalent number of dice, so it is reduced to 1.7. (I think I had a more "precise" rationale for this one, but I don't remember what it was ... )

Obviously, I think these are the "correct" values, but I am not infallible, and will listen to arguments to the contrary.

Yeah, I just caught that... That shows me for looking up Mekton stuff right before posting around here.

Dan... the thing is, though continuing may never score more than one hull hit, it may also never score less than one hull it.

As the typical die scores 1/2 of a hull hit, and as (as was discussed before) the sum of the series for continuing damage is 2...

1 'continuing damage' die scores the same damage as 2 'normal' dice, and its hull damage is strictly regularized.. rather than 0-2 damage (normal dice condition), its always 1 damage per continuing damage die.

Now, whether variable or consistent damage is preferable is up to you. *G*

Agreed on 'not huge issue'

I think it comes down to how we value variability.  IE, is a weapon that does 1-9 worth more, or less, than a weapon that always does 5 damage?

See, it seemed back when I read continuing damage that the authors intent was 'extra good at knocking out systems'... whereas the current implementation amounts to 'each damage dice is exactly 1 hull damage (same as 2 usual damage dice) and potentially either very little or quite a lot of system damage'

Another question, now that were talking about system damage in general..

Is it just me, or is 'no hull damage' valued at .7 based on the assumption that Damage Control rules are not in effect?  Without DC in effect, it looks cool.  With Damage control...  I like the flavor, but it doesn't seem justifiable.