This message was one of the last to appear on the Yahoo! group before the switch to the forum. I am re-posting it to make sure we maintain the continuity...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K. David Ladage [mailto:KDLadage@msn.com]

> See below for some of the things I think it would be good to have...

Okay... had some time to chew on this and digest some of the responses.

None of it came back up with last night's dinner, so that's a good thing.

> GENERAL
> * Shields 6 and higher --

The idea of having shields 6+ be extensions of shields 5 (i.e., 5-5-4-3-2-1, 5-5-5-4-3-2-1, etc.) really treads on the "redundant shielding" ability -- one or the other would be extraneous (sp?).

If I were to allow such a thing, I would side with Jim, and adapt the "multiple sixes" rule for to-hit rolls.

Then, each shield rating above 5 would double the DefRat modifier; e.g., shields 6 = x12, shields 7 = x24; shields 8 = x48, etc.

Prolly not going to see many shield-10 ships out there.

> * Signature {optional rule} --

I've been experimenting with this off and on for a while, and I always get hung up on how to compute the signature value.

Personally, while I like the idea, it has too much of a "tacked on" feel to it. If we were re-creating Starmada from scratch, I would likely include signature as a part of a comprehensive sensors rule. But with Starmada as is, I think it's too much.

> * Technological Levels -- make the list of equipment that is not
> impacted by the Equipment Technological Level "official."

Yeah. I think the easiest thing is to add a column to the chart in section A.1.5. I'll try to do that today.

> WEAPON MODS
> * Concentrated --

I don't see a problem with this. The point cost would be unaffected.

> * Draining --

I think this would be too fiddly -- it would require us to define which pieces of special equipment are "powered" and which aren't. Also, how many Draining weapons can I fire in a given turn? All of them? Just one?

Again, if we rebuilt Starmada with power-consumption rules, that would be one thing, but this prolly won't interface with the existing game very well.

> * Expendable --

This should be easily done. Just apply the number of shots as a modifier to the weapon cost.

> * Flash Damage --

I think we've hammered this one out. If you're using hidden movement, then any cloaked ship in the target hex is affected automatically. If you're not using hidden movement, then a cloaked ship has a "saving throw". Roll a die and add the number of hexes moved in the current turn; if the result is 7 or more, the shot misses the cloaked ship.

The modifier should be x3 or x4.

> * Halves Hull Damage --

I like the concept... multiplier should be x0.85.

> * Halves System Damage --
> * Ignores Armor -- self explanitory.

I don't think either of these really work for me. First of all, we got rid of the "no system damage" and "extra system damage", so I'm not sure "halves system damage" fits in.

Secondly, armor is supposed to be a reinforcement of the hull structure -- anything that ignores armor should ignore the hull altogether (and we've already got that. In addition, as has been pointed out, this leads to things like "Ignores Reinforced Shielding", etc.

> * Ignores PDS -- self explanitory.

Fine. Multiplier of x2.

> * Inverted Range Based RoF/PEN/DMG --

First thought is a multiplier of x2.1.

> * Inverted Variable RoF/PEN/DMG --

First thought is a multiplier of x2.3.

> * No System Damage --

See above. I don't think we should have weapon effects that deal with "system damage".

> * Non-Penetrating --

-1 to PEN rolls would be a x0.7 modifier.

> * Rate of Fire less than 1 --

No need to change the formula for this. Just apply 1/3 or 1/2, as appropriate.

> * Reduced Damage --

Seems a bit fiddly, and really tough to point cost...

> * To-Hit 2+ --
> * To-Hit 6+ --

I suppose these would be okay. To-hit 2+ = x0.83; To-hit 6+ = x0.17.

> EQUIPMENT
> * Advanced Sensors --

Huh. I think it could work -- give it a x1.5 modifier to the ship's DR.

> * Cargo Bays -- change this from 50% of the ship to a fixed amount...
> like say 100 SU per bay.

No.

Seriously -- I like cargo bays as they are. Any changes to this would be
scenario- or universe-specific, and as cargo does not affect the CR of the ship, how cargo bays are added to a ship is irrelevant.

> * Hyperdrives -- I really think that, in any revision to the rules you
> make, removing the odd, strange, bizaar rule on hyperdrives would be a
> good idea

I don't think it's odd, strange, or bizarre...

It's set up in this fashion so that players who don't want to bother with hyperdrives can just pretend they don't exist.