• Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Topic: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

Reading the description of mine clearing in the core rulebook it says (paraphrase) that weapons firing at mines get a -1 penalty like weapons firing at fighters. Do weapon traits (namely no hull dmg and non-piercing) that cause a negative to hit against fighters  also increase the penalty for shooting at mine patterns? I was designing a "mine clearing" weapon system that I wanted to have little or no use against warships and fighters and wanted to give it non-piercing -3, but I wanted to make sure it was still useful against mines, and I didn't see anything explicit on the subject. Thanks.
Erik

  • Registered: 2006-07-24
  • Posts: 158

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

I don't think you can give a weapon the same trait more than once (thinks of a weapon with double continuing damage).

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

PSYCO829 wrote:

I don't think you can give a weapon the same trait more than once (thinks of a weapon with double continuing damage).

I was referring to Non-Piercing [X] (-1, -2, -3) from p.14 of the Starmada Iron Stars supplement.

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

A.2 Combat Modifiers on page 8 of Starmada AE: iron stars gives Minesweeping a separate entry.
Neither No Hull Damage nor Non-Piercing mention Minesweeping so i would say no, there would not be a to hit penalty for these. Unlike fighter flights, minefields are not a moving target, have no shields and are not armored.

Minesweeping reads that the minefield is reduced by "hits", so any traits that change the IMP or DMG may reduce the cost of the weapon but not effectiveness against minefields.

Paul

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

OldnGrey wrote:

A.2 Combat Modifiers on page 8 of Starmada AE: iron stars gives Minesweeping a separate entry.
Neither No Hull Damage nor Non-Piercing mention Minesweeping so i would say no, there would not be a to hit penalty for these. Unlike fighter flights, minefields are not a moving target, have no shields and are not armored.

Minesweeping reads that the minefield is reduced by "hits", so any traits that change the IMP or DMG may reduce the cost of the weapon but not effectiveness against minefields.

Paul

That was my read too, but I just wanted to throw it out there to see what others thought before I brought such a thing to a game. Thanks,
Erik

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

Blacklancer99 wrote:

Reading the description of mine clearing in the core rulebook it says (paraphrase) that weapons firing at mines get a -1 penalty like weapons firing at fighters. Do weapon traits (namely no hull dmg and non-piercing) that cause a negative to hit against fighters  also increase the penalty for shooting at mine patterns?

Yes.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

Reading the description of mine clearing in the core rulebook it says (paraphrase) that weapons firing at mines get a -1 penalty like weapons firing at fighters. Do weapon traits (namely no hull dmg and non-piercing) that cause a negative to hit against fighters  also increase the penalty for shooting at mine patterns?

Yes.

Ahah...the Ultimate Authority has spoken! I'm off to redesign my minesweeper. I started writing a huge rant here, but I will summarize by saying that I find the inability to make truely specialized, niche weapon systems to be a bit annoying. Most people wouldn't want to, but I like to make things like that. We have been given Starship/Ship Exclusive as a weapon trait...for the record I wish there was a AntiFighter Exclusive trait at the very least and possibly the return of Minesweeping equipment to better simulate specialized systems. I like having things on ships that take up valuable space but aren't so flexible, it makes design choices more important.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I was hoping it wasn't that way but oh well.
Erik

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

Reading the description of mine clearing in the core rulebook it says (paraphrase) that weapons firing at mines get a -1 penalty like weapons firing at fighters. Do weapon traits (namely no hull dmg and non-piercing) that cause a negative to hit against fighters  also increase the penalty for shooting at mine patterns?

Yes.

I take it that this will be put into the next sourcebook?

Paul

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

Blacklancer99 wrote:

I started writing a huge rant here, but I will summarize by saying that I find the inability to make truely specialized, niche weapon systems to be a bit annoying.

I'm not sure I understand... there's nothing keeping you from making specialized weapon systems. But loading up on traits that incur a penalty against ships so that your anti-fighter (or mine-sweeping) weapons take up less space smells a bit like cheese...

Blacklancer99 wrote:

for the record I wish there was a AntiFighter Exclusive trait at the very least

Then you might wish to pick up Klingon Armada. wink

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

OldnGrey wrote:
cricket wrote:

Yes.

I take it that this will be put into the next sourcebook?

Paul

As it is a clarification to an existing rule, I'm not sure where it should go. Probably an erratum to the Core Rulebook.

The simplest method to handle mines is to state that each mine counter is considered separate fighter flight.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

I started writing a huge rant here, but I will summarize by saying that I find the inability to make truely specialized, niche weapon systems to be a bit annoying.

I'm not sure I understand... there's nothing keeping you from making specialized weapon systems. But loading up on traits that incur a penalty against ships so that your anti-fighter (or mine-sweeping) weapons take up less space smells a bit like cheese...

Blacklancer99 wrote:

for the record I wish there was a AntiFighter Exclusive trait at the very least

Then you might wish to pick up Klingon Armada. wink


No cheese Dan, exactly the opposite...I want to load up on systems/weapons that take up space but are more limited. Making a minesweeping system that is of limited or no value against waships and fighters is what I'm on about. I wanted a system that would flat out suck against anything but mines. Basically the way to do that seems to be to give it @#&%y ACC and no range...but that makes it SMALLER.  Same with anti-fighter weapons. I just have a really tough time swallowing it when an "anti-fighter" weapon escort can cut another ship to ribbons, even if it is a death of a thousand cuts (trust me...I've seen it done). I want design choices to be tougher sometimes...choose between the anti-fighter or anti ship weapon for instance...I KNOW why non-piercing and no hull damage have a minus to hit fighters, because people would load up on teeny tiny weapons that would devastate fighter flights. I look forward to the possibility of weapons that can only target/damage fighter and fighter like craft because there is a whole lot of logic behind the reasoning for it. I think if you want a weapon that can do both jobs you could make it dual mode...think a WWII 6" gun firing a proximity-fuzed "flak" type round for anti-fighter duty, and an HE or AP round for anti-ship. Want a more recent vintage, how about the reimagined Galactica's railguns? Dual mode no doubt. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the design system either, I'm just a weirdo and I like to design things that have negatives and trade offs...
Erik

  • Registered: 2007-12-17
  • Posts: 331

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

Not to be the tit-for-tat guy but I would like to see more options for minefields, too. Different acc, imp, dam levels, defense, smart mines, anti-ship mines, anti-fighter mines...

There are other rules that could be expanded upon, as well. Cloaking could be expanded on (e.g., improved cloak could give a -1 to the die roll) and "sonar" equipment could be included (e.g., allow equipped ships to make a detection roll vs. cloaked vessels).

I agree with Erik, too, about having fighter-exclusive weapons (glad to see it's coming!) and weapons of that ilk. I think there's a lot of flexibility in the system already, of course, but additions like that are welcome.

  • Registered: 2006-07-24
  • Posts: 158

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

More options would be interesting, but I keep thinking about things like what happened with Ionic Shielding and Ignores Shield:
1. It gives options that overly complicate the game.
2. It creates a "one up" sort of idea, such as weapons that ignore Ionic Shielding.

The sonar idea I like with cloaking, as well as the mine design, but adding too many options can make the game a bit x.x for simple people like myself.

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

cricket wrote:
OldnGrey wrote:
cricket wrote:

Yes.

I take it that this will be put into the next sourcebook?

Paul

As it is a clarification to an existing rule, I'm not sure where it should go. Probably an erratum to the Core Rulebook.

The simplest method to handle mines is to state that each mine counter is considered separate fighter flight.

I do not know what you use to make the core rulebook pdf but would it be possible to re-write the entries, extract the amended pages and have them as a mini pdf on this site? That way, those of us with the pdf version could just print up the new page and replace the old one. Looks like there is plenty of room on the mines page. The pdf core rulebook on sale would also benefit from this.

I may be a bit out of line here but buying ADB product to get "Starmada" weapon traits??????(anti-fighter exclusive)
Crossovers are fine, as far as converting one system to another goes, if you are interested in the "other" system.
Starmada ship systems or weapon traits availability should not depend on everyone buying other company products.
Just my 2p worth, but mj12 books being available the minute they are released for downloading from the likes of RPGnow makes all the difference to me.
Paul

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

OldnGrey wrote:

I may be a bit out of line here but buying ADB product to get "Starmada" weapon traits??????(anti-fighter exclusive)
Crossovers are fine, as far as converting one system to another goes, if you are interested in the "other" system.
Starmada ship systems or weapon traits availability should not depend on everyone buying other company products.
Just my 2p worth, but mj12 books being available the minute they are released for downloading from the likes of RPGnow makes all the difference to me.

I'm not sure I fully understand the concern...

Perhaps buying a product you're not interested in just to get one or two new options is not feasible for most players -- but why does it matter who published it? The thing was written by me, and is an officially-approved Starmada supplement.

Besides, the options in it will eventually make their way into an Annex, just like those from the first four supplements.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

Reading the description of mine clearing in the core rulebook it says (paraphrase) that weapons firing at mines get a -1 penalty like weapons firing at fighters. Do weapon traits (namely no hull dmg and non-piercing) that cause a negative to hit against fighters  also increase the penalty for shooting at mine patterns?

Yes.

Let me reverse myself here...

I'm going to say "no". As the rules are currently written, mines are NOT fighters, and therefore should not incur the listed penalties. Neither should anti-fighter weapons gain any bonus vs. mines.

That's how the rules are currently written, so that's how they should be interpreted. There is certainly room for debate over whether that's how it SHOULD be.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

cricket wrote:
OldnGrey wrote:

I may be a bit out of line here but buying ADB product to get "Starmada" weapon traits??????(anti-fighter exclusive)
Crossovers are fine, as far as converting one system to another goes, if you are interested in the "other" system.
Starmada ship systems or weapon traits availability should not depend on everyone buying other company products.
Just my 2p worth, but mj12 books being available the minute they are released for downloading from the likes of RPGnow makes all the difference to me.

I'm not sure I fully understand the concern...

Perhaps buying a product you're not interested in just to get one or two new options is not feasible for most players -- but why does it matter who published it? The thing was written by me, and is an officially-approved Starmada supplement.

Besides, the options in it will eventually make their way into an Annex, just like those from the first four supplements.

mj12 Loyalty?
It looks (to me) like ADB have what they want (Another reason to buy our Miniatures!) plus complete control of how it is sold.
Sorry, just a bit "down in the dumps" I guess.
Paul

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

OldnGrey wrote:

It looks (to me) like ADB have what they want (Another reason to buy our Miniatures!) plus complete control of how it is sold.
Sorry, just a bit "down in the dumps" I guess.

True. But then I have a whole new market for Starmada... and a foot in the door on distribution to FLGS.

The jury is out on how much of a benefit it will be for both sides, but there are no negatives that I can see. Besides, the only way this would have happened was if it were nominally published by ADB -- their license with Paramount does not allow for sublicensing the Star Fleet Universe to other companies, like MJ12.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

cricket wrote:
OldnGrey wrote:

It looks (to me) like ADB have what they want (Another reason to buy our Miniatures!) plus complete control of how it is sold.
Sorry, just a bit "down in the dumps" I guess.

True. But then I have a whole new market for Starmada... and a foot in the door on distribution to FLGS.

The jury is out on how much of a benefit it will be for both sides, but there are no negatives that I can see. Besides, the only way this would have happened was if it were nominally published by ADB -- their license with Paramount does not allow for sublicensing the Star Fleet Universe to other companies, like MJ12.

Not to hijack the thread...but.../begin hijacking.
My biggest beef is that ADB has never released a PDF product and has been hostile in the past to doing so. I fear that I will be forced to buy a dead-tree product from ADB. I don't want one and won't buy one. Hopefully I'm wrong and a PDF product will come out.

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

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

japridemor wrote:

Not to hijack the thread...but.../begin hijacking.
My biggest beef is that ADB has never released a PDF product and has been hostile in the past to doing so. I fear that I will be forced to buy a dead-tree product from ADB. I don't want one and won't buy one. Hopefully I'm wrong and a PDF product will come out.

We are talking about a PDF release of Klingon Armada... no promises, tho.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 330

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

MadSeason wrote:

Not to be the tit-for-tat guy but I would like to see more options for minefields, too. Different acc, imp, dam levels, defense, smart mines, anti-ship mines, anti-fighter mines...

I can see an opening for expanded options for minefields as well.  The only issue is how to design the mine factor values.  Currently, they have a RNG: 0, ACC 5+, IMP: 1, DMG: 1 with no movement.  How to change that is for different options is up to the math wizards!

-Bren

  • Registered: 2007-12-17
  • Posts: 331

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

jygro wrote:
MadSeason wrote:

Not to be the tit-for-tat guy but I would like to see more options for minefields, too. Different acc, imp, dam levels, defense, smart mines, anti-ship mines, anti-fighter mines...

I can see an opening for expanded options for minefields as well.  The only issue is how to design the mine factor values.  Currently, they have a RNG: 0, ACC 5+, IMP: 1, DMG: 1 with no movement.  How to change that is for different options is up to the math wizards!

-Bren

Yes, I was leaving that to the math wizards as well.  smile

One other option -- IRL they have mines that can be dropped from planes and fired by artillery shells. So... mines that can be shot further out than the 6 hexes allowed would be another option.

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Non-Piercing Vs Mines

MadSeason wrote:
jygro wrote:
MadSeason wrote:

Not to be the tit-for-tat guy but I would like to see more options for minefields, too. Different acc, imp, dam levels, defense, smart mines, anti-ship mines, anti-fighter mines...

I can see an opening for expanded options for minefields as well.  The only issue is how to design the mine factor values.  Currently, they have a RNG: 0, ACC 5+, IMP: 1, DMG: 1 with no movement.  How to change that is for different options is up to the math wizards!

-Bren

Yes, I was leaving that to the math wizards as well.  smile

One other option -- IRL they have mines that can be dropped from planes and fired by artillery shells. So... mines that can be shot further out than the 6 hexes allowed would be another option.

I too wouldn't mind seeing customizable mines, but I must admit that I cringe at the thought of longer ranged ones. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing an option to mines that restricts their deployment to the aft "spinal" of a vessel. For a bit of a points savings it would make a little more "sense" when using Dreadnoughts-type rules and ships, and it would make deployment a little trickier.
My 2 bits.
Erik