You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Starmada Nova Errata
Hey, found a small bug:
On page 46, the asterisk note states "For weapons with two “range‐based” traits, consult the following table instead of applying the SU Factors listed above. A weapon cannot possess more than one range‐based trait. " I believe the first half implies that the second part should say two rather than one...
Also, the DRAT calculation seems... odd?
DRAT = Hull × 2(Defense Score / 2)
Doesn't this equal Hull x Defense score? I have suspicion that this should be Hull * 2^(Defense Score / 2), because of the way defenses work.
I have suspicion that this should be Hull * 2^(Defense Score / 2), because of the way defenses work.
Your suspicion is correct.
That's why I'm doing this "pre-release" stage... so we can catch all these minor glitches before going to print... 
Dan, per our PM conversation, here's a notation of another bit of errata:
Page 21, column 2 at the top. A "font failure" in describing the state of armor and hull on the ship before regeneration is made. Instead of checked boxes and unchecked, we get R's and &'s.
Page 34, Vector Movement - "When using the vector movement system, ships do receive have speed markers"
Page 22 has Tractor Beams but there is no mention in the construction section page 44 nor SAE conversion page 50.
As mentioned elsewhere, p.47: DRAT calculation should have a x1.67 multiplier.
As mentioned elsewhere, p.47: DRAT calculation should have a x1.67 multiplier.
The drydock seems to indicate that this does not apply to additions from Carrier and similar; just want to verify that this is correct.
The drydock seems to indicate that this does not apply to additions from Carrier and similar; just want to verify that this is correct.
Correct. The additions from fighters, drones, etc., SHOULD have the x1.67 built in.
Paid my money this morning and got the pre-release PDF to read on the train .
I've found a few questions/issues in the PDF pre-release.
1. Page 5
The ship chart for the Majestic are the HULL and ARMOR tracks not transposed?
2.Page 15
Fighter Movement The words fighter and flight seem to be used interchangeably. Should not the word 'fighter' be 'flight' in all cases? This is a problem in the set up as it says '... up to six fighters per hex.' but elsewhere stacking is stated to be 'six fighter counters' which I assume means flights.
The rules also say a flight is 6 to 4 fighters. Is this just 'fluff' or have I missed an adjustment for smaller flights?
I think a QR sheet is needed and will have a go at doing one along the lines of the one in SFO.
Still reading so may find a few more questions but I like what I see. Now I need to clear my games table, print some ships and blast them to space junk ... again. :twisted:
Nomad wrote:The drydock seems to indicate that this does not apply to additions from Carrier and similar; just want to verify that this is correct.
Correct. The additions from fighters, drones, etc., SHOULD have the x1.67 built in.
Might I suggest that "After any additions to the DRAT from page 48, apply a final x 1.67 modifier." be put at the bottom of page 47.
Paul
p46: example for weapon battery SUs, line 7
IMO you have to exchange the 1.51 with 2.22 (FX) but I am not absolutely sure, because the SM Nova ship construction rules became extremely complex for non-mathematicans. (square roots and logarithms? pfff - last time I calculated this kind of math was 30y ago! :shock: )
OOPs. :oops:
I miss read the Majestic's sheet it hasn't got any armor! What I thought was an Armor box was the second row of Hull.
Page 4 says "Two rows of damage boxes each divided into three groups. The top row is made up of armor ..." when actually there can be multiple rows of both Armor and Hull (due to space). Obvious, once you look at the ships at the end of the rules.
I know the Majestic has done sterling service in this position but a ship with a some Armor might have been clearer.
p21, example on top of the right column, the armor and hull boxes had been replaced by 'R' and '&'.
Marc
I know the Majestic has done sterling service in this position but a ship with a some Armor might have been clearer.
Good point.
On page 52, the conversion arcs for ABD is given as FH, where I suspect it should be FS. ABC is FP as expected.
Add a sentence on page 43 stating that ships must have a hull size of 3 or greater.
-Tim
I don't think it's a mistake, but the probe range is weird. 1 3 6 instead of 2 4 6.
Marc
Still waiting on Nomads first post - I actually thought the intent was that only range based trait combinations indicated in the table were permitted, rather than no more than two (though I confess these may be the same - I'm a little too lazy to suss out all the range based traits permutations.)
Still waiting on Nomads first post - I actually thought the intent was that only range based trait combinations indicated in the table were permitted, rather than no more than two (though I confess these may be the same - I'm a little too lazy to suss out all the range based traits permutations.)
I believed that it was only one but there are are some dual combinations permitted as shown in the chart (included in both drydock and shipyard).
Paul
It should read, "For weapons with two RBTs, consult the following table. A weapon cannot have more than two..."
Okay. After digesting the comments over the past week to ten days, I am making the following changes (as opposed to "errata") to the rulebook:
* Removing Carronade. It's useless now that weapons can have different ranges in different modes.
* Removing Long Range Sensors. The math just doesn't work the way I thought it did. 
* Changing the point costs of double damage, triple damage, and catastrophic as follows:
Cts ... x3.09
Dx2 ... x1.87
Dx3 ... x2.69
This "discount" is consistent with that given to the IMP stat in The Admiralty Edition.
Very nice!
-Tim
Still no possibility to have 'ignore shield' and 'ignore armor''?
It looks like armor is just more hull (though this hull can't contain anything). I know it could lend to abuse, but some weapons should be able to ignore amor or shield according to specific settings.
Marc
Well, at least I didn't get too far in doing conversions. Tried doing a few conversions, and it looks more like it should be done with a spreadsheet than P&P--took me about forty-five minutes to do the Zharak-Kolras, and similar time for the Shromahk...:(
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Starmada Nova Errata
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.