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
This came up during the discussion on the firing sequence.
It probably should be stated in the rules that any ship that has seekers targeting it must activate at some point during the combat phase.
Or if it doesn't need to activate, it needs to be clarified when the seekers targeting it impact.
Kevin
Think this might be in the wrong thread...?
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...:(
I did some conversions during early play-testing, and even using the drydock they were a little messy to do.
I can imagine they'd really be a pain non-electronically. 
Kevin
You imagine correctly. I did find a use for my 1/2cm squared paper, but going through all five batteries of weapons, doing the dice strings, then the ORat.../shudders
And, of course, I made quite a few errors. I might end up leaving the designs I've done for SAE, and maybe 're-imagine' them similar to how Dan did the Arcturans.
You imagine correctly. I did find a use for my 1/2cm squared paper, but going through all five batteries of weapons, doing the dice strings, then the ORat.../shudders
And, of course, I made quite a few errors. I might end up leaving the designs I've done for SAE, and maybe 're-imagine' them similar to how Dan did the Arcturans.
I think the conversion rules are in place so two different players can convert the same ship, and theoretically end up with the same Nova ship.
If I was going to do conversions of my own stuff, I probably wouldn't convert them using the conversion rules.
I'd just redo them.
I like having weapon arc modifiers as close to zero as possible, and conversions are going to leave you with larger arc modifiers.
Kevin
You imagine correctly. I did find a use for my 1/2cm squared paper, but going through all five batteries of weapons, doing the dice strings, then the ORat.../shudders
And, of course, I made quite a few errors. I might end up leaving the designs I've done for SAE, and maybe 're-imagine' them similar to how Dan did the Arcturans.
I converted all of the weapons used on the B&K book when I first saw Nova last year. Now I think some of those would have to be re-thought, just glad that will be Jay's job. 
On the other hand it did serve as an incentive to get the shipyard put together.
Paul
I don't know if it has been noted before, but the Daitenshi from the converting chapter is different from the Daitenshi in the ship profile list, as the Arcturan ships don't have shields.
And the converting chapter doesn't say how much armor boxes you add to a design except when it has armor plating. Note the Tetsukabe!
Marc
I don't know if it has been noted before, but the Daitenshi from the converting chapter is different from the Daitenshi in the ship profile list, as the Arcturan ships don't have shields.
And the converting chapter doesn't say how much armor boxes you add to a design except when it has armor plating. Note the Tetsukabe!Marc
Dan has mentioned that the Daitenshi in the conversion chapter is just an example of going by the book.
The ships in the lists have in some cases been re-defined and are not straight conversions.
You are correct that in the conversion chapter it only tells you how much armor to add for "straight" conversion of SAE ships where Nova ships only get armor if the SAE ship has armor plating.
Paul
Well, ok with me. But in the conversion chapter, maybe Dan could add that for you could replace SAE shield by SNE shield or armor (or a combination of both) and proposes how to do that.
I fail to see how SAE shield is translated as SNE armor, for example.
Marc
Well, ok with me. But in the conversion chapter, maybe Dan could add that for you could replace SAE shield by SNE shield or armor (or a combination of both) and proposes how to do that.
I fail to see how SAE shield is translated as SNE armor, for example.
Marc
I may be misunderstanding your question, but there are rules for replacing...
... SAE shields with SNE shields (page 49)
... SAE armor plating with SNE armor (page 49)
... SAE countermeasures with SNE ECM (page 49)
... SAE faceted shielding with SNE shields (page 50)
... and SAE screens with SNE shields (page 50)
Doesn't this cover about everything you'd need?
Kevin
I just want to understand how the SAE shield has been converted to SNE armor as in the Arcturans.
I may be wrong but I didn't see that in the rules.
Marc
I just want to understand how the SAE shield has been converted to SNE armor as in the Arcturans.
I may be wrong but I didn't see that in the rules.Marc
Dan does say on page 49.
"Also, note the designs in this book (starting on p.53) have been optimized using the new construction rules, and may differ from the results of a strict conversion of the SAE designs using these guidelines".
There is no conversion of SAE shield to Nova armor, the ships have been re-designed and optimized from the ground up anew making changes to the ships that Dan thought were needed.
Paul
Ah, OK. No conversion rules here. Thanks.
Marci
Version 1.0 still has not been changed on page 48 regarding a weapon cannot have two range based traits.
Paul
Version 1.0 still has not been changed on page 48 regarding a weapon cannot have two range based traits.
My book says "A weapon cannot possess more than two range-based traits"... :?:
OldnGrey wrote:Version 1.0 still has not been changed on page 48 regarding a weapon cannot have two range based traits.
My book says "A weapon cannot possess more than two range-based traits"... :?:
It was not a quote.
In another thread you said that you were going to change it to explain that only the range based combinations in the chart were allowed. I think you may have put what you were going to change?
Also not a quote (still feel rotten). 
Sorry if I got it wrong.
Paul
In another thread you said that you were going to change it to explain that only the range based combinations in the chart were allowed.
If I said that, I was addled in the brain... The only range-based combinations possible ARE those in the chart.
Page 65, example with same trait more than once.
"BAS 0f 6.08 (1(ROF) x 2.25 (IMP) x 0.75"
Where did the 0.75 come from? I have "x 0.60", page 63, making the BAS 4.86
Paul
As I ask on another topic, fighters and ships should be sorted out in the rules. In which cases fighters are ships and in which cases they aren't. Obviously, there's a risk of complicating the rules, here...
Marc
Hope I'm not to late, but I couldn't locate the calculations for directional defenses in the book, nor are they currently in the dry dock. Not that I mind them being free, but I doubt something that gives a minus 1 shift should be free, since I have to pay for ECM and stealth.
Hope I'm not to late, but I couldn't locate the calculations for directional defenses in the book, nor are they currently in the dry dock. Not that I mind them being free, but I doubt something that gives a minus 1 shift should be free, since I have to pay for ECM and stealth.
p.47 (first sentence after the Armor Score Table): "Directional defenses (p.17) have no effect on ship construction."
This is because you "pay" for the directional defenses with a +1 "penalty" in all directions except forward (or P/S).
Well that just confirmed my worst fears....that I can't read. Thank for pointing that out for me, other wise I would of been banging my head against the wall 
That's something strange. Directionnal defense gives you a small advantage (a +1 over a very small part of the arcs) and a bigger disadvantage (the opposite) but costs nothing?
Seeing the usual SFU ships, I would say that DD gives you an advantage over FF, disadvantage over AA, and nothing elswhere.
Marc
That's something strange. Directionnal defense gives you a small advantage (a +1 over a very small part of the arcs) and a bigger disadvantage (the opposite) but costs nothing?
Seeing the usual SFU ships, I would say that DD gives you an advantage over FF, disadvantage over AA, and nothing elswhere.
Marc
I think it's more important to view DD in terms of "fluff" or modeling a setting than in terms of min/maxing the designs. In fact, I that is good advice for just about everything in the game.
Erik
That's something strange. Directionnal defense gives you a small advantage (a +1 over a very small part of the arcs) and a bigger disadvantage (the opposite) but costs nothing?
Seeing the usual SFU ships, I would say that DD gives you an advantage over FF, disadvantage over AA, and nothing elswhere.
Marc
Eh, this was true of vectoring your shields in AE too, wasn't it? Personally I don't see much of a problem; if you don't want a weak rear, take Stealth 1 and DD FF; then you have -2 front and +0 elsewhere.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Starmada Nova Errata
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.