• Registered: 2012-04-08
  • Posts: 15

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

madpax wrote:

Sure, I'm more thinking designs from universe, not really optimizing designs.

marc

A fair point, I see no issues for it fluff wise (nor really for anything currently).  I guess I'm looking for results on the table, and I don't know if having a bunch of rock/paper/scissors stlye weapon traits is something that would be fun.  I guess it would depend on what people use where you play.  For instance armored core 5 is very rock/paper/scissors and its a blast to play when your on the winning end, but reversed you get blasted 10 seconds into a match, or your weapons are useless against their defense type and its just no fun at all.

  • Registered: 2011-08-12
  • Posts: 31

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Why a weapon that hurts armor a little more  (for a relatively low cost I suspect) by adding Burrowing, you ask?

Because I have friends (1 in particular) that will probably go hog wild over armor, and this proposed optional rule(if adopted, possibly as a house rule - if not  8-) .  If the other players know that I could make a weapon that hurts those armored mega-dreadnoughts a bit more than some other trait and I dont have to pay 1.85 (like DX2)for it, probably only 1.2 or 1.3, it would give them something to think about.  Would my entire fleet have it, only if the armor fanatic in my group is the Empire with the upper hand.  Could I just go for DX2 or DX3, of course, but we are looking to give each of our races a personality, with strengths and weaknesses, and since armor is the choice of one of my friends, not having something specific that helps counter this seems unfair when compared to Shields and ECM.  It's 85% for flavor, but at my age, the flavor of the game is the draw to play it versus something else.  It is not just finding the ultimate combo, and everyone making copycat fleets.  We all still want to win ... but we want to do it with STYLE, hehehe.

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

I think Cricket is just trying to simplify the ship sheet by not moving all of the boxes to the first section. Mostly I think it's because OldnGrey will kill him if he has to add that to his Shipyard sheet.

Well, actually, I'm more concerned about messing with the coding behind the Drydock, but Paul's continued happiness is a beneficial side effect. wink

More to the point, however, is that this is an optional rule to allow players a desired effect when using existing ship designs. If you want to design ships from the ground up using this rule, we can work on that later. For now, I need to confirm the theory is sound.

Wot me? I might have screamed once or twice in the past....
Probably easy to add as an alternative with an "Ablative Yes/No", so get play testing and give it a final name!
Would some kind group play test the Marines being able to by-pass armor. I have been having some ideas with regards marines of late (need to apply K.I.S.S. though).

Paul

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

It would be simple to have Marines only need to "take over" all of the hull to force a ship out of the battle.  Marines who are teleported onto another ship should be able to ignore the presence of armor in a ship.  This is how it works in SFB.  Only shields, and I guess ECM or Stealth should interfere...
This would make players who design ships with lots of this Ablative Armor (like me) take marines to have to defend against this danger.
:idea: If you have to deal with an opponant's ships with lots of Armor of either type: Board 'em and take em over...

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

BeowulfJB wrote:

It would be simple to have Marines only need to "take over" all of the hull to force a ship out of the battle.  Marines who are teleported onto another ship should be able to ignore the presence of armor in a ship.  This is how it works in SFB.  Only shields, and I guess ECM or Stealth should interfere...
This would make players who design ships with lots of this Ablative Armor (like me) take marines to have to defend against this danger.
:idea: If you have to deal with an opponant's ships with lots of Armor of either type: Board 'em and take em over...

Not only does it "feel right" for Marines to ignore armor, but it would make them something more than "just another gun" and therefore more interesting, and on top of that would add another design consideration.
Cheers,
Erik

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

I just got back from the Recon2012 gaming Convention in Cocoa Beach, Fla.  It was a great con, and I had a blast.  I ran & played in five Starmada Nova Edition games.  I used the Ablative Armor (Front-loaded armor) on the DN I played.  It worked well and increased the amount of damage my DN could absorsb before the second damage check.  But after that first damage check, the ship went away quickly!  But I like this Ablative armor and plan to use on all of my ships, even the DDs. 

I noticed that when rolling damage checks at the 1/3 & 2/3 check-point, I rolled a lot of 1s & 2s, and too few 6s!  It was as if my ships had fragile systems. 
:idea: I may experiment with giving my ships fragile systems and using the space & cost saved for extra ablative armor.  This way, I wont be suprised by having to mark out two boxes when I roll a 1 or 2...

Some of my gaming friends in S.Fla came up & were able to game with, & meet my gaming friends from Jacksonville.  There are two gaming conventions coming up here in Jacksonville:  Ancient City Con sponsored by gamers from St Augustine & Rapier2012 in Jung.
Cheers

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

I played several games of Starmada here in Jacksonville last week.  In one battle, A friend and I played against a c1100 point ship with a dozen weapons that all had Dx2, and half had piercing.  It also had shields of strength 2+.  My friend played a ship of his with shields 3+ and I played my unshielded armored USS Texas design.  The 1100 point  juggernaught  focused on my friend's ship eventually destroying it, then pounded on my ship.  It was a slug fest, but eventually my damaged DN triumphed.  The Ablative (front-loaded) Armor was excellent, but not game busting or even game bending.  A damaged USS Texas limped away from the fight. one hull box from being crippled.  Here is this DN:

Stevens Ships TEXAS-class Standard Dreadnought  (481)
49 Regular armor = 33 ABLATIVE ARMOR
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_] [_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_] [_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_]
34HULL
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_] [_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_] [_][_][_][_][_]
[_][_][_][_][_]
[_]
THRUST [4][3][2][1][1]    WEAPONS [_][1][2][3][4]
ECM [_][_][_][_][_] SHIELDS [_][_][_][_][_]
Fire Control; Fragile Systems

WEAPONS ARCS RANGE ATTACK DICE -4   -6   -8 -10
14 Inch Turbo-Laser Cannon (Rpt) [FX5][FX5][CD5]
[AX5][AX5] 6-12-18;      15 11 8 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0 0
5 Inch Laser Cannon  [PS4][PS4][PS4][PS4] 5-10-15;    4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Mass Drivers (Dx3/Prc) [CD4][CD4][CD4][CD4] 5-10-15;    4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
3 Inch Laser Cannon (Dfs/Sct) [TT3][TT3][TT3] 2-4-6;    3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

This first game was much fun and I enjoyed it a great deal.
The second game I used DDGs that had seakers.  The huge 1100 pt ship had no secondary or AA batteries, only the dozen huge batteries with Dx3 and was unable to shoot any of these down.  It got swamped by seekers.

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Awesome!  I really  like this rule so I can runhips of different backgrounds.

(I just got my book in the mail - can you tell!)