Recent content by crosswiredmind

Not sure why esthetics should trump gameplay. If my Constitution spends a turn moving 12" forward, it seems odd that I need to move 6" more before I can turn. Heck a six-sided die placed next to the ship is all you really need. Guess I just added house rule number one to my book.

I run a small toy company and have experience with plastics manufacturing. Shoot me an email at gears[at]dreamlandtoywork[dot]com and maybe I can help.

Wouldn't it be simple to simply rely on the turn number? Ships that are agile have turn: 4, normal ships are turn: 6, and the largest ships are turn: 8. I would also add carry over for turn requirements. It would not be hard to place a marker next to a ship with a number of inches carrying over...

I can appreciate that this is not SFB or FC, but it would be nice for it not to feel too different. There is also the issue of the text in the rules. If disruptors were meant to be effective long-range weapons then the text should also reflect that.

I guess the thing that is bugging me the most, and thus the reason for the OP, is that by not having their damage reduce with range, disruptors are acting like photon torpedoes. The advantage photon torpedoes have in other Starfleet games is that the keep their damage at range. Disruptors are...

I am a little disappointed. It seems to me that it creates a real point of dissonance between A Call to Arms and the rest of the Starfleet Universe.

I searched through the forum, but could not find a definative answer to this. There are two places in the rules that mention disruptors losing energy over distance … under disruptors and photon torpedoes p.10. Should disruptors have energy bleed or is the text wrong?