Klaus Kipling said:
Hi guys,
Just to let you know, we will indeed be going through these two books in the near future - watch out for a post asking for comments!
Request for Official Rules Clarification regarding HighGuard
- Thread starter Klaus Kipling
- Start date
Hi guys,
Just to let you know, we will indeed be going through these two books in the near future - watch out for a post asking for comments!
Devilmountain
Mongoose
msprange said:
Outstanding News!
Thanks. I will keep my eye out!
lastbesthope
Mongoose
msprange said:
So will an eratta list be produced for us after that happens?
LBH
I think I figured out the barrage rules somewhat. It's actually in the text, but you have to really work to get this from what's printed.
Under the paragraph headed by "Barrages and Defences" there is a sentence that gives a clue how the system is supposed to work. I quote,
Ok, so there could be a large number of ways to do this. I settled on something that seems to work for me and is simple. The first step is to determine the initial DM with armor only, and then account for sand, point defense, and the like as the book discusses.
Here's what you do: Subtract Weapon damage from Armor and keep the sign (positive or negative). Then work from there. Why does this help? Consider how barrages work--the higher the total roll, the more damage you do. So, if you have a weapon that does lots of damage vs small armor, it ought to be easy to score lots of damage. If the armor outclasses the weapon, it ought to be the other way around. Currently, it's just not clear that this happens because all these DMs get lumped in together and you don't seem to get any bonus for having a weapon that outclasses armor. This interpretation changes that.
So, to calculate the Protection DM, start by subtracting WEAPON DAMAGE from ARMOR rating.
Examples:
Beam laser barrage vs. 10 Armor --> 10-1 = 9. Initial Protection DM from Armor alone is +9, then you add in sand clouds. A beam laser is not likely to do much against this much armor.
Particle Beam Barbette barrage vs. 10 armor --> 10-4 = 6. See how this begins to work?
Now finally, it works even better with high damage vs. lower armor.
Particle Beam Heavy Bay vs. Armor 4 --> 4-9 = -5. Apply the rest of the defense DMs as appropriate, which are positive numbers. If you don't have enough other defense DMs, your armor is actually giving a BONUS to the attacker. This means that heavy weapons will SMASH through lightly armored craft using Barrage attacks, exactly as it should be.
What do you guys think?
Under the paragraph headed by "Barrages and Defences" there is a sentence that gives a clue how the system is supposed to work. I quote,
High Guard said:
Ok, so there could be a large number of ways to do this. I settled on something that seems to work for me and is simple. The first step is to determine the initial DM with armor only, and then account for sand, point defense, and the like as the book discusses.
Here's what you do: Subtract Weapon damage from Armor and keep the sign (positive or negative). Then work from there. Why does this help? Consider how barrages work--the higher the total roll, the more damage you do. So, if you have a weapon that does lots of damage vs small armor, it ought to be easy to score lots of damage. If the armor outclasses the weapon, it ought to be the other way around. Currently, it's just not clear that this happens because all these DMs get lumped in together and you don't seem to get any bonus for having a weapon that outclasses armor. This interpretation changes that.
So, to calculate the Protection DM, start by subtracting WEAPON DAMAGE from ARMOR rating.
Examples:
Beam laser barrage vs. 10 Armor --> 10-1 = 9. Initial Protection DM from Armor alone is +9, then you add in sand clouds. A beam laser is not likely to do much against this much armor.
Particle Beam Barbette barrage vs. 10 armor --> 10-4 = 6. See how this begins to work?
Now finally, it works even better with high damage vs. lower armor.
Particle Beam Heavy Bay vs. Armor 4 --> 4-9 = -5. Apply the rest of the defense DMs as appropriate, which are positive numbers. If you don't have enough other defense DMs, your armor is actually giving a BONUS to the attacker. This means that heavy weapons will SMASH through lightly armored craft using Barrage attacks, exactly as it should be.
What do you guys think?
I think the book method here is fine - you've just reversed it and used the sign to accommodate adding a negative instead of subtracting a positive.
In fact - this is the clearest part - though the ratio stuff gets tedious and more die rolls are required but not spelled out specifically than there really need be.
The defense DMs simply reduce the % of effective hits. Which in turn reduces the damage.
The bigger problem is the amount of points of damage by barrage and how it is calculated. The example gives 50% of a 200 nuclear missile barrrage resulting in 100 missiles yielding 200 points of damage. So this appears based on the 'size or dice' of the barrage - i.e. 2d6 (the 2). How the table on pg 75 plays into this isn't clearly covered (and maybe not at all - maybe the table should be in the release as presented).
This also completely ignores 1d6-1 type setups, but that could be considered minor.
The capital combat applies damage points to the hull first and then structure (ex. meson skips hull). Only affecting systems when the modified (resulting net) damage roll is high enough (> 100%).
This is a little akin to the external/internal damage for normal combat, and though the system is quite different from normal combat in terms of the power/damage ratios - effectively increasing hull/armour significance, it balances this with the fact that destruction of hull+structure of one second effectively destroys the whole ship.
If I understand it correctly (and I don't really with that 12/50-dice barrage damage table stuff - but I wonder if that is misleading baggage from earlier designs) - its not too bad. Though I feel the sequencing/dice rolls and record keeping might be simplified without loosing the balance... and it could definitely be clearer and better laid out.
In fact - this is the clearest part - though the ratio stuff gets tedious and more die rolls are required but not spelled out specifically than there really need be.
The defense DMs simply reduce the % of effective hits. Which in turn reduces the damage.
The bigger problem is the amount of points of damage by barrage and how it is calculated. The example gives 50% of a 200 nuclear missile barrrage resulting in 100 missiles yielding 200 points of damage. So this appears based on the 'size or dice' of the barrage - i.e. 2d6 (the 2). How the table on pg 75 plays into this isn't clearly covered (and maybe not at all - maybe the table should be in the release as presented).
This also completely ignores 1d6-1 type setups, but that could be considered minor.
The capital combat applies damage points to the hull first and then structure (ex. meson skips hull). Only affecting systems when the modified (resulting net) damage roll is high enough (> 100%).
This is a little akin to the external/internal damage for normal combat, and though the system is quite different from normal combat in terms of the power/damage ratios - effectively increasing hull/armour significance, it balances this with the fact that destruction of hull+structure of one second effectively destroys the whole ship.
If I understand it correctly (and I don't really with that 12/50-dice barrage damage table stuff - but I wonder if that is misleading baggage from earlier designs) - its not too bad. Though I feel the sequencing/dice rolls and record keeping might be simplified without loosing the balance... and it could definitely be clearer and better laid out.
lastbesthope said:
It will indeed.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
msprange said:
Excellent
LBH
