Shipbuilding in Campaigns

[nekomata fuyu]

Ah, but as it's technically a weapon, doesn't this mean that you can only use it on the enemy? Still, maybe the Abbai would be interested...

 

[Voronesh]

Ahh well. i always played it as X/2+1.

It is still a downgradde for large AD batteries. But small dice numbers get a serious upgrade out of it.

 

[katadder]

Turbo Weapons actually hits low AD systems the worst, as the calculation given is how much the AD is reduced by. Example: For a 2AD system, half is 1AD, +1 is 2AD. 2AD reduced by 2AD is... well, the weapon system technically now has double damage, so it's supposedly balanced :lol:

It's all good and well saying that the drawbacks on certain results are for balance, but that requires balance between the benefit and drawback. As such, some results remain as downgrades, and I think it's bad enough for the player that they've just lost 2 hard fought for XP, without the slap in the face of also forcing him to downgrade his ship.

you should see it on a Tiracas beam 1AD halved rounded up plus 1 gives a 2AD precise DD beam. best upgrade for them.

Not according to the rules. 1AD weapons will have their AD reduced by 2AD, so you end up with a -1AD DD weapon (a repair beam?). Of course, if the rules are misphrased and "reduced to" is what's intended, we can throw it in with all the other errata we seem to be needing :wink:

why is it reduced by 2AD? the abbai one as i mentioned says reduced by half - rounding up then +1. so a 1AD beam reduced by half is half an AD, rounded up is 1,plus 1 gives a 2AD beam.
the rounded up bit is in brackets so reduce your weapons by half. then round up the AD to get your total AD, then +1.
so 1AD weapon would end up with 2AD
2AD ends up 2AD
3AD ends up 3AD
4AD ends up 3AD
5AD ends up 4AD
6AD ends up 4AD
etc etc

 

[Burger]

Turbo Weapons: Choose one weapon system. It immediately gains the Double Damage trait but has its Attack Dice reduced by half (rounding up) +1.

Its attack dice are reduced by half (rounding up) +1.

Half of 1 rounding up is 1. Plus 1 is 2.
So the attack dice are reduced by 2.
1-2 = -1.

 

[katadder]

dunno we always played it the way i said and that 1st came up with mongoose chris' Tiraca.

as in half the dice, round them up and add 1 to the final result.
otherwise it is a pointless refit.

it would make 5AD weapons 1AD which is about as bad as you can get, plus like has been mentioned some weapons end up with 0AD, which is why I think it has to be the way i exampled it.

 

[Green_Knight]

back to topic

i would be rather like a campaign system were over the
course of the turns the technology "advances".

Think this could be done for some races in a basically simple way:

At campaign start you could use the hulls with "in service date" xxxx,
at third turn this increases to yyyy and 5th turn to zzzz.

We had tried this with the first edition, the EA had Orestes in the beginning, than later they were replaced by Omegas and later on by
Apollo/Marathon that was cool.

That would eliminate the can of worm that is with shipcontruction.

 

[Burger]

Back off topic

Yeah the way you did it is quite obviously how it is intended to work. But it is worded incorrectly. It shold say reduced to, not reduced by. That one little word changes the entire meaning.

 

[Voronesh]

Yikes.....well i guess im good at reading what i think is written. Not was is actually written there

 

[Locutus9956]

I would read it as reduced by half (rounding up) AND THEN add 1.

Therefore 1 AD halved = 0.5 which rounds to 1.

Reduce by this ammount = 0

Add 1 = 1

Therefore you get 1 AD.

However I do believe this is just poor wording and what is meant to happen is to simply half the attack dice anr round up if this leaves you with an odd number.

 

[Da Boss]

its on the rulesmasters section so hpefully some clarification soon

oh and the campaign idea is interesting but it does vary on the fleets being used as ISD's can be a problem - eg Shadows after 2261 - do they not get any more ships?

 

[katadder]

yeah shadows/vorlons can no longer take part after 2261. ISA cannot join in until certain years either.
TBH dont know many people who use ISDs. or if we do we just set our campaigns in crusade era (as both our current EA players use crusade anyway) and that covers all but shadows/vorlons/dilgar

 

[Locutus9956]

aye most people tend to ignore ISDs unless theyre specifically playing a themed scenario, otherwise all sorts of problems crop up, for example ISA and Crusade EA players can never play in the same campaign as Dilgar...

 

[Spideredd]

one of my friends uses ISA, another Narn, and I use Drakh, we ignoe ISD otherwise me and the ISA will bring out our shadows and vorlons (that really upsets the Narn player)

Back on topic though,
GW tried to do something similar for WH40K,
and then banned the rules from all of their tornements.
Does this not say how over-powering player created rules can be? even when they follow certian mathematical formulae.

 

[Myrm]

Back off topic

Yeah the way you did it is quite obviously how it is intended to work. But it is worded incorrectly. It shold say reduced to, not reduced by. That one little word changes the entire meaning.

Hmm it didnt change it for me, I saw a mathematical operator (the +) and immediately kicked into BODMAS mode overriding english grammar with mathematical ordering, so did the division first then added the one because it was not expressed as 'reduced by (half [rounded up] +1)'

I guess its too easy to fall either way since its mixed so falls into the confusing box.

 

[Burger]

Back off topic

Yeah the way you did it is quite obviously how it is intended to work. But it is worded incorrectly. It shold say reduced to, not reduced by. That one little word changes the entire meaning.

Hmm not to me, I saw a mathematical operator (the +) and immediately kicked into BODMAS mode overriding english grammar with mathematical ordering, so did the division first then added the one because it was not expressed as 'reduced by (half [rounded up] +1)'

Okay, then at least it's worded vaguely with 2 (well actually more like 5) ways of working it out. By saying "reduced to" it would be totally clear.

 

[Myrm]

Whoops I editted as you replied....yes agreed its confusing....because there is more than one way to correctly read it based on perspective

 

[Locutus9956]

so what I told you was true... from a certain point of view

 

[Locutus9956]

I should also add that even in systems with very methodical ship design systems such as full thrust, whist they work well for the most part, they can result in some HIDEOUSLY broken ships:

For those who know full thrust a friend of mine managed to creat an Israeli destroyer that came it at some relatively low mass and points cost that when it closed to short ranged was chucking something like 14 dice out (for a destroyer in Full thrust 4 or 5 is nasty....)

The problem with ship building things is its too easy to min/max a ship. In the example above he dispensed with systems like FTL drives and point defence systems and so on that whilst not strictly necessary in a gunship to be used in a one off scenario are not something that would realisticially be omitted normally. The drive in particular uses up a LOAD of the ships space, and whilst you dont strictly HAVE to add it for a scenario, without it the ship wouldnt realisitcally be able to REACH the battle

 

[greenboy]

So does that mean that a 2 ad system is redused to 0 ad double damage

 

[Shadow Queen]

What if Someone made Spacedocks for the Fleets