V1.0 Rules Clarifications Thread

[SableWyvern]

No argument that I'd take a shuttle-free ship outright over a debt and a shuttle.

More likely, you'd sell the shuttle, and take something cheaper in return (a slightly run-down launch, perhaps), then put the left over cash towards you ship. The money you save on repayments can go towards upgrading to a proper shuttle later.

So, essentially, I'm not disputing your main point.

 

[hdrider67]

No argument that I'd take a shuttle-free ship outright over a debt and a shuttle.

More likely, you'd sell the shuttle, and take something cheaper in return (a slightly run-down launch, perhaps), then put the left over cash towards you ship. The money you save on repayments can go towards upgrading to a proper shuttle later.

So, essentially, I'm not disputing your main point.

I'm actually glad you brought it up. I hadn't really sat down to go over the cost of purchase until the subject of selling the shuttle until I responded to your post.

I think I'm off to buy a seeker. I can probably make enough to break even milking mail runs and the odd speculative trade.

 

[Master_Forcide]

I am unclear on when I can roll on the Money table. Reading some other posters examples of character creation, it seems that I can choose to roll on the Money table instead of on the Benefits table (to a maximum of three times per career, as was mentioned more clearly in the rules) during the Mustering Out phase. Is this the correct interpretation?

 

[AKAramis]

Do point-build characters get the background skills for their edu for free or do they have to pay for them?

 

[Halfbat]

Sorry for the lengthy post. It boils down to my observation that the share values are skewed.
I'm thinking shares need to represent a percentage point of value, rather than a set Mcr amount.
Then again math has never been my strongest suit. I might be missing something here.

If it is, then so is mine and my group. The overall cost of the shares significantly exceeds the supposed cost of the ships by far more thana business loan. I think Gar acknowledged they were guesses, but a percentage may be better.

Why not let a share be 2% of a specific ship, making the calculation much easier? And even hike the number of other shares, perhaps?

We also feel that all of them ought to be specific in the way the merchant "Free Trader" share is (10 shares for a 200t Free Trader or 5 for any other).


[Actual Play]
There is also a possibility for disappointment in the tables: we had a 7-term Merchant walk away with 50K plus a few ability increases and a pair of rifles, whilst a 2-termer ended up with a ship AND a TAS membership from another career . Guess who was a bit miffed.
[/Actual Play]

How about exchanging benefit rolls for one or two DMs to get a particularly wanted benefit?

 

[AKAramis]

Why not let a share be 2% of a specific ship, making the calculation much easier? And even hike the number of other shares, perhaps?

We also feel that all of them ought to be specific in the way the merchant "Free Trader" share is (10 shares for a 200t Free Trader or 5 for any other).

How about exchanging benefit rolls for one or two DMs to get a particularly wanted benefit?

Shares should represent some fixed amount of value, IMO, tied up in vehicles &/or housing. So at MCr1 each, a scout should be about 30. The problem is that some will want to roll them over to cash.

Share costs should be derived from the cost of a given ship; note that TNE's costs varied quite a bit from CT's costs due to tech differences.

I agree that most ship share receipts should be specified and half value fr others...

 

[hdrider67]

Why not let a share be 2% of a specific ship, making the calculation much easier? And even hike the number of other shares, perhaps?

I agree. It definitely should be a percentage of value. The cost to finance over 40 years should be about 2 to 3 times the cost of the loan.

This offsets the ships that would be player designed and not assigned share value by the table.

If you take a loan for the full price of a ship, you pay a value equal to X% of the cash price of the ship over 40 years.

Scout 86%
Seeker 92%
Free Trader 203%
Far Trader 243%
Fat Trader 208%
Yacht 227%
Corsair 108%
Lab Ship 167%
Sub Merc 179%
Cruiser T-C 204%

Now, I think the Traders, yacht, and Cruiser actually come in at about the right price for a long term, low interest loan. The subsidized merchie is arguably in the right range simply by being subsidized. The Lab and Corsair are on the low side and represent higher risk than most banks would accept (especially given the trouble posed by repossessing a starship in an environment where communication can take months).

The Scout and Seeker values are simply incorrect. No bank would finance for a net loss.

Here's my suggestion. Multiply the actual amount borrowed by 200% and divide by 500. Ship shares should be counted as cash removed from the loan. a share value of 2% would reduce the cost of the loan and lower payments.

Take a ship valued at 100Mcr if financed at 100% (something only a large corporation or government could really pull off) the loan payments would run 400K per month. The total cost of purchase would be

That same ship with a crew owning 30 shares (60% down) would cost 160K per month.

Alternatively, you could use shares to reduce the cost after the loan. The first 10% would represent the down payment (no ship loan would exceed 90% of the value) and the remaining shares would represent paydown over the life of the loan. You would first calculate the cost of the loan minus the 10% down payment (100-10) and then find the loan cost (90*2). After determining the cost, you would need to determine payment (360K).

I know this sounds like it's too complex but it's easily broken down into formulas not terribly worse than the one on page 29.

The first example (large downpayment) would be final value of the loan = ((total cost - (shares*2))*2) or in the example, ((100-(30*2))*2). Minimum payment would remain unchanged at loan value/500 (or 160K)

The other (paydown) method would look like this final value of the loan = ((ship value*0.9)*2) or ((100*0.9)*2) again dividing by 500 for payments. To determine the remaining payments on the loan take the value of shares not used in the down and divide by the current monthly payment or (500-(40/.36)) for my example. This leaves a rounded figure of 389 payments left on the loan.

Both methods can be further simplified by using shares as 1% of the value but handing out more shares, or accepting that times are tight and making the shares worth 1% of value and handing out the same number in the tables. Either way, it would remove the shares*2 part of the equation

I prefer my first example for simplicity's sake but the characters in question might not feel the same financial pinch if they have sufficient shares available.

 

[Halfbat]

So at MCr1 each, a scout should be about 30. The problem is that some will want to roll them over to cash.

I know. They are stated as not being explicitly cash now, though, but influence, favours, etc. It just needs to be made clear that a Ship Share cannot be exchanged for cash.

Which also, incidentally, is why specifying it as percentage probably makes better sense - it removes the urge to put an absolute value on it.

 

[AKAramis]

So at MCr1 each, a scout should be about 30. The problem is that some will want to roll them over to cash.

I know. They are stated as not being explicitly cash now, though, but influence, favours, etc. It just needs to be made clear that a Ship Share cannot be exchanged for cash.

Which also, incidentally, is why specifying it as percentage probably makes better sense - it removes the urge to put an absolute value on it.

No, it makes LESS sense that way.

For it makes the shares of a scout, even after halving, worth far more when applied to get a Fat Trader (Type R) or worse, a Type C Cruiser. (Which should not be called a cruiser outside a small ship heresy setting... cutter, perhaps.)

By making shares a flat rate, equivalent to purchase cost, it makes it simple to add new ships to the mix.

So, knowing that an average Type S is MCr29, it should take 29 shares to get her free and clear, and minimum shares to buy on a loan is 6. Perhaps "Combat Oriented" designs should take a multiplier (shares=MCr * 1.5) and pure combat should be (Shares=MCr * 2)... but define those in clear and unequivocal terms...

It would reduce the scout, seeker, free trader, and such.

Then take the financed remainder, and pay 1/192 of that much per month for 40 years (standard CT Financing was 1/240 of full price per month, with 20% down, which works out to 1/192 of financed amount per month).

Or, shocking, change the rate to 1/200 of the financed amount. The change to basing upon financed amount also allows easier recalc after windfalls, as well as

Now, there should be a value for shares not used... but I'd make it an attribute point of choice per 10 shares, myself... and put TAS at 10 shares.

But that's me.

Also note that ownership percentages in CT were implied to be equal to percentage of payments made; equity was thus very low early on, and runs below value the whole bloody time... your down didn't get you ANY equity...

 

[hdrider67]

No, it makes LESS sense that way.

For it makes the shares of a scout, even after halving, worth far more when applied to get a Fat Trader (Type R) or worse, a Type C Cruiser.

That's a valid enough point. If you use a 1%=1% for all ships, yes you do end up inflating the value of a share of a scout.

Or do you? If you set up the table in such a way that is assigns a ship, the 1% is dependent on the ship, not a direct percentage of *any* ship.

For example, the 1% (or 1 share) of a ship that costs 50Mcr will be worth half as much if applied to a 100Mcr ship and worth twice the value if it is applied to the 25Mcr junker waiting to be parted out.

In this instance, 1% share would work.

Now, handing out 2 shares would become problematic. Assigning a Mcr value to that would work well, so long as the rules state this can't be cashed out on a 1:1 basis. I'd say a ship share shouldn't be worth more a couple hundred thousand if sold to someone for direct cash. This is because most people willing to buy partial papers (or a share of stock in a ship) would be looking at it as an investment, not a home and business. Think of it as helping the bank to finance a loan, with an expectation of getting a large part of the interest for that share.

This would allow the percentage system to work without handing players vast real wealth.

You are also right in the way real property amortizes. The interest if front loaded in 99% of real property loans. Equity in these loans via a down payment is quite real, however. If you compare this with car loans, where a low downpayment places you into negative equity, then you will find a much larger percentage of loans using simple amortization. In these loans, the interest is not as front loaded as real property loans and the principle is paid down much more quickly.

Combining the worst aspects of these loan differences wouldn't be a good way to attract buyers to large purchases. Since ships hold value for a much longer period of time and are already very expensive, I would expect the R.E. style front loaded loan with immediate equity. Tracking the amortization isn't too hard; it requires a spreadsheet and a couple of formulas.

 

[Halfbat]

That's a valid enough point. If you use a 1%=1% for all ships, yes you do end up inflating the value of a share of a scout.

Or do you? If you set up the table in such a way that is assigns a ship, the 1% is dependent on the ship, not a direct percentage of *any* ship.

That's the point. It either has to be a completely flat value, such as a Ship Share = 1m off any ship, or it has to be directly tagged to a specific ship, in which case I've found that percentages remove the player arguments.

Either way, it has to be really clear that Ship Shares are just that - influence, some money, equipment and previous investments for ships only. They could only be transferred to cash on an ongoing basis in the character invests them in an operational ship (perhaps an NPC's trader), in which case he'd also get a percentage of the profits according to the amount he invested, whether percentage or absolute value. Of course, it would also mean he'd be charged for a percentage of the loss, too! :twisted:

 

[Andrew Whincup]

Getting back to clarifications:

A few questions came up from our first playtest last night:

1. If you fail your survival roll, how many years of your term do you serve?

I houseruled D3, it became important for aging rolls.

2. Can you pay for surgery to remove aging reductions the same way as injury ones?

3. The starship skills package has Gunnery twice, is this a typo or should two characters get gunnery?

4. Do service skills (the ones you roll for each term) start at 1 or 0?

5. For connections can the players choose any skill they want or do they get another roll on a table?

I think that'll do for now.

Andy

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Getting back to clarifications:

A few questions came up from our first playtest last night:

1. If you fail your survival roll, how many years of your term do you serve?

I houseruled D3, it became important for aging rolls.

2. Can you pay for surgery to remove aging reductions the same way as injury ones?

3. The starship skills package has Gunnery twice, is this a typo or should two characters get gunnery?

4. Do service skills (the ones you roll for each term) start at 1 or 0?

5. For connections can the players choose any skill they want or do they get another roll on a table?

I think that'll do for now.

Andy

1. Four years, to keep things simple. We'll assume the intervening time is taken up with travel/recovery/finding a new job.

2. Nope.

3. Two characters get Gunnery. You'll want multiple people in the turrets.

4. Level 1.

5. Any skill they want.

 

[Andrew Whincup]

Cheers.

Just a thought while I'm thinking about it. if they serve a significant amount of time then it might make sense to allow them an event roll, or possibly a life event. I found that the players whose characters had a misshap were left waiting for the others to catch them up.

Andy

 

[Dark]

Two questions from our group (so far).

When divvying up skills for the group from the skill packages, does each character get to pick once from the list, or do you divide up all skills amongst the PCs until they are all gone. We went with the first option (everyone got one).

Second - I asked this in the other playtest thread, but no replies as of yet - can anyone explain the assisting/aiding rules? We wanted to try them out the other night, but couldn't make heads nor tails of them enough even to give it a shot...

 

[Mongoose Gar]

1. It's the other one - keep going until everything's gone (or until there's nothing useful left).

2. Ok, let's say I'm trying to help you. I make a skill check. I pick one die as my Effect (how well I did) and one as my Timing (how fast I did it). Then, I compare my Effect plus any DMs to the Task Chain DMs table.

If I failed my skill check, my help's actually hindering you. You'll be getting a negative DM. For example, if I failed with Effect 3, you'll have a -4DM to your check.

If I succeeded, you'll be getting a positive DM according to the table. If I succed with Effect 3, then you'll get a +2 to your check.

 

[Dark]

Ahh - I get it now - thanks!

 

[Halfbat]

1. It's the other one - keep going until everything's gone (or until there's nothing useful left).

Thanks for that - we didn't even realise we were doing it wrong! My characters will be happy now - I assume the explanation will change.

[assist rules]

And for that, too.

The question is, will there be copious examples explaining these things in the final version?

 

[Andrew Whincup]

Opposed rolls, am I getting this right?

You both roll, if successful you compare your effect dice. The one with the higher effect has an advantage of the difference between them. If this is more than the opponent's stat the character with the advantage wins.

Do you then repeat the process adding onto the advantage, because I can't see another way of getting an advantage of more than 5.

Am I making sense?

Andy

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Exactly.

That said, Opposed Rolls have been simplified down to 'highest effect wins' for the moment in the v2.0 document. I'm not sure if the game needs extended contest rules in the corebook - no-one seems to be using them.