| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 08:43 pm: Edit |
I'm not sure reworking X1 ships is a good idea (even if X1R is Y190 onwards) because it'll eventually mean yet another recalculation of the BPVs of the ships that have been calculated twice so far...indeed I think it's enough extra labour to kill X2 by association.
As an alternate race or X2 weapon, it could come to pass and we X2ers welcome any positive input.
To some extent X2 is looking to be the Archer to X1's Warrior rather than the Beserker to X1's warrior but racial differencaes (eg the Hydrans ) could be fun.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 09:34 pm: Edit |
Overloaded phasers have been deleted from the X-tech rules.
They have been related to a potential +1 ECCM shift if the X-ship has more ECCM than the target has ECM (for all weapons, IIRC, not just phasers). The shift is never more than +1 regardless of the ECCM advantage the X-ship has.
Having done that, I don't anticipate the ADB being very eager to restore phaser overloads in any capacity.
The problem was that oveload phasers essentially outshone the heavy weapons (which got faster not more powerful) and drained X-ships of much-needed individuality.
Range-2 overloads would have a massively negative impact on plasma as well. Plasma proved to be very touchy to balance with original X1 playtesting, and removing the OL phaser function raised those issues again. Adding even a limited-range overload function revisits this problem a third time, especially when combined with the ECCM shift.
I don't speak for the ADB in any official capacity. I'm just a guy who posts here. That said, I believe your chances of getting any kind of overloaded phasers back into the game are so close to zero that any round-off would make it zero.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 10:05 pm: Edit |
I hope with all my soul that OL Phasers never return for X1 (or ever).
The current deleation of OL Phaser makes room for the beautiful, the wonderful, the light fantastic X2 Phaser V. A fine weapon that would find no place among X1 OL Phasers.
X1 is really very good the way it is.
X2 is where the really cool new ideas can fit (but don't mess with our Phaser V. 
)
| By Dan Doulas (Magnum357) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 12:02 am: Edit |
Ok, I got to ask another question then. What exactly "is" X1R? For some reason, I thought IT was the rewrite of X1 Rules, but you guys make it sound like it is actually just an added Module to X1 Rules and X1 rules have already been "fixed". If X1 has already been "Fixed", why do I hear so many people complain about X1 Rules? I would even like to see X1 Rules in Federation Commander someday (simplified somehow of course), but even there a lot of people don't want to mess with them.
Loren, I have seen your proposals of a Ph-5 in the X2 forums, and I must say its a good steping stone for X2 Phasers (I think I even saved a copy of the table somewhere to test out myself).
So I must ask, what exactly is X1R in all this?
| By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 12:31 am: Edit |
Dan: IIRC, X1R was planned as a module with additional X-ships, in the manner of the other R modules.
| By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 12:36 am: Edit |
X1R may also include XP refit rules from Captain's Log 31, in a final form.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 12:38 am: Edit |
X1 is better (not perfect) with the following errata: http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/X-shipCL23.pdf
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 08:59 pm: Edit |
X1R might include things that might happen in the late X1 Period (X1 stretching from GW to Andro) so it might include DNXs and BCH-Xs and possibly rules to over when X-tech was so common place that poor and outstanding crews began to crew the vessels (rather than the Awfully Good crews we have on X1 vessels today).
But mostly it'll have carrier escorts (to protect GW carriers) and Drone Bombardment ships and Maulers and heavy Scouts and vessels missed (like the Lyran, Hydran & ISC FFXs and Hydran Carriers ) and possibly commando ships or
Hospital ships...to fill out the fleets as X1 ship numbers grow, the possiblities for varrients will too. And hence an R module for X1 ships would be handy.
A lot of poeple will still complain about X ships with a "remember when" kinda rhetoric. The biggest drawback with X ships under the new X rules, probably is cookie-cutterism!
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 09:02 pm: Edit |
Oops!
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 06:18 pm: Edit |
Back in March 2004 SVC asked for a one-page overview of X1R and a list of ships that might be included. Its time to make counters again and it would be good to review what was submitted almost three years ago.
Period: Covers the ships built during the ISC and Andro War, Y186-Y202. This period in the SFU is underdeveloped.
Ship Types: X1 variants, new X1 combat ships, general X units, partial X refits (XP).
Classes: Freighters, Auxiliaries, Q-Ships, Tugs, PFT, Carriers, Scouts, DB, DCS, Stasis, Selts, CL Reprints.
Rules: Re-printing of X1 revision rules and changed BPVs from CL23. Reprint the MSC to include all X-ships.
Rules: Crew Quality for X1 and XP ships.
Pro: There is a concern that (XD6.34: -1 to hit) combined with (XD6.393: 8EW) could make X1 ships too good against Andros, an X1 ship’s most important opponent. Proposed solution is to make one or both rules a function of outstanding crew (G21.211), (G21.212) rather than technology. The assumption being that for the first several years all X1 ships had only outstanding crews, but eventually average crews had to fill in as the number of X1 ships increased. These average crews lost some of the benefits of an X-ship, but not as severe as (G21.2). Adjust BPV as needed.
Con: Would require making a change to the revised X1 rules. The current revision states the –1 is gained due to advanced fire control. Requires a round of BPV validations for X1.
Rules: Mega-X-Pack for fighters.
Allows drone-carrying fighters the ability to launch and guide 2 type-VII X-drones replacing the 2 type-IF drones normally gained with a mega-pack.
Pro: Limits X-drone launch capability to a reasonable number. VII drones are expensive and limited availability.
Con: Complicates logistical network. Improved drones may prove unbalancing against Andros. Unclear what benefits, if any, non-drone users should receive.
Rules: Drone Bombardment cruise drone for X-ships. Exchange half warhead space for fuel and III-XX targeting computers. Can be used to track moving targets from long range, not just fixed targets.
Rules: Plasma Carronade for the PL-L. Possibly spread the technology to other races.
Pro: All races are fighting the Andros and this can help. The rules and charts could actually be different then the PL-F version. Only the Gorn BDX even mounts the PL-L so the Gorns don’t lose much.
Con: What races get it? The Gorn only have one X-ship with PL-L torps. Gorn players may react negatively to giving it to the ISC and Romulans to assist against the Andros. Rules for ISC rear-firing torps will need to be worked out. Players should not be required to own R10 to use a PL-L Carronade, so all the necessary rules should be printed in this module.
Rules: XP (proposal differs from Captain's Log)
Scenarios: Scenarios will need to be generated and included. Op Unity, or an Op Unity update just for this module, would be well placed. An ISC Pacification Campaign could be done in this module. The Ando campaign on the ISC and LDR should be included.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 06:18 pm: Edit |
Ship List Key:
1) The Ship Name needs to be perfected so counters can be made correctly.
2) Priority is from 1 (should be included) to 6 (should be excluded). The Sort is by Race, then Priority, then ship name.
3) YIS is only estimated for a few ships.
4) Module represents the module the SSD was or could be published in. Many PFTX class ships and RTN hunters could potentially be published in K2 to save space, depending on the final plans for K2.
5) One conjectural Mauler was included. Three old-Romulan XP ships were included as their XP refit includes a warp upgrade similar to the King Eagle (SSDs available upon request).
6) The Hydrans and Feds have a single large X-carrier. The Hydrans would like a St-TX fighter.
7) X-Tug Pods aren’t included. I’m thinking that an XP Tug Pod upgrade is made to be compatible with X, XP and GW era tugs.
8) This list is neither complete nor final and will have to be trimmed to fit in the available SSD pages.
Class Notes:
RTN Hunters: The RTN was discovered in Y195 and heavily disrupted everywhere by Y198. To accomplish this each race will need one or more RTN hunters somewhere between a Fed GNV and a Kzinti SSCS. Includes Assault PFTs, Assault Carriers and DCS, all with special sensors. Precursors include heavy scouts, drone bombardment and PFTs.
Controversial Classes: DNX, BCHX, PFX, Carrier Escorts, Maulers.
Pro: Some players want them printed, even if conjectural.
Cons: Likely conjectural. Most players don’t want these units: too powerful, too many variants, too many pages, bad for the timeline, bad for the Andros, bad for OpUnity. Partial X (XP) refits for these controversial classes should suffice.
Controversial Class: POLX
Likely the police would make due with hand-me-down General War era ships just as they did with previous National Guard ships.
Controversial Class: HDWX
While these ships allow flexibility their flexibility allows them to be abused. There is a reason most drone ships have so few shuttles to convert to scatter packs and carriers require escorts, these ships violate these limiting factors. Drogues, Remote Control, heavy fighters and mega fighters made the abuses much worse. Technobabble: They are also too overstuffed to be candidates for full X-tech and maybe even XP tech.
The proposed ship list follows:
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 06:18 pm: Edit |
| Race | Ship | Priority | YIS | Module | Notes | Class | Counters | SSDs | |||||
| Fed | DGX | 1 | 182 | CL16 | 2 Phot; 4 Drone | ||||||||
| Fed | GVX | 1 | 182 | CL26 | F-111 Scout Carrier; allowed to carry A-20 as GVAX | ||||||||
| Fed | Tug-X | 1 | |||||||||||
| Fed | NCLX | 2 | |||||||||||
| Fed | CVHX | 3 | 196 | K2 | Assault Carrier Scout; 12xF-14 or 12xF-15 | ||||||||
| Fed | DLX | 3 | 2xPl-L; 2xPhot; 2xDrone DDX | ||||||||||
| Fed | DXD | 3 | DB Scout | ||||||||||
| Fed | FFSX | 3 | |||||||||||
| Fed | DEX | 4 | Carrier Escort | ||||||||||
| Fed | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Fed | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| General | Aux-CVAX | 1 | Fast Aux or X-Aux | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | Aux-CVLX | 1 | Fast Aux or X-Aux | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | Aux-PFTX | 1 | Fast Aux or X-Aux | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | Aux-SCSX | 1 | Fast Aux or X-Aux | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | F-N | 1 | Fast Freighter; could share SSD | 4 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | F-N Pods | 1 | Pods | 4 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | F-NQX | 1 | Q-ship | ||||||||||
| General | F-NX | 1 | X-Freighter | 4 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | FRDX | 1 | FRD | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | L-QX | 1 | Q-ship | 3 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | MonX | 1 | Monitor | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| General | S-QX | 1 | Q-ship | 3 | 1 | ||||||||
| Gorn | Tug-X | 1 | |||||||||||
| Gorn | BDPX | 2 | K2 | PFT | |||||||||
| Gorn | CMPX | 2 | 196 | K2 | Strike PFT RTN Hunter | ||||||||
| Gorn | BDCX | 3 | Carronade Battle Destroyer | ||||||||||
| Gorn | HDPX | 3 | K2 | Strike PFT | |||||||||
| Gorn | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Gorn | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| Hydran | MTGX | 1 | Tug | ||||||||||
| Hydran | PFTX | 2 | K2 | PFT | |||||||||
| Hydran | TARX | 2 | |||||||||||
| Hydran | DCSX | 3 | 196 | K2 | DCS RTN Hunter | ||||||||
| Hydran | LEX | 3 | Aegis or X-escorts; Needs St-TX | ||||||||||
| Hydran | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Hydran | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| ISC | FFX | 1 | |||||||||||
| ISC | Tug-X | 1 | |||||||||||
| ISC | CAX | 2 | 1xPPD; 2xPL-M; built to be cheaper | ||||||||||
| ISC | LTX | 2 | LTT | ||||||||||
| ISC | PFTX | 2 | 196 | K2 | Strike PFT RTN Hunter | ||||||||
| ISC | CAPX | 3 | No PPD; 3xPL-M | ||||||||||
| ISC | NCAX | 3 | X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships | ||||||||||
| ISC | NCSX | 3 | X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships | ||||||||||
| ISC | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| ISC | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| Klingon | D5XD | 1 | CL16 | DB Scout | |||||||||
| Klingon | DXDA | 1 | 186 | Statis DXD | |||||||||
| Klingon | T7X | 1 | Tug | ||||||||||
| Klingon | D5PX | 2 | K2 | PFT | |||||||||
| Klingon | D5XDA | 2 | 187 | Stasis D5XD | |||||||||
| Klingon | E3X | 2 | SFT33 | Unique and retired by Y186; needs counter | |||||||||
| Klingon | FXD | 2 | 186 | DB Scout | |||||||||
| Klingon | D5XS | 3 | 188 | Heavy Scout | |||||||||
| Klingon | DWUX | 3 | 196 | K2 | DCS RTN Hunter | ||||||||
| Klingon | FXL | 3 | FWL version of the FX | ||||||||||
| Klingon | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Klingon | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| Kzinti | CDX | 1 | CL26 | DB Scout; CMX hull | |||||||||
| Kzinti | Tug-X | 1 | |||||||||||
| Kzinti | MPFX | 2 | K2 | PFT | |||||||||
| Kzinti | CMSX | 3 | DB | ||||||||||
| Kzinti | NDCX | 3 | 196 | K2 | DCS RTN Hunter | ||||||||
| Kzinti | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Kzinti | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| LDR | CWSX | 1 | 192 | ||||||||||
| LDR | CWX | 1 | 191 | ||||||||||
| LDR | MPSX | 1 | 190 | ||||||||||
| LDR | MPX | 1 | 189 | ||||||||||
| LDR | MPVX | 2 | 191 | ||||||||||
| LDR | PFWX | 2 | 193 | ||||||||||
| LDR | NCCX | 5 | 196 | Ended career as XP; could be published conjectural | |||||||||
| LDR | NCVX | 5 | 196 | Ended career as XP; could be published conjectural | |||||||||
| Lyran | SRPX | 1 | 196 | K2 | Survey Tug like CL26:PAL-PTT; double weight PFT-12 | ||||||||
| Lyran | SRX | 1 | 188 | Survey Tug pre-Y195; PFT RTN Hunter post-Y195 | |||||||||
| Lyran | Tug-X | 1 | 186 | ||||||||||
| Lyran | BCX | 2 | |||||||||||
| Lyran | FX | 2 | Cheap new construction; quickly converted to a DWX | ||||||||||
| Lyran | PFTX | 2 | K2 | DW Based PFT | |||||||||
| Lyran | CWPX | 3 | K2 | CW Based PFT | |||||||||
| Lyran | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Lyran | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| Neo-Tholian | NCLX | 1 | |||||||||||
| Neo-Tholian | NDX | 4 | Could the Tholians ever build a NDD-RH? | ||||||||||
| Neo-Tholian | NFX | 4 | Could the Tholians ever build a NFF-RH? | ||||||||||
| Neo-Tholian | Rear Hull | 5 | |||||||||||
| Orion | PFTX | 2 | K2 | PFT | |||||||||
| Orion | DBRX | 3 | |||||||||||
| Orion | CRX | 6 | R3 | ||||||||||
| Rom | NHX | 1 | |||||||||||
| Rom | SPHX | 1 | LTT | ||||||||||
| Rom | SUPX | 1 | CV; no special sensors | ||||||||||
| Rom | BHXP | 2 | 184 | Engines from a WE; not X-tech | |||||||||
| Rom | SNXP | 2 | 185 | Engines from a BH; not X-tech | |||||||||
| Rom | SPEX | 2 | 196 | K2 | Strike PFT RTN Hunter | ||||||||
| Rom | SPFX | 3 | 186 | Conjectural Mauler | |||||||||
| Rom | THX | 3 | 196 | K2 | Strike DCS RTN Hunter | ||||||||
| Rom | WEXP | 3 | 183 | Engines from a KE; not X-tech | |||||||||
| Rom | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Rom | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| Selt | CLX | 3 | |||||||||||
| Selt | CX | 3 | |||||||||||
| Selt | DDX | 3 | |||||||||||
| Selt | FFX | 3 | |||||||||||
| Selt | SCX | 3 | DD Based | ||||||||||
| Selt | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| Selt | DNX | 5 | |||||||||||
| Tholian | PFTX | 2 | K2 | PFT; PCX based | |||||||||
| Tholian | CANX | 3 | X-Engines speed up this overgrown MC=1 ships | ||||||||||
| Tholian | CPFTX | 3 | K2 | Based on CCX | |||||||||
| Tholian | CSCX | 3 | CCX based Scout | ||||||||||
| Tholian | CWX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Tholian | CWSX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Tholian | DNX | 4 | |||||||||||
| Tholian | BCHX | 5 | |||||||||||
| WYN | DSX | 1 | Scout | ||||||||||
| WYN | FX | 1 | |||||||||||
| WYN | AxBCX | 2 | |||||||||||
| WYN | PFTX | 2 | K2 | PFT; FFX based | |||||||||
| WYN | LDX | 4 | Conjectural DWX for the WYN instead of the PBB | ||||||||||
| WYN | CAX | 6 | R3 | ||||||||||
| WYN | DDX | 6 | R3 | ||||||||||
| WYN | OCRX | 6 | R3 |
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 06:27 pm: Edit |
Tos,
One point; there was a lot of disagreement about the proposed ship list. It's not the case that everyone who posted in this topic thought those were the right ships to include.
| By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 06:31 pm: Edit |
That's why I reposted it. Now that X1R is being considered its time for everyone to be heard. Do note that there was a deadline imposed at the time and we are limited to less pages than ships desired.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 07:50 pm: Edit |
At this stage, with no Rom BCH occurring anytime soon, entries for a BCHX can probably be removed since there's already an entry for a NHX (the NH being the romulan "BCH" for most purposes).
Question: Should 3rd-Gen R-torp Rom cruisers get X-versions? The conversion isn't all that efficient because there's no upgrade path for the R-torp and trading 2x S for 1x R is reasonable, but trading 2x M for 1x R gets to be a rather raw deal.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 08:22 pm: Edit |
Tos,
The Tholians being my favorite race and the race I'm most familiar with, I'll post some thoughts on what I think their X1R ships should be.
NCLX - Priority 1
This makes the most sense to me of any Tholian or Neo-Tholian suggestion. The Tholians can't build new Neo-Tholian hulls so they must try to maximize the use they get from the survivors. And the existence of the NCX demonstrates that Neo-Tholian designs are compatible with X-tech.
NCHX - Priority ?
Only if other races get BCHXs. The Tholians don't have a true BCH. The two ships that come closest are the DPW and the NCH (NCA with collar). The DPW is Size Class 2 and so presumably can't be converted to X-tech. The NCH isn't quite the equal of a real BCH but it's close. An NCHX would probably be the closest Tholian equivalent to a BCHX, somewhat inferior but somewhat cheaper. It should definitely defeat a Fed CX or Klingon DX.
NCMX - Priority ?
The NCM is the NCL with collar. If collar-augmented Neo-Tholians are compatible with X-tech (see NCHX above) an NCMX would make sense.
NDDX and NFFX - Priority 6 (In other words - No!)
You ask above whether the Tholians could ever build an NFF or NDD rear hull. I believe that question has already been answered in the negative. But even if they could do so, Why would they? The NFF is inferior to the DD and an NFFX would presumably be inferior to the already existing DDX. Why would the Tholians go to the trouble and expense to develop the facilities to build rear hulls for an NFFX when they already have the facilities to build the superior DDX? An NDDX might make sense if the Tholians could build web casters in large numbers. But we already know that web caster production in this galaxy is at a very low rate. I don't think they can build enough web casters fast enough in this galaxy to justify mounting one on anything smaller than a cruiser.
CWX or CANX or CX - Priority 2
I think the Tholians need something more powerful than a DDX, but that doesn't require web casters (due to the low rate of web caster production mentioned above). Naturally the Tholians would want their X-cruisers to have web casters. But they also have a lot of demand for those web casters and can't construct them fast enough to equip all their existing web caster-compatible ships. And the DDX is effective for its BPV, but is smaller and less powerful (and cheaper) than other races' DDXs.
The CWX would presumably be similar to the D5X/CWX ships that many races already have, i.e. based on the existing war cruiser design but without the construction "short cuts" that allowed for fast production. It could only be new production, not a conversion of an existing CW. But there's an intriguing possibility suggested by the CWH, the Heavy War Cruiser. The text for the CWH ship description states that the CWH could not be built as rapidly as the CW, due to the bracing required to weld the hull segments together in a different place. This suggests that the CWH might already be sturdy enough to allow direct conversion of already existing CWHs. If (big if, I realize) that is the case, a CWH X-ship that could be converted from existing ships would be an attractive proposition for the Tholians.
One problem I have with the CANX is that, with 15-box warp engines (which is what 12-box CW engines are converted to on X-ships) the ship would indeed be capable of speed-31 in the tactical arena. But I suspect it would be no faster than a "standard" warship strategically. It could be argued that, given the compactness of Tholian space and their other X-ships, they don't need the CANX to be strategically fast. Well, maybe. But I'm leaning towards preferring a CWX to a CANX even if the latter has more firepower.
The "CX" hadn't occurred to me back when this topic was active, possibly because it's "too obvious". The only difference between the Tholian CCW and CCH is that the former has 4 disruptors and a web caster while the latter has 5 disruptors. The CCH is also 10 BPV cheaper. The CX would take the existing CCX and replace the web caster with a 5th disruptor. Not as powerful as the true CCX but it would allow the Tholians to build an X-cruiser that didn't require a web caster. And unlike the CWX or CANX, we already know the Tholians can convert that hull type to X-tech.
X-carrier (any type) - Priority 4 UNLESS the carrier carries Spider-V Heavy Fighters
The difference in firepower between the best single-space fighters and the best Heavy Fighters is greater for the Tholians than for any other race in Alpha. The Spider-II and Spider-III just aren't good enough to justify the use of a rare X-ship. But the Spider-V (especially the Spider-VM) might be. but even more likely is the ...
PFTX (or perhaps a heavier version based based on the CWP, if the Tholians get a CWX) - Priority - 3
The Tholian Arachnid PFs are among the best and most cost effective attrition units in Alpha. It seems very likely the Tholians would want to improve the strategic range/speed of their Tenders.
CWSX - Priority ? Only if other races get cruiser-based X-tech Heavy Scouts.
The Tholians tend to be a bit weaker in EW than most races. I can't see them getting an X-tech Heavy Scout unless it were a "universal design" that everyone adopted.
That's my take on the Tholians. I hope it helps.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 08:25 pm: Edit |
John,
I'm inclined to say that 3rd Generation R-torp ships (i.e. Royalhawk and Regalhawk) probably would not be built. With R-torp versus 2 S-torp, there are advantages to each option. It's really hard to make the case that an R-torp beats or even equals 2 M-torps.
| By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 10:00 pm: Edit |
Rules: Plasma Carronade for the PL-L. Possibly spread the technology to other races.
Pro: All races are fighting the Andros and this can help. The rules and charts could actually be different then the PL-F version. Only the Gorn BDX even mounts the PL-L so the Gorns don’t lose much.
Um, I'm not quite certain I follow what's being said here.
One way of reading it is that the BDX is the only Gorn ship mounting the Plasma-L, so the Gorn don't lose too much if there is no Plasma-L carronade. But that's not a "pro" plasma-L carronade argument, that's a reason not to bother with a plasma-L carronade.
The other reading would be that the Gorn BDX is the only ship with (forward-firing) plasma-Ls, so the Gorn "wouldn't lose much" if the carronade was given to the other races. But that is clearly not so; the Romulan SEX, Romulan KEX, and ISC DDX all have normal plasma-Ls.
In any case, giving the Romulans and ISC carronade-Ls will change the complexion of T10 significantly, as T10S2 and T10S3 both involve ships with plasma-Ls fighting ships with cloaks.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 02:02 pm: Edit |
Alan,
I'm inclined to agree (for the reason you stated), but the ADB might still want to print conjectural SSDs.
It depends on how many players would get their noses out of joint because their favorite ship was excluded and whether or not the ADB wanted to give Romulan players a separate set of "price points" for elite X-ships.
Steven,
The biggest winners in plasma-L tech slosh would be the ISC.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 04:07 pm: Edit |
Regarding Plasma-L carronade; note rule XFP14.0 already says
"Plasma carronades are available to all ships with plasma-F or plasma-L launchers."
| By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 04:10 pm: Edit |
In CL# 31 under the draft XP refit rules it states in (XR4.25)"; plasma L's can use the carronade rules only if authorized by (FP14.14)."
(FP14.14) indicates the Gorns gave the technology to The Federation. Orions obtained it Y170 and passed it the Wyns Y175. The Romulans and ISC never gained access to this technology.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 05:35 pm: Edit |
This product is very high on the selection list for the next countersheet batch and for the origins product. But my question is, what IS this product? Can somebody email me a one-page summary of the ships, rules, concepts, and scenarios to be included? Is this just a bunch of half-refitted ships? (In which case, is there actually a product to do here at all?)
| By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 06:41 pm: Edit |
Alan Trevor --
To quote this Rules Q&A
Robert Snook asks:
Also, does that (XFP14.0) mean that Romulan (or ISC, Orion, or Fed) X-ships can use the carronade, since they would fall under the "all X-ships"?
Answer: FP14.14 seems to answer this. According to this rule, the Orions and Feds received the technology on a schedule (Y170 and Y175, respectively), but “the ISC and Romulans never gained access to this technology.”
----
This is something that appears to need to be formally settled either in the errata or in X1R (as does the existence of XFP14.0, which currently is not included in any module or the errata, but only in the MRB; in fact, the current errata for R10 specifically says plasma-Ls cannot carronade).
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 07:30 pm: Edit |
Master rulebook XFP14.0 says Ls can carronade.
This is apparently the "decision" awaiting the "review" in the R10 errata. A quick review by both Steves (on their way to the company christmas dinner) is comfortable with that decision.
| By Loren S Knight (Lsknight) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 08:59 pm: Edit |
SVC:
I have always expected X1R to be largely new full X ships. New rules would include the final version of XP rules.
I would be VERY happy to see this include a final X rules book as well.
X1R need not be a huge module.
Scenarios would include more Unity data, Andro RTN hunting, ISC and hopefully a Xork raider.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |