Mark, As it is now the King Eagle arms the R as an S, and finishes the arming to an R, when it wants, for 1 point of btty power, admittedly more power, but the F's have no range, and the R can actually chase something down, especially with the new plasma rules.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:36 pm: Edit

SVC; In C4 Plasma R's were stated as taking 4 option mounts for use in the simulators, at least.

ADM

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 12:31 am: Edit

New Plasma rules?! Waaaa. Error please explain. Please explain.

You mean Captains Edition or you talkin' something newer. Whud I miss?

By Piotr Orbis Proszynski (Orbis) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 12:56 am: Edit

Speed 40 'Sabot' plasmas and ECM plasmas are under playtest, Loren! *pats his head so he doesn't cry*

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 01:13 am: Edit

Oh,O.K. Thanks for telling me so soon. Might of stayed up all night looking for it. Whew, I gotta work tomarrow, too.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 04:55 pm: Edit

ON R-TORPS

I tend to second Mark Means. The Rom RoyalHawk and Gorn CS both trade 2x S for 1x R using hulls that otherwise appear identical to the Rom NovaHawk and Gorn CM.

...So if a S-torp takes up 1.25 boxes, a F-torp takes up .75, that equals out to 2x Disr/HB/Fus/Photon. Perhaps the Klingon engine cowlings were designed for Mid-years Disrs and actually have 1/2 extra space in them t accomodate older-tech, bulkier disrs. The space wouldn't be available without ripping out both disruptors. (This would also account for the DX going to 3x Disr per mount)

S-torps could go to 1.75. One could also say that the D-5's slighly smaller engines did not have this extra space (in fact, continued miniaturization of disruptors was the only reason 2x Disrs could be squeezed into the 1.75 box space), limiting the ship to either 4x F or 2x F and the 2x S option was chosen.

Using the 2x S for 1x R trade, R's come out at 2.5 boxes according SVC's current thinking. 3.5 by my suggestion, making it impossible for a D-Hull disruptor mount to hold an R-torp.

There might also be shock concern putting a R-torp on an engine mount. It seems like most R-torps are mounted securely to a ship's main body. The most flimsy R-torp mount I can think of is the RoyalHawk's R-torp, which appears strung between two engines.

ON ESGs

I would be very leery of allowing much to replace Lyran ESG's otherwise their hulls will be munchkin favorites.

Before diving into the whats and whys, I would want a ruling on whether ESG's need to be mounted externally. If they function as internal systems, they are much less abusable, given that they need 2 Orion option boxes to use.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 06:04 pm: Edit

ESGs have huge external arrays see on the minis and in the art. But those are flat panels on top of the ship. I could see drone racks easily replacing them, maybe phasers, not heavy weapons.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 10:17 pm: Edit

SVC:


You made no comment about my question.

If Plasma-R is a two space weapon then one could fit 2 Plasma-R launchers on the KR when one refits a D6 into a KR.


Did you not want to respond to that or did you just think I was indulging in verbal diahrea.


I suspect I may have come across as the latter but the question still stands...why didn't the conversion take place with Plasma-Rs/Will R torps become larger than 2 spaces?

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 01:46 pm: Edit

I'm not SVC and despite cutting my teeth on Roms, I think having the R-Torp be a 2-space weapon makes it absurdly abusable via these rules.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Me too. When you consider the WE was built around the type R like the Falcon was around the mauler then it can't be a run of the mill weapon. If you could put type R's in place of the two Type S's on a KR, you would have a monsterous fighter squadren killer. It would be hard to arm, but you could do it. Thats 10 type F plus 2, from one ship. Now put two of those in a fleet and everybodys got something to worry about. Sacrifice two KR's to put 40 points of plasma on every ship in the enemy fleet? Ya, sure.(I know the KC can do this. But who would have two of those?)
I think Plasma-R's are special weapons for special ships.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 03:31 pm: Edit

R's should be four spaces, M's three and S torps 2 spaces. G's/F's are debatable. I think G's should be 1 space and F's one space as well, but that is my opinion. This would limit the larger and longer ranged torps, which are far more powerful than a bunch of short ranged F torps, in most situations.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Enough with R-torps. Sometime in the future I'll take a look and figure it out; every message about R-torp size from this point forward will be deleted as clutter.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 07:38 pm: Edit

SVC:

Okay and thanks for responding.

By John Erwin Hacker (Godzillaking) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 02:04 pm: Edit

To everybody:
I am looking for the equipment cost list from the old commander's edition volume 2. If someone out there could e-mail me the list, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank You

By John A Schneder II (Keltner) on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit

John,
I have said list (the old Annex #6A). I even have it as a nice Excel file with all of the intervening new systems/weapons/equipment added to it. However, even though it is out of print, it is still copyrighted material. That I have this for my own personal use is one thing, sharing it is another. If SVC says its OK to send it to you I will.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 07:43 pm: Edit

SVC: Would you object to someone posting the Cdr's Ed Annex 6A data so that those of us who don't have it (my mother threw away all my Cdr's Ed stuff while I was away at university more than a decade ago...) can study the implications?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 11:10 pm: Edit

That data is so screwed up I am not sure you can study anything other than how incompetently it was done.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Gotcha...

By Chris Bonaiuto (Epyon) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 11:37 am: Edit

Well, to reopen this topic, I have a question. Is it alright if I print these ship mod rules so I can put them in my rules binder? I assume so, but I wanted to make sure.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 11:38 am: Edit

For your own binder you can print anything you like.

By Chris Bonaiuto (Epyon) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Cool, thanks

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 01:16 pm: Edit

A few suggestions to add to the Semi-Historical and/or the Non-Historical modifications:

Hydrans may replace Stinger-2's with Stinger-H's. (Semi-Historic might be limited to size 3 (or bigger) ships and/or up to half of the total fighters may be Stinger-H's.)

Assault fighters may replace non-assault fighters. (May be limited to up to 12 on a ships.) (Overrides a rule that I can find right now that says you can't do this.)

Federation carriers (size 3 or bigger) may replace F-18's with F-15's; can not have more than a total of 12 F-14's and F-15's.

A fighter squadron may have any number of 2-seat fighters. (Overrides (J4.43))

A fighter squadron may have any number of EWF; only one is active (protects others) and switching is done via the (R1.F7A) procedure. (Overrides (J4.463))

A carrier with less than 8 fighters is allowed to have a EWF. (Overrides (J4.463))

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Is the 4/4/2002 draft ever going to be updated based on all the comments and responses since? There appears to be a lot of stuff that tightens up the rule.

Is it possilble that this rule will ever be published in Captain's Log like the XP rules were?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 03:42 pm: Edit

I hadn't really thought about it but will make a note to look at it next week.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 06:28 pm: Edit

A couple more suggestions:

Add to (S7.254):

- Carriers may add more Mech-Links to tractors for Fi-Con PFs. These are limited to minimum number of Fi-Cons needed to carry the carrier's eligible fighters (No assault or heavy fighters.)

- Carriers may add up to six heavy fighter mech-links. (A carrier cannot have more than six total heavy fighters, in bays or on mech-links.)