I have sent the revised and updated Module E2 errata file to Joel who should get it posted with a link in this topic tomorrow. After which Jean Sexton will purge the topic to this point. So if there is something you wish to keep from this topic for future discussion you had best get it downloaded tonight.

By Joel Alexander Shutts (Admin) on Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - 02:10 pm: Edit

E2 Errata Update
E2 Errata File

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I am not sure what is going on with the errata file, but I notice that when I open it a lot of the Bold text (rule numbers at the start of each line item) becomes de-bolded. The Italics are there however.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, December 16, 2011 - 01:30 am: Edit

I have a couple of things I wanted to try and clarify, based on the errata update.


*The new errata entry for (EN103.21) states that the part about how "a result of more than six is treated as a six" is to distinguish it from most other phaser equivalent weapons, which would shift to the next range bracket (something linear accelearators cannot do).

However, I recall a prior time I had asked about this system, and the answer then given (which I do not have a current record of, sorry) was more to do with the overall damage output the weapon could produce; for example, if a medium linear accelerator rolled an unmodified "6" at range 1, the damage output would be 6 ("treated as a six") as opposed to 10 (based on the 1D6+4 listing in the weapon chart). Thus the only real advantage of short-range MLA fire was in firing through severe EW adjustments, rather than having a higher potential damage output than the SLA up close.

Does this mean that, as of the present time, the weapon can indeed score more than six damage points if one rolls high enough at the appropriate range brackets (1D6+4 for range 0-1, and 1D6+2 at ranges 2-3); or is the maximum amount of damage points per linear accelerator shot capped at 6?


*I have to admit, of all of the playtest weapon systems for the current crop of Triangulum empires, the Arachnids' hellfire and hellblazer torpedoes are the most trouble for me to try and wrap my head around. (Not least since, while there are individual examples for certain stages of warhead arming, there is no consolidated example of how to cook a HF or HBZ warhead.)

So, I wanted to try and create a couple of sample torpedoes here.

----

First, a fast two-turn hellfire torp.

I allocate the "base" 1+1 power for the warhead under (FPN100.21). Then I add 2+2 power to increase the warhead yield (FPN100.212) which when compared with the two-turn modifier (5) gives a warhead of (4x5 = 20). Then I add two more points of power to get a speed 64 warhead under (FPN200.213). Then I go for a .33 per hex loss of warhead strength under (FPN200.214), which costs another 2 points of power. Then I reduce the damage susceptability under (FPN200.214) to .33 and pay yet another 2 points of power.

And then, after spending no less than 12 points of power overall to create a speed-64 warhead with .33 loss per hex and per phaser hit, I reduce the warhead strength to 25% (based on the errata entry for (FPN100.0)) and end up with... a five-point warhead.

(Even if the initial 1+1 cost I listed initially was supposed to be subsumed into the 2+2 paid to increase the warhead yield, that still leaves a five-point warhead costing 10 points to arm.)

----

Then, I decide to create a four-turn hellblazer, using that weapon's alternate arming charts from the Ice Dragon SSD.

I pay the "base" 1+1+1+1, then the 2+2+2+2 to max its warhead to 8x6=48 (unless I subsume the "base" into the warhead cost). Then add 1.5 for speed 32, 1 for 1.5 warhead loss per hex, and 1.5 for a .5 loss per phaser hit.

The warhead strength is then recuded to 25%, leaving a 12-point speed-32 warhead losing 1.5 points of damage per hex and .5 per phaser hit; and all for a cost of 16 points of power (or 12 if the "base" cost is supposed to be subsumed into the warhead cost).

----

Apologies if I'm missing an important detail, or if I've messed up my calculations; but that is a staggeringly poor degree of energy efficiency for these weapons as they currently stand.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, December 16, 2011 - 08:50 am: Edit

Gary; Your torpedoes appear to be correct. While the original torpedoes may have been to powerful, the warhead values were cut back way to far, for what they cost to arm.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 16, 2011 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

The rule as published in Captain's Log #23 says that the weapon cannot score more than six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator rolls a one, adds the +4 at that range and scores five points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator rolls a two, adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator rolls a three, adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage because it cannot score more than six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator rolls a four, adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage because it cannot score more than six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator rolls a five, adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage because it cannot score more than six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator rolls a six, aadds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage because it cannot score more than six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of one against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding one to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a one, subtracts 1, then adds the +4 at that range and scores four points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of one against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding one to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a two, subtracts 1, then adds the +4 at that range and scores five points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of one against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding one to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a three, subtracts 1, then adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of one against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding one to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a four, subtracts 1, then adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of one against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding one to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a five, subtracts 1, then adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of one against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding one to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a six, subtracts 1, then adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage.


At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of four against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a one, subtracts 4, then adds the +4 at that range and scores one point of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of four against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a two, subtracts 4, then adds the +4 at that range and scores two points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of four against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a three, subtracts 4, then adds the +4 at that range and scores three points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of four against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a four, subtracts 4, then adds the +4 at that range and scores four points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of four against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a five, subtracts 4, then adds the +4 at that range and scores five points of damage.

At Range 1 a Medium Linear Accelerator has a die-roll shift of four against it due to ECM, ECM shifts are normally expressed as adding to the die roll but in the case of Linear Accelerators this is instead used as a negative (EN103.21), the player rolls a six, subtracts 4, then adds the +4 at that range and scores six points of damage.

Note that at long ranges the weapon will always score one point of damage because a result of zero is treated as one under (EN103.21).

Hellfire torpedoes are what they currently are and are not going to change without playtest reports.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 03:43 am: Edit

SPP:

Thank you for the MLA clarification; in focusing on the short-range damage, I failed to register that rule's impact on the long-range aspect of this weapon.

And understood on the hellfire/hellblazer issue for now.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, December 23, 2011 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Questions on DN100.2 -

(DN100.2262) - If you are launching 3/3 or 1/5 which impulse of the that pairing counts as the "impulse of launch"? If it's the first, you can continually stream out PAs every impulse, at the cost of launching shuttles. If it's the second, it's 2 on, 1 off, repeat.

(DN100.32) - I would assume that packs for PAs would be similar to pods for fighters. In which case, is there a "surplus" alloted to the ship when it purchases a PA. Does it get one of each? Does it get one? Does it get X and you can buy more for Y BPV?

(DN100.32511) - Can I fill my T-bomb allotment with 1/4 space mini-mines? (assuming an NSM as a 1-space mine)

(DN100.327) - Does reloading take deck crew actions?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 23, 2011 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Mike Kenyon asked on Friday, December 23, 2011: (DN100.2262) - If you are launching 3/3 or 1/5 which impulse of the that pairing counts as the "impulse of launch"? If it's the first, you can continually stream out PAs every impulse, at the cost of launching shuttles. If it's the second, it's 2 on, 1 off, repeat.

REPLY: Correct. You could continuously launch (or land, or launch/land) three battle armored boarding parties per impulse indefinitely. If you launch one on Impulse #1, and five on Impulse #2, then you could launch at most one on Impulse #3. It is not a matter of pairing to determine a "launch impulse" for the six battle armor boarding party launch rate, it is a matter than no more than six can be launched or landed during any given period of two consecutive impulses as give in (DN100.2261).

Mike Kenyon asked on Friday, December 23, 2011: (DN100.32) - I would assume that packs for PAs would be similar to pods for fighters. In which case, is there a "surplus" alloted to the ship when it purchases a PA. Does it get one of each? Does it get one? Does it get X and you can buy more for Y BPV?

REPLY: (DN100.34) STORAGE: A given ship will have a maximum of two spaces of packs for each of its powered battle armor boarding parties. One set will be spares and will be identical to the packs loaded on the powered battle armor boarding parties at the start of the scenario or campaign.

Mike Kenyon asked on Friday, December 23, 2011: (DN100.32511) - Can I fill my T-bomb allotment with 1/4 space mini-mines? (assuming an NSM as a 1-space mine)

REPLY: (DN100.3252) A given unit may have a number of mini-mines equal to twice the total number of powered battle armor boarding parties it has. These cost no additional BPV, but note that if all powered battle armor boarding parties equipped with mini-mine packs are destroyed the remaining mini-mines will not be able to be laid by any means during a given scenario.

Mike Kenyon asked on Friday, December 23, 2011: (DN100.327) - Does reloading take deck crew actions?

REPLY: (DN100.3253) To reload a powered battle armor boarding party with a mini-mine requires that the powered battle armor boarding party be aboard a ship operated by its owning empire or an ally with such a mine available during the Energy Allocation Phase, and the intent to load a mini-mine aboard the powered battle armor boarding party must be plotted as if reloading a drone in a drone rack. The powered battle armor boarding party can take no action for one turn while the mine is loaded.

By Mike Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, December 23, 2011 - 02:15 pm: Edit

SPP,

Thanks for the rapid reply.

On the launch rate, it says that launching PAs counts as a shuttle launch. As the launch is potentially strung out over two impulses, which of those impulses is considered the launch impulse for determining when the next shuttle can launch?

On the mini-mines, I was considering the ramifications of adding a new half-sized T-bomb to the game. Outside of PAs, can you opt to use T-bomb allotment to get mini-mines. I can see places where this would be perferable (flashcubing, etc.)

On the reloads, that covers mini mines, but they can be loaded with missiles, need to have power allocated to them for several packs, etc. There's no mention of deck crews and all the same actions for shuttles require a deck crew action. Does the guy inside get out and load his own drone?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 23, 2011 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Mike Kenyon:

The rules state that launching even one powered battle armor boarding party counts as a shuttle launch, so if you launch or land one, two, three, four, five, or six on Impulse #1 you could not launch or land a shuttle until Impulse #3. And if you launched (or landed) one powered battle armor boarding party on Impulse #1 and one powered battle armor boarding party on Impulse #2, you could not launch or land a shuttle any earlier than Impulse #4.

The rules for mini-mines emphatically state that they cannot be used by any unit except a powered battle armor boarding party. You cannot lay them out a hatch, or by transporter (except by transporting out the powered battle armor boarding party and having it lay the mini mine) and they cannot be placed in mine racks. There is no provision in any case for replacing standard mine storage with mini mines.

As to deck crews and powered battle armor boarding parties, there is no rule any where in powered battle armor requiring deck crews. It can be assumed that there is an armorer who does this, and there are rules for the loading process being interrupted, but nothing in the rules requires deck crews to work on powered battle armor boarding parties.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, December 23, 2011 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Speaking of powered battle armour, should the correct initialisation be PA or PBA?

I think this might have been brought up before, but PBA would avoid overlap with the pre-existing "PA" (panels).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 23, 2011 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

Somehow, I doubt anyone is going to confuse the use of PA in the context of conversation.

No more than they would confuse ATG, or BAR, or BDG, or BMB, or BP, or BSX, or BT, or CAD or CAR, or CAT, or CD, or etc., etc., etc.

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Friday, December 23, 2011 - 05:47 pm: Edit

BAR - A Place where one can relax, drink and argue ref calls
CAD - an inscrutable lout
CAR - a horse-less carriage
CD - compact disc (something you listen whlie driving in your CAR)
CAT - Kzinti or Lyrtan (depending who you like)
[a different word is used for the one you don't like]

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 11:52 pm: Edit

A question from the Mallaran Empire R-section:

*Is the Y44 (Ram torpedo) refit considered to be immediate and fleet-wide, or is it optional (like the Imperium's medium mine rack refit of Y49)?

The text implies it was universal, but I was wondering if the Mallarans might have left it off a fraction of each of the affected hull types; perhaps as a means of providing a mix of armament options to frigate or destroyer squadrons.

By Sidney Garth Kanouse (K7lordkrivak) on Monday, January 02, 2012 - 03:11 pm: Edit

I am considering purchasing the Triangulum Module. I would like to know which Captain's Log contains the info and SSDs on The Imperium. I'm planning on getting the module, the counters, and the correct C'Log at the same time. Thanks for any feedback.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, January 02, 2012 - 05:15 pm: Edit

The Imperium preview is in Captain's Log #23; which, according to SVC's recent post elsewhere on the BBS, should be in the block of issues added to e23 sometime this year.

For anyone who hasn't seen them yet, the playtest counters can be found on Special Countersheet #1.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 02, 2012 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

Does it say it is optional?

If it does not, then it is not.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 10:35 pm: Edit

I have been contemplating the Worlds of Union Hellfire Torpedo. While I understand that a 60 point warhead on a frigate is excessive, two 15 point warheads on a dreadnaught is little better. I would like to suggest we restore the original warhead multiplier, BUT limit how long a ship may arm it, based on its size.

SC	#Turns that it may be armed.
0-2	4
3	3
4	2
5-6	1

At the end of X turns of arming the torpedo would be able to be held at that point. I would also limit SC 4-6 units to only using modifications to the two turn level. As an added limitation, if needed, the modifications can be split into a half point per turn rate of acquisition i.e. a CAs hellfire torpedoes top speed would be 28 if armed to the three turn level, FF torpedoes cannot go faster than speed 32. If this choice is used, I would suggest allowing gunboats to use a full point for each modification.

Edited for clarity at 10:15 CST.

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 11:37 pm: Edit

One issue that arrised within my groups game tonight when play testing the Imperiums was the Hypermass Autocannon (EN109.0) and the Single Shot Mode. Specifically the fact that at a range of 0-1 it does the same damage as an overloaded Photon with half the cost. Should this be fixed?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 01:20 pm: Edit

A David Merritt:

In regards the WOU DN and other ships, adjustments in how the torpedo operates would lead to adjusments in the number of weapons, i.e., the DN would pick up some additional weapons. The question at base was whether or not the adjustment in the warheads retaining the rate of launch and adjustability of the torpedoes worked, but I have not received any playtest reports, and short of that do not want to start running two competing fixes.

Alex Lyons:

The design theory of the hypermass autocannon in single shoit modeseems to be that it is not very accurate. There is a 50% chance of a miss even at range Zero-to-one, so in theory half the power is getting you basically the same damage. A two-shift on a photon torpedo would still give you a 67% chance of a hit at that range, but would reduce the single shot hypermass autocannon to a 16% chance of a hit.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 03:24 pm: Edit

It might be helpful, for getting playtest reports, if there was a suggested guideline for more launchers.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 03:31 pm: Edit

A David Merritt:

I need to know the weapon works, not that the DN works. So testing the weapon design on smaller ships that already exist would be enough to make determination "A" (weapon works) before moving on to "B" how many does each size of ship need.

By Daniel K. Thompson (Dkt0404) on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 03:34 pm: Edit

HM AC: The issue becomes however, that the HMAC is firing twice as often as the photon. Plus the combination of the ACCM has a decent chance of negating it's low hit chance balancing factor.

At which point you have a slightly less accurate disruptor doing photon level damage every turn.

And that, is a huge problem.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Daniel K. Thompson:

The counter is that ACCM only gives you any kind of bonus if the number of ACCM points is greater than the ECM of the target. So if you spend seven points for six ACCM, and the target spends six points for ECM, you are spending one point of power more for no benefit (at least as I read the rule). Imperium ships are relatively short on power (class for class) because they lack APRs and/or AWRs. The most notable exception is the CL after the refit (which gives it war cruiser class warp power, but it has only two guns). The CA has four guns, and after the refit has two extra points of warp power over all, but moving fast and having high ACCM will cost.