Is any playtesting being done on new ships and races for Omega, or are they all now completely on the back burner?

I realize that the Omega sector is marginal now in terms of sales, and that a real problem is the counters. Would it be possible to do more Omega stuff like the Andromedan threat file, with rules and SSDs but no counters?

I am just wondering. I would like to see more Omega stuff.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 04:10 pm: Edit

My impression is that they are kind of back burnered--a big issue is that the guys that originally did Omega (Bruce Graw/Agents of Gaming) have stopped doing it, and while they gave ADB all their info, I think a bunch of stuff got lost in a hard drive crash. So to make a bunch of new Omega stuff, there would need to be a lot of work put in from mostly nothing, which doesn't seem to be something that ADB wants to do at this point (which is totally reasonable).

I'd like to see an expansion of "late war" ships for most folks in Omega (which, I think, was the possible outcome of O5, which ended up being PFs, etc., instead), i.e. an expansion of 4-6 SSDs for all of the Omega empires that survive till the later eras (i.e. you could leave out SSDs for the guys that get wiped out early on), that had, like, enough warp to go speed 31 across the board, and more upgraded/optimized designs. And maybe some upgraded tech and the like. Having such an expansion come without counters seems totally reasonable (as most of the ships would be upgraded/updated basic hulls probably anyway). But who knows?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 05:11 pm: Edit

I hate to ask the obvious question but does Bruce have the files?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 05:52 pm: Edit

According to Bruce's Omega's Lost Futures article in Captain's Log #36, the original files he had at one point have long since been lost in a major computer incident. But that article itself includes a number of ideas for several of the unpublished factions (such as the Vulpa, Nucians, and Paravians) which I have posted about in threads like this one.

One of the reasons I've been trying to post in the various Omega discussion threads (and why I set up threads for each of the proposed "lost futures" groups listed in the August 2012 memo) was to hopefully use the pre-existing Omega material to help get a better sense of what might be possible going forward.

Personally, I would prefer "plus refits" of old hulls (if such refits were made to exist) be integrated into revisions of the older SSD books should they ever go up on e23, if that were at all possible. Even with the amount of SSD space the August 2012 memo allows for, there would still be a premium on space for "new" hull types (like the Vari Wing Cruiser).

If various "plus refits" can be folded into the same SSDs for Alpha, the LMC, and Triangulum, there's no reason why it would not be viable in Omega too - so long as the first five Omega SSD books could be considered for posting on e23, that is.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Bruce does not have the files, they were lost in a hard drive crash. ADB also has an efficiency problem with the Omega SSDs, they didn't do the original four SSD books so they can't use them to cut and paste to make new ships the way they can with the Alpha ships and SSDs. They did do the Omega 5 SSD book, but from scratch so it took longer than it should have (more Man hours so costs more).

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 06:17 pm: Edit

I agree that the next Omega product should be ships with speed comparable to the Alpha ones. If this was done, and the Omegans could fight the Alphans on an even basis, perhaps more people would become interested in Omega.

As far as the races not done yet, I would say the Echarri, the Scon, and the Paravians should be next. I believe the inventor of the Scon still has the materials. Looking at the future history, it seems that the biggest players will be the Echarri and the Paravians. It might not be that hard to take the Paravians just published and add some Omega tech to them. With the Echarri, perhaps take one of the most interesting races on file, let the designer or somewhat else do development work on them. Then put them all on E23 for playtesting (Like the Nicozians). I can't imagine this would take that much of ABD's time. (One could do this for the Chomak in the LMG as well.)

Of course, I have been wrong before.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 06:26 pm: Edit

I think the August 2012 memo's listing of the Vulpa Confederacy (which become a major player in the Seventh Cycle in its own right) and the Nucian Clans together with the Omega-Paraivans would work better, not least from a technological perspective.

These Paravians are known to capture Nucian tactical mine technology in order to develop their own quantum wave mines. Bruce also suggested that some degree of Nucian tech would become available to the Confederacy due to their annexation of the Nucian Cluster. In which case, it may be as well to have the same module cover both brands of mine at once. (The other technologies which the Vulpa and Paravians are reported to acquire are already in the game system, not counting any X-tech innovations further down the road.)

Also, a number of old playtest Nucian SSDs are floating around, plus we have at least one example of Vulpa starship design in print already (the insurgent Blockade Runner from Module Omega 2). So there may be more to work with in terms of getting all three empires ready to go than one might need to hammer out the Echarri, Scon, and Zosmans.

(And in the case of the Zosmans, any weapons established for use by the Vulpa, Nucians, and Paravians which the Marauders were able to steal would allow for a more complete set of options and modules to be drawn up for their own use when their time comes.)

Which is not to say that I wouldn't want to see the E/S/Z file done later on. But of the "lost futures" factions out there, I think that starting with the V/N/P trio might be the most viable option.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 06:35 pm: Edit

I disagree, i also want to see ships with speed comparable to the Alpha ones. I agree with Stephen on this.

However, the inventer of the Scon has posted that he does NOT have the materials, if I recall correctly. If I remember rightly, SVC or SPP (can't remember which) said there is no real data about the Echarri or Omegan Paravians - they were never created by Bruce Graw, just some notes or some such. My memory of this could be wrong.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 06:45 pm: Edit

I wasn't saying they had to be done before any of the "catch-up" modules for the 21 current empires. (At least not this time around.)

What I meant was that when the time came to address the "lost futures" empires, whenever that may be, keeping the proposed Vulpa/Nucian/Paravian grouping would work better than going with the proposed alternative.

Glenn has draft rules created for some of the Scon technologies, which he described further down in this thread, but does not have any SSDs.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Gary, you make a valid point about the Nucians, as their technology is shared. The Vulpa I am not so sure about. Would they just be a variation on the Maesrons?

At the end of the history so far, it seems like the Paravians and the Echarri are about to smash into the Omega sectors from opposite sides. That would be interesting to see played out.

At this point, I'd be happy with almost anything Omega.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 07:26 pm: Edit

I tried to gather up what is known about the Insurgency and Confederacy in the Vulpa-Nucian-Paravian thread I linked to a couple of posts back.

It's worth bearing in mind that by the time we get to the Seventh and Eighth Cycles, we'd be talking about first-generation X-tech (and possibly X2-tech - it's still an open question as to whether any of the Omega powers will develop their own X2 ships or not). Most of the ships which these modules would provide for are those one might see in action long before we get too far forward in the Omega timeline.

What these modules could do is to lay the groundwork for the "lost futures" empires as they are known about in print so far. Actually delving into the Paravian Jihad, the Echarri Expansion, or the Scon Threat may have to wait until Omega X-tech is on the table.

By Stephen Parrish (Steveparrish) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Yes, though there were at least Paravian and Echarri ships before the X tech.

Seeing that Omega is stalled right now, does anyone else think that E23 might be a way forward?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 07:52 pm: Edit

For my own part, I'm grateful to e23 for allowing the FC Omega Playtest Rulebook to find an audience. I'm still hoping to see how (or if) the Omega conversion project for Federation Commander may go from here, but I'd like to think that the experience with the OPRB has been a useful one already (for Omega in and of itself, and with the precedent it may set for getting other settings like the LMC over into FC someday).

In SFB, an e23 update to one or more of the five current SSD books might give an opportunity to offer refitted versions of certain hull types, as I suggested above. As for "new" units, that might depend on what kind of conversation takes place once a new Omega module is selected for publication.

Or to put it another way, when the time comes for SFB to go back to Omega, I'm hoping that the opportunity will be taken to work out a long-term plan (perhaps based on an expanded version of the setup in the August 2012 memo) that can establish the direction this setting will go over the course of however many new modules are to be published for it. If such a plan opens the door for e23 playtest packs along the way, well and good.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 09, 2014 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>I disagree, i also want to see ships with speed comparable to the Alpha ones. I agree with Stephen on this. >>

Yeah, it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to create a series of upgraded Omega cruisers (like, with enough warp to go 31 and maybe a few other minor upgrades) could get released in Captain's Logs in groups of 2-4 at a time. Wouldn't take up much space, wouldn't need counters, probably wouldn't need much interior space.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 12:32 am: Edit

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions to this point have been downloaded for Captain's Log #49.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, December 27, 2014 - 03:08 pm: Edit

I have a question regarding use of the implosion bolts on a Barbarian simulator ship. Should the normal firing arcs (LS/RS) be maintained when placing the IB's on a Barbarian? For that matter, are Barbarian ships well balanced against much or do they really give themselves all the benefits of a particular race's weapons without any of the disadvantages? For example, are there certain combinations of weapons with which the Barbarian should NOT be equipped, lest they become unbalancing?

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, December 27, 2014 - 04:24 pm: Edit

I may have answered my own question but a friend we played today took a pair of Barbarian CL's and apparently violated the R section rules stating that all weapons must be from a single race unless all agree to throw caution to the wind and make a completely conjectural/playtest battle. He was taking G-racks and phaser G's with all phaser 1's in the side mounts, using Implosion Bolt heavies in the FA mounts. I think this combo is illegal unless all agree.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Thursday, February 05, 2015 - 11:30 pm: Edit

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions to this point have been downloaded for Captain's Log #50.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Monday, May 11, 2015 - 08:59 pm: Edit

I have a question on the Old Eyebeam Table found on the OL SSD (OR22.7) [in Module Omega #4]. The last two columns of the table both have ranges "16-30" so there is obviously an error. There is no other published SSD using the same table that I am aware of. The next larger eyebeam table is on the EL (OR22.8), which has a maximum range of 40. The next smaller eyebeam table is on the AD (OR22.6) which has a maximum range of 30. I am guessing that the last column on the Old Eyebeam Table should have a range of "31-40", is this correct?

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 10:39 am: Edit

I have question on the Claw Damage Charts for both the YN (OR22.4) and YNV (OR22.10) SSDs since the damage for a roll of 6 is higher (value 5) than it is for a roll of 5 (value 4). I presume the values were reversed and a roll of 5 should do 5 damage and a roll of 6 should do 4 damage. If this is the case then there is no real issue since as far as I am aware there can never be any modifiers to a dragonship claw attack die roll (although it probably should be changed to avoid questions) but want to be sure that my assumption is correct and that there is not supposed some other damage values for the claw attacks for the YN and YNV.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, May 23, 2015 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Jeffrey Coutu asked on Monday, May 11, 2015: I have a question on the Old Eyebeam Table found on the OL SSD (OR22.7) [in Module Omega #4]. The last two columns of the table both have ranges "16-30" so there is obviously an error. There is no other published SSD using the same table that I am aware of. The next larger eyebeam table is on the EL (OR22.8), which has a maximum range of 40. The next smaller eyebeam table is on the AD (OR22.6) which has a maximum range of 30. I am guessing that the last column on the Old Eyebeam Table should have a range of "31-40", is this correct?

ANSWER: This seems to be a previously unreported error. I have looked at the SSDs, and the to best of my own ability to judge your quess is most likely the correct answer, i.e., the last column should be range 31-40.

Jeffrey Coutu asked on Thursday, May 14, 2015: I have question on the Claw Damage Charts for both the YN (OR22.4) and YNV (OR22.10) SSDs since the damage for a roll of 6 is higher (value 5) than it is for a roll of 5 (value 4). I presume the values were reversed and a roll of 5 should do 5 damage and a roll of 6 should do 4 damage. If this is the case then there is no real issue since as far as I am aware there can never be any modifiers to a dragonship claw attack die roll (although it probably should be changed to avoid questions) but want to be sure that my assumption is correct and that there is not supposed some other damage values for the claw attacks for the YN and YNV.

ANSWER: Again this seems to be an unreported error. You are correct that in this case the error has no real effect as there are no modifications to normal claw attacks per (OG19.13), i.e., any given result still has a 16.6667% chance of occurring. We do need to correct this on the SSD when the are updated.

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Thanks for answering my previous questions. Here are a two more.

I have a question on damaging Iridani modular PFs. Rule (OK1.311) covers the basic procedure. However, rules (OK1.312) and (OK1.313) cover damaging the Iridani PFR and PFQ respectively. However, (OK1.312) and (OK1.313) do not seem to me to follow the general rules for damaging Iridani modular PFs under (OK1.311). I realize this may be specific rule overriding the general rule but in this case, since all three of these rules were added by errata, I think that when the errata that created (OK1.312) and (OK1.313) was generated that (OK1.311) was not remembered at that time, and so differences in the damage procedure resulted. My question is, are rules (OK1.312) and (OK1.313) correct for the Iridani, and if not, what should they be?

Note: To add to the confusion (OK1.312) for the Iridani PFR incorrectly lists “barracks” when it should be “repair”.

Also, since the Iridani PFQ and PFL do not actually add any extra boxes versus a normal PF it would seem to me that they would NOT use the leader damage procedure (K4.4). Is this correct?

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, November 28, 2015 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Anyone played the Trobrin CC much? Does it seem OP at 171 BPV? To me the thing that may not make them OP is the three turn arming of their heavies but they sure can take a punch like most if any ships can take.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, November 28, 2015 - 10:49 pm: Edit

It seems around the right place.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, November 28, 2015 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Trobrin are very Gorn like in play, I do not think it to be overpriced. Note this ship has the battery to fire the IBs every two turns.