By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:13 am: Edit |
I am not promising when these will be published, but here is a "rough outline" of the rule. Those who wish to point out things the "rough outline" doesn't cover may do so and we will update the rules draft from time to time. Until we finish it or sober up.
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:22 am: Edit |
"Ships cannot use any weapons or technology except for Andromedan PA panels and"
Did you mean ships 'can' use any weapons or tech execept Andro?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:25 am: Edit |
CAN use, not CANNOT use. minor typo.
Please be sure to say what rule section you're in as it can be hard to find.
By scott doty (Kurst) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:26 am: Edit |
The above sounds like a good start to me. I like the historical/non-historical sections that provide more choices.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:31 am: Edit |
Hey, if you want Monte Haul, and your buddies agree, then you should have a way to get it.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:36 am: Edit |
Is there a limit on number of weapons per SC?
Like:
upto 2 Hellbore on SC4, upto 4 Hellbore on SC3, upto 5(6?) Hellbore on SC2.
or
0PPD on SC4, upto 2 PPD on SC3, upto 4 PPD on SC2
or
4Photons on SC3, 6Photons on SC2
New Question:
What about Control Spaces? Can I change control spaces? I want to make a pure Klingon D7, can I swap out the 2 Security for 2 Batteries?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:39 am: Edit |
Security can be removed from Klingon ships only under the non-historical rules.
I'm not going to worry about weapons limits since you can only replace weapons, not add them. Under non-historical, we'll consider a limit on weapons in added boxes.
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:51 am: Edit |
(S7.2) I think that heavy weapons should not be able to replace phasers. As the rule currently stands it would be possible for an ISC ship to replace two adjacent ph-3s with a PPD, which seems a tad excessive. Jonathan Dean 03 Apr 02
(S7.2) Probably should ban the mauler even if it is available as a technology to a given race. While the limit on the number of boxes will almost certainly prevent an effective mauler from being created by this system, it is conceivable that a player might try to add a "small" mauler to a standard cruiser (say adding a mauler to a C7 or a DX). Jonathan Dean 03 Apr 02
(S7.2) Some discussion of arcs of replacement weapons will probably be needed in the final rule. Jonathan Dean 03 Apr 02
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:55 am: Edit |
I'd like to see a mid-tier between non-historical and historical. Specifically something that allows me to convert admin to fighters, F-Racks or limited X-tech without getting totally wonky by allowing the replacement of an S-torp with a Hellbore and a Web Caster. Call it semi-historical. Races would still be limited to racial tech.
By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 12:15 pm: Edit |
(S7.3) Pinwheel Galaxie? I thouight that fell through?
ADM
By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 12:34 pm: Edit |
I think these are definitely a good start in rough form. They'll be tweaked of course, to keep the historical mod rules at least from having any loopholes. =) But all in all, eminently acceptable, I think.
By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 12:46 pm: Edit |
(S7.3) Ships can use any weapons or technology except for Andromedan PA panels and displacement devices...
TR weaopns too?
By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:04 pm: Edit |
I think the problem with maulers isn't adding one but modifying an existing mauler ship.
Proposed addition to (S7.2)
"Batteries on a mauler are not considered weapons for purposes of these rules."
Proposed addition to (S7.2)
"4 mauler batteries may be replaced with weapons."
The (S7.2) ban on replacing admin with ftr could be loosened a little if the rule were 1/2 of a ship's available admin (round down) or 2, whichever is lower.
SVC, what is the rationale behind disallowing ships to buy limited Aegis? It doesn't seem so bad if it were limited to "defenseive" weapons: P-3, ADD, P-G.
By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:10 pm: Edit |
At a guess, the Aegis system is just too expensive to throw on a line ship. It's only on escorts after all.
By Mike Fannin (Daelin) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:10 pm: Edit |
Double Post. Deleted.
By mike mendick (Mikey2) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:11 pm: Edit |
"Adjust the ship’s BPV by deducting the cost of the removed system (S7.4) "
I say no sellback cost(big cheese preventer).
otherwise everybody changes 4 labs to apr, makes 4 pt cheaper ship with 4 more power.
jm2cents
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:21 pm: Edit |
(S7.2) I think that heavy weapons should not be able to replace phasers.
SEE NEXT DRAFT
(S7.2) Probably should ban the mauler
AGREE. SEE NEXT DRAFT
(S7.2) Some discussion of arcs of replacement weapons
DONE, SEE NEXT DRAFT
I'd like to see a mid-tier between non-historical and historical.
I'LL THINK ABOUT IT.
(S7.3) Pinwheel Galaxie? I thouight that fell through?
FUNNY STORY THERE INCLUDING A LOST EMAIL. LATER.
(S7.3) TR weaopns too?
YOU CAN USE TRs; THE OTHER STUFF IS WHAT'S WIERD.
"Batteries on a mauler are not considered weapons for purposes of these rules."
HANDLED A DIFFERENT WAY
The (S7.2) ban on replacing admin with ftr could be loosened a little
NAH
what is the rationale behind disallowing ships to buy limited Aegis?
IT'S ONLY FOR ESCORTS. IF WE GO WITH A SECOND TIER, WE MIGHT ALLOW IT THERE.
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:26 pm: Edit |
I replace my KE R-Torp with 4 F torps (total of 6F). Is this considered 1 box changed or 4?
Same question but 1 R -> 2 S?
By Jonathan Perry (Jonathan_Perry) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:28 pm: Edit |
S7.0 Rather than putting in the disclaimer, I think there should just be a huge "EXTREMELY OPTIONAL" post next to it. The 2/3 vote thing is just asking for some cheezy group to end up asking if that is 2/3 of the total people in the game, or 2/3 of the ones that showed up . . . and what is quorum, etc. Just say that while the rules are official, they can only be used if everyone agrees. Like the D17 rules, they should only be used if ALL agree. Because quite frankly, no 2/3 vote is gonna make me use this.
Although I would love to replace the 2 x 360 p-3s on my Fed ships with G-Racks, I'd just as soon not have the temptation at all, by never seeing this rule get published. Just my .02
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:32 pm: Edit |
Tos: larger number of boxes is the operative number in either case.
BTW, plasma-S is 1.33 boxes, plasma-F is 0.67 boxes.
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:43 pm: Edit |
So there's a weapon size annex to be created or was that a joke?
(S7.2) "If the removed system required two spaces, the ship can only add one weapon in its place" makes my R->4F idea illegal.
There may need to be something the defines what you can do to get/replace an R-Torp or I'm going to have fun putting an R-Torp in my SN-A.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit |
Yes, there is a size annex. Most things are 1.00, phaser-3 is 0.50.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit |
Use the weapon sizes for Orion opt mounts, right?
Whoohoo! Though most of our games will still be historical, now a few will be hysterical, again. Tention break!
By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 03:01 pm: Edit |
If you can change turn modes, can you change the breakdown rating?
Will you add in the various Commanders Options that didn't make the transition to Captains?
- Add fighter ready rack.
- Replace shuttle with F-rack.
- Free substition of drone racks.
And I would also like to see a "Semi-historical" section that allows more changes (like the various shuttle substitutions), but keeps the technology restrictions.
Finally, if you are going to clarify the actual "box-sizes" of various weapons (e.g. Pl-S = 1.33, Pl-F = .67, Ph-3 = .5) will you give the Orions a break and allow them to take advantage of these new sizes?
For example, with the current system an Orion BR can only get one Pl-S in the nose. With the new info above, it should be able to mount two Pl-S. Or, instead of being limited to a Pl-S + Pl-F, it should be able to have a Pl-S + Pl-F + Ph-1.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 03:17 pm: Edit |
yes, f-rack yes others now, still considering it, maybe.
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |