Paramount has sued fan websites that had material on them that they felt violated copyright.

They're pretty touchy over there.

If, as I believe, they view SFB as the unwanted stepchild of Trek, something like this could be just the excuse needed to bring a lawsuit to do the ADB in.

Paramount may only be touchy about unlicensed uses of their property, however.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Sorry, this is the last I'll say about this. I don't mean to argue.

Paramount has no claim to the idea of powered armor. Isac Asimov used it, B5 used it, and countless other Science fiction stories have used it. On top of that the British have actually developed and tested powered armor. Perhaps if, in the context of the STU/SFU, I used the term Abladive Armor other specific terms that they used they could claim foul. But "Powered" is a general term that says little on how it is implemented.

OK, thats all, it may be a Auto Reject because of the list but maybe not. It is simple and works very different than the ASIF. The idea is presented, and SVC will like it or hate it. If he feels it is a dangerous concept, I'm totally on board with that. He has far superior experience with such matters than I.

I would, however, like to hear thoughts on the process and differances from the ASIF.

If not powered each box that takes damage is permanatly destroyed (could be repaired at a repair facility), but if powered (1 point) each hit is marked with a dot. That box can be repaired using the shield repair rules (i.e. two power+2 Dam Con). With a Dam Con of six it could repair three in a turn for six power. They would come on line the following turn just like repaired shields would. This would be particularly effective when using the leaky shields rule. The X-Eagle would likely be cloaking after a attack run so these repaires would likely take place during that time. It is not like adding extra shields because these take damage first before any internals from any direction.
Some have postulated a seventh shield and this is a bit like that but not exactly. And it is very fitting for the X-Eagle ala traditional.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 05:51 am: Edit

Powered Armour....The funny thing is when reading the Invincible Ironman, his armour is ENERGIZED.


Maybe Marvel Entertainment group should sue Paramount!?!...they're already working hand in glove with 20th Century Murdock.


I'ld rather kill the idea from a game pint of veiw, specifically stop messing around with the alpha races.
Somebody wnats the Kzintis to use BOUND_Ph-6 shots as their primary weapon.
Somebody else wants a Kzinti Disruptor Cannon.
Some else wants one Romulan house to have a completely different set of technologies to other Romulans.


Let's just say that any ship that has armour and an A.S.I.F. ( basically the XKE ) will be greatly endowed with powers an ability beyond the ken of mortal men, by being reinforcable like HULL under the A.S.I.F. but also being the first thing to get hit like armour.
Then just slap on a small BPV price and it'll be fine.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Sez you.

The difference is Marvel and Paramount both have the cash to fight a lawsuit.

Since the ADB doesn't, the threat of a lawsuit is far more effective because the ADB can't aford to see it through to the judgement. Win-Win for paramount.

Now if Archer pulls a starship out of a briefcase, then marvel might have grounds for a lawsuit.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 09:45 pm: Edit

About JT's ASIF:

On a new ship with no damage yet, the A column protects A-hits.

Would there be any point in rolling the first 8 internals, since they would all go to the A-column of the ASIF?

Or should they be rolled anyway, since most ships don't have Cargo, which is hit on a 7. And then when Cargo is hit, mark off a B-column ASIF box to protect the Forward Hull hit?

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 02:21 am: Edit

Until the A-row is destroyed, there's no point in rolling. it's functionally like armor.

After that, break out the dice.

I have wondered whether to do away with A-row protection or not, whether it's too good. It's one of the reasons why reinforcement is applied to my ASIF at 1/2 value. I want the ASIF to primarily lend toughness to a hull, not external protection.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 02:29 am: Edit

Is it possible to damage the C-row when there's still some B-row protection?

Ex: The ASIF has no A-row, 8 B-row, and 7 C-row hits left, so every damage point is rolled.

Roll is a 6. Do I count:
A-row, F Hull, no F Hull left,
B-row, Impulse, no impulse left,
C-row, Lab, ship has lab boxes, so mark a C-row box. Or,

A-row, no A-row boxes left, F Hull, no F Hull.
B-row, mark the B-row box.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 09:47 am: Edit

I really don't like any version of ASIF that acts as an internal shield...better to go with IT TAKES TWO POINTS OF DAMAGE TO DESTROY THESE KINDS OF BOXES than to jump to internal shield like barriers.

Plays fast and doesn't lead to players demanding shield to stop damage between the Shield and A collum.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 12:40 pm: Edit

I still prefer my version as it requires no chart. Simply mark the first of every three hull or cargo to the side of the DAC one each volley. This ASIF also gives the ship a host of other bennifits. You all have heard them so I wont repeat them.

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Originally, I was against the ASIF, too.

But then I read the comments from P6, where SVC said:

---

Quote:

Weapons need to be more dangerous, but perhaps more than just firing twice as often or the oft-threatened speed-48 plasma torpedo. If we just double the firepower and shields of every ship, do we really gain anything?

---

---

Quote:

We will probably do something unusual with shields, but just what is not decided. One idea (from Garth Getgen) is a self-regeneration capacity that would repair so many boxes each turn for free. One of the most common suggestions is to allow shields to be extended to cover a double arc if an adjacent shield is down.

---

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Jeff,

The whole point of the ASIF is to absorb hits that would strike deeper columns, making the ship tougher rather than bumping up the damage it takes before damage is scored at all.

No B-row system box is hit until the B-row ASIF boxes are destroyed.

No C-row system box is hit until the C-row ASIF boxes are destroyed.

And so on.

Both Loren's system and mine achieve the "toughness" effect albeit at a widely varying power cost. I give you your protection up-front at low cost (but it's one-time toughness that doesn't repair fast) and Loren's costs more but gives you the same protection any turn you can afford the price.

Another important difference is that the B-row portion of my ASIF will damp out the Mizia effect. By creating virtual hull boxes, Loren's ASIF leaves the Mizia's effectiveness intact.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Personally I like the idea of X2 neutralizing (or at least dampening) the Mizia effect. It forces new tactics (or rehashing old tactics depending on how you look at it). I think John's ASIF is the simplest form.

At the same time I also like the concept of overlapping shields. Call it a "shield bank" that when raised can cover 1, 2, 3, or all 6 hex faces. I would require the hex-faces covered to be adjacent to each other.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 06:06 pm: Edit

John T: A fair assesment of the two. Thanks.

Jeff, Regarding: "Loren's proposal of protecting only hull and cargo doesn't do much more than doubled or tripled up hull boxes would do."

Actually my proposal offers other bennefits that the ship gains while powering the ASIF. But to focus on the hull/cargo aspect my proposal does much more than equal up to doubled up hull/cargo. It absorbs the first of every three hull/cargo on each volley. While it doesn't dampen the Mizia effect as much as Johns it does this some by making hull last longer. Also, after hull and cargo are gone each volley can still hit one each since it absorbs the FIRST of every Three hull or cargo. (After the first absorbed hit when hull/cargoless feed internals normally.)

I think Mizia should stay intact for the most part. Like an M16 does more damage with three small bullets than with one large one, mizia makes sense.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:03 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The whole point of the ASIF is to absorb hits that would strike deeper columns, making the ship tougher rather than bumping up the damage it takes before damage is scored at all.

---

---

Quote:

Personally I like the idea of X2 neutralizing (or at least dampening) the Mizia effect. It forces new tactics (or rehashing old tactics depending on how you look at it). I think John's ASIF is the simplest form.

---

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Now I'm just being nit-picky here, but isn't the ASIF in reality an internal shield? I like the ASIF and think it needs to be a part of X2, but doesn't it act like a shield? The nit-pick part is: should we call it an "Advanced Structural Integrity Field" or an "Interior Shield" or some such thing?

Granted if it's used with Loren's "High Maneuverability Mode" to keep the ship in one piece during these maneuvers then I can see it being a structural enhancement, but otherwise its function is to deflect damage away from systems (i.e. a shield).

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:17 pm: Edit

ASIF is just the name we have for it.

And yes it is a shield.

Both are ways of lending toughness to a ship without adding junk-boxes to the SSD.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Some versions of the ASIF are a 7th shield. Others I would quantify as more of a DAC modifier.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit

That would be mine.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Well, in a way mine is a combo of both. It takes away damage and as such has properties of a shield. But that damage is limited in type (Hull and Cargo (cargo being a sub-type of hull)) so its a DAC modifier.

But mine does more. RBN, you probably haven't see my past post of my ASIF proposal but there are benifits to having the ASIF (my version) powered beyond increasing hull strength. Hull and cargo are repaired at 2 for 1 and count as one CDR system. Shuttle bays destroyed while the ASIF is powered has the shuttles in them only crippled (what ever damage brings it to crippled status) and can be recovered once the shuttle bay is repaired. Cargo in destroyed cargo boxes is 50% recoverable. Crew casualties due to damage is reduced (I haven't specified by how much yet).

The whole idea of the ASIF, I my view, was to preserve life (and goods as a bonus).

Another acronymn for it was Advanced Structuaral Integrity System (ASIS). This I proposed as concerns of copyright violations were raised regarding the ASIF wording.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:19 pm: Edit

How about an alternative name like "Advanced Compartment Enhancement System" (ACES)? Kind of covers both functions, gets away from that integrity field issue, and makes a pretty nifty acronym.

Oh no . . . if you have low and high power options then you have ACES-LOW and ACES-HIGH.

"Somebody stop me!"

Still "ACES" has a cool ring to it.

$0.02

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:25 pm: Edit

That has a very "Federation" ring to it.

I could deal with ACES instead of ACIF.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:34 pm: Edit

And it would get away from a certain potential Lawsuit via Paramount. (B&B have so few ideas that P. HAS to defend their intellectual property rights. :p)

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

"ACES" Yea or nay?

Of course I vote yea.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Sure.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Sorry, I say hold off for now. ASIF is a term every one is familiar with in easy passing conversation. A final term can be decided on later and ACES should go on the list.

Paramount does not have Proporty rights on the term Advanced Structural Integrity Field as that term was phrased on THIS board (and as such is owned by ADB). Neither do the have property rights to the term Structural Integrity Field as this is a term born long before the Franchise used it and come from MANY MANY other works. If anything, Paramount would be defending it is a public term to defend its own use.