You shouldn't be able to increase the power one one shield without having to increase the other shields too. Like this mabey:

For every five to #1 must add(and pay for) one to #2 and #6. Every five of those then One to #3 and #5. I doubt anybodys going to get to #4 this way.

Also, bring any shield to the same power as the next shield forward without restriction. If you add to a side shield(#s 2,3,5,6) then you must add to the opposite shield.

Just my 2 cents.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:12 pm: Edit

hull shouldn't be swapped for anything as it is the HULL the part of the ship that holds it together.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:12 pm: Edit

How about a blanket X boxes/BPV point, no shield can be increased more than 20% from its original value. I would think one or two BPV/5 shields should be good enough.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Dwight, that can't be the whole story. If it was then the ship would fall apart when all the hull was distroyed. Is execess damage really hull then? Probably more like Super Structure. Some hull should be available for changes. But still, extra weapons need to be crewed, and thats where the crew resides, so changes should be very limited. Hull to barraks make a lot of sence.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:25 pm: Edit

Scott,
That means it costs 1.2 BVP to increase the bow shield on a Fed CA from 30 to 36. Personally I think it should be a little bit more expensive than that. The irony of your suggestion is that it limits the rear shields far more than it does the forward. After all I've yet to see a race put out ships with stronger REAR shields than for. Closes are the Tholians an Romulans with their great love of equal shielding on their older ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Scott: Isn't that the way it was in the beginning?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Mark, and thats what makes them forces to recon with.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Here's a few ideas I'ld like to throw at the group.


Ship alterations.

1) Heavy weapons may only be replaced with Weapons that are listed for the specific race as per the table "R1.1A".

2) Heavy Weapons may be replaced by Phasers BUT Phasers may not be replaced by heavy weapons. ( I think this may also be covered )

3) No more than 50% of the Phasers on an escort vessel may be Ph-Gs ( rounded down ).

4) All Weapons in Heavy Weapons mount reguareless of the weapon type shall take hits based on the weapon type that was mounted there.

4B) If Ph-Gs were mounted where Phaser-1s Once stood then they will suffer prioritized destruction as though they were Ph-1s.


5) Swapping Plasma. Plasma torpedows will swap on a basis based on the warhead damage at range zero divided by 20 as being the number of weapons spots consumed.
Thus F or G is 1 spot
S is 1.5 spots
R is 2.5 spots

The ship will loose X BPV ( which is a multiple of 10 probably ) per spot of Plasma weapon gon to waste.
E.g turning 1 R into 2F would lower the BPV by 0.5X BPV points.


Thus I think we can develop ship mod rules thad don't create UBERSCHIFFs.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Mark: The 20% idea was just a suggestion, as that is what it used to cost for extra shielding.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:41 pm: Edit

The Commanders' shield rules were this:
- 1 BPV for 6 shield boxes (max of 30 boxes)
- shields cannot be increased more than 50%
- any shield can be increased to the original strength of the ship's #2 shield.

I believe there was also an errata that also stated that shields had to be "even". I.e. #2 and #6 had to be equal to each other, as did #3 and #5.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 11:46 pm: Edit

"hull" is crew quarters and the bowling alley.

"excess damage" is ship structure.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 11:59 pm: Edit

SVC: I hope you don't think I was asking that. It was a point. One of the clearer things in the rules. Isn't the theater that gets turned into barraks the most?

By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:15 am: Edit

/disengages cloaking device

Can we use these modifications on the tournament ships?

/engages cloaking device (quickly)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:20 am: Edit

No, but we can install an agonizer booth in your TC.

By Jonathan Biggar (Jonb) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 02:21 am: Edit

Ooooo, that type VI caught him going under.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 04:56 am: Edit

SVC: re S7.21, et al

How many boxes can you alter on a Size Class 5 ship? Seeker owners want to know!

And are the limits different for a PF, for an interceptor, or for others (ie small civilian ships)?

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:21 am: Edit

SVC: something that needs to be clarified:

S7.225 states that certain weapons (photons etc) are limited to 120 degree firing arcs. BUT ... S7.272 states that firing arcs can be expanded by +60 degrees and doesn't mention arc-limited weapons like photons.

Is it your intention to allow photons etc to be mod'ed to give them wider firing arcs? If yes, you need to state in S7.272 that this is permitted. If not, you need to state in S7.272 that certain weapons cannot have their arcs improved, and then list them.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:53 am: Edit

I haven't considered mods for a PF.
I haven't decided about the arcs. I'm still considering it.

By Stephen Cobb (Ghengiskhabb) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:17 am: Edit

I really like the spirit of Rich Sherman's suggestion with the exponential cost. The form of the possible rule would have to be worked out.

One loophole that I am worried about is that it might be possible to modify a ship into an existing variant (or the spirit therof) and it may cost less. Remember, munchkins are very inventive folk.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:31 am: Edit

I am sure it would be possible to create an existing variant for less, simply because there are too many of them to make a single formula fit. But we can put in a rule that if you do create an existing variant you have to use the published BPV, and that any ship you create must be the shortest path from a published ship.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:37 am: Edit

The rule that "if you create an existing variant you must use that BPV" is a very good one.

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:59 am: Edit

Jeff Tonglet is attempting to not be seen.

Mr. Tonglet, will you show yourself, please.

Mr. Tonglet has learned the value of not being seen. However, Mr. Sharkhunter here has kindly lent us the use of his Seventh Fleet, so this shouldn't take too long at all to find out where Mr. Tonglet is.

*cut to a scene of a Sharkhunter bridge, essentially Romulans, with Viking helmets. In the center seat is a Gumby....*

Ahem, sorry about that. =) Monty Python Plays SFB....

Seriously, I think PFs should be permitted to have mods, but only a very limited amount -- maybe replace a weapon here or there. PFs were essentially mass-produced vessels, and modding them would bring up calls to mod fighters. While I'd be intrigued by a fighter construction system (or a modular fighter system, for that matter) I don't think that's what we have in mind for the ship mod rules.

The 'shortest path' rule sounds very good to me, as well. It might be a bit hard to enforce it, however I'm sure that local gaming groups, if they have a munchkin in their midst, will be careful about that. That being said... speaking from experience, a lack of trust doesn't exactly make for the best gaming environment. =6

By Douglas E Lampert (Lampert) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:25 am: Edit

I do not like the shortest path rule, to much like work to verify, do ships from Captian's Logs count, how about conjectural ships? Are we all supposed to spend 15 minutes per ship before the fight looking through SSD books to make sure they all used shortest path?

If you are playing with mods, and they are cheap (no surcharge), then the guy who spends them to produce something close to a published variant cheaper has at least used his limited mods and cannot change the ship further.

In any case I think mods should have a surcharge so that adding a system costs slightly more than it is typically worth.

By mike mendick (Mikey2) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:41 am: Edit

I still like a "hull cracking" surcharge.
if you change a ship, you must pay an 10% charge to get to change anything. Would prevent a lot of sillyness.

SVC: back in "the day" lab was 3 points, apr was 2. I don't know why that particular thing bugged/bugs me so but it did/does.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:41 am: Edit

Doug: Wouldn't that make the unit unfair then?