Mike: We can fix that.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Something like the hull-cracking surcharge would be a small VAT tax on installed systems. If Hull normally cost 1 pt/box, there is nothing wrong with making replacement hull cost 1.5. A minor VAT should do nicely: 10% of the box cost, round up. (or add .5 in the cases of 1-point boxes). The best part is that it's built into the price before the consumer ever sees it!

There's no reason to assume that a weapons box that is modded into a ship will cost the same as one built into it according to its "stock" configuration. The fact that you are shoehornig it in already makes it worth a little more to you so you should pay a little more for optimizing a ship to your play style.

Also remember that it isn't likely that the mod rules can be used to buld a published variant for less since we're not buying back components that are removed.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:48 pm: Edit

SVC,
I'll second a 10% surcharge.

I'm also going to get out my "Munchkin" hat and play with this rule a bit to see if/what I can break.

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Put me down for a "no vote" on the issue of being able to modify PFs (or any other attrition unit).

Attrition units are uniformly mass-produced. The quartermaster and/or the engineers aren't going to let you take that expensive weapon/power/whatever and waste it on something that is likely here today but gone tomorrow.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:04 pm: Edit

I don't really agree with a hull cracking charge. Yanking out a photon to put in a phaser is not that big a deal. Hull cracking really only comes into play when moving really big things in and out of the ship and that's just not an issue here.

Mark: You're pretty much wasting your time trying to break it without the cost chart in S7.4, right?

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:36 pm: Edit

OK,
Four things popped up almost immediatly.
1) What can you trade ESGs for? Reason, take a fully refitted Lyran DN. Replace the pair of ESGs in the center with a pair of Disruptors. Replace the remaining P-3s with P-1s. Six boxes and six spaces. Gives you a DN with 8xDisruptor, 2xESG, and 14xP1.

2) Place a stricter limit on what can be replaced. ie, Hull can be traded for X,Y, and Z.
Reason, take a Fed CL and replace 2 each F-Hull an R-Hull with AWR.

Likewise the Fed DD can trade in two of its C-Hull for another pair of AWR.


3) Breakdown cost should scale the same way as move cost. There should also be an upper limit. Orions come to mind here. They have the power to use multiple HETs and a good desire to do so. Likewise DNs and BBs.

4) Surcharge for Hydrans having forward firing Gats. Scary thought is a Lord Marshal with its fusions replaced with Gats.

If these are things that fall into the "Fine, but its going to really cost you" catagory then they are not problems. If they fall into the "Well, these shouldn't be allowed" then we can address them before we get into pricing.

By Richard K. Glover (Fahrenheit) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:36 pm: Edit

How about you publish the cost of each item, and you only get 80% of the value of items you're pulling out? Include a restriction on not being able to have a cheaper hull.

So, if you pull out a photon and replace it with a phaser-I, you have to pay, even if the items cost the same amount.

The downside of this is that you have a problem with using the published Orion cost of items, since they have a low baseline (assuming that you have one of the standard 0-cost weapons).

Or just assess a 1 BPV cost for each box changed over and above the Orion BPV cost. Explain it away as extra overhead required for maintaining a non-standard system.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:40 pm: Edit

Mark: Phaser-3s are half the size of phaser-1s, so you could replace each pair of phaser-3s with one phaser-1.

Richard: I don't want to make people do math (80%) but we could just say that everything you remove gets you one less point than the chart says another one would cost. So if you replace a phaser-1 with a phaser-1, you'd go up a point in BPV.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:42 pm: Edit

After all, the Orion ships were designed to pull weapons out and shove others in. Normal warships aren't meant to be fiddled with, so if you wated to change them, you'd have to pay more.

By Richard K. Glover (Fahrenheit) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Clarification Questions:

Proposed BPV surcharge of 1 per box, no Rule # yet:

You take a Ph-I (cost 1) and replace it with two Ph-3s (cost 0.5 each).

What surcharge do you pay? 1 because you removed one box, or 2 because you added two?

(S7.22)/(S7.221), (S7.31)/(S7.32)/(S7.321):

If you replace a two-space weapon with two one-space weapons, it counts as two boxes changed.

If you replace two adjacent one-space weapons with a two-space weapon, it counts as two boxes.

If you replace a two-space weapon with a one-space weapon, it counts as one box changed.

If you replace a two-space weapon with another two-space weapon (e.g. replace an ESG with a PPD), does it count as one box changed or two?

If you replace a two-space weapon with a 2-space combo that adds up to 3 boxes (e.g. replace ESG with 3 F-torps that each take 2/3 space), it counts as 3 boxes changed.

If you replace a one-space weapon with 2 half-space weapons, it counts as 2 boxes changed.


Please reply with True/False (and if false, please give correct answer). That'd help me understand a lot more.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 03:37 pm: Edit

SVC,
Does that mean you could trade 2xESG (two space weapons) AND 4xP3 (half space weapons) in for 6xP1?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Mk: I think so. ESGs are wierd though, and I'm not sure if there are any wierd restrictions on them.

RkG: I've already said I'll handle the surcharge a different way. As for the rest, count the larger number of boxes in each case.

I think we are going to make F-torps take 3/4 of a space so you cannot put three of them in two boxes.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 04:16 pm: Edit

*** snaps fingers ****

Shucks, I wanted to replace an R-Torp with 4F-Torps.

That'll be a suprise when uncloaking.

Imagine a KE uncloaking and unloading 6 at one target.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 04:47 pm: Edit

I suspect there will be a rule saying that a single box, no matter how big, can be replaced by no more than two boxes, no matter how small (and only then if they're each half the size).

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 04:59 pm: Edit

SVC,
Thats what I thought. Thats why I figured I'd be able to trade out the p-3's and the center ESGs for disruptors and P-1s.

Each pair of side P3's would be replaced with a P1. Each ESG would be replaced with a Disruptor and a P1. For conveniance I was thinking of using the existing boxes (with their reduced arcs) for the "Center" P1s. That would leave the center 2 box group for use as disruptors. That would still make a bruiser of a DN.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Good; that will prevent the "replace an R-torp with four photons" kind of thing.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Ah, but it also prevents the 'Replace 4 Photons with a R-torp" also.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Scott,
True, unless you are playing "Surprise Package"...

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:20 pm: Edit

I don't see how the four F torp KE is all that wonderful, especially if the opponet is moving fast.
I also do not see a need to worry about big boxes being replaced by lots of little items, an R torp replaced by four Photons, is that really a problem?
An as for the ESG to Disr ship, it will have some severe power problems as it does not have the power systems to back the new weapons,and would probably be expensive.
One thing to keep in mind is restrictions to prevent munckinism are fine, but too many restrictions reduce the potential of the rules.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:25 pm: Edit

I am not sure where the "R torp equals four photons" thing comes from. An R-torp is two spaces, a photon is one. So an r-torp would be replaced by two photons, not four.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Scott,
The KE would replace its single R-Torp with four F-Torps. This would give you a speed 31 ship with six F-Torps. 120 plasma that holds for free.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:32 pm: Edit

I assumed the R-Torp=4spaces from the Orions not being able to mount them at all on any of their ships. Also things like:
Gorn CM->CS: change 2S-torp for 1R-torp
Rom NH->RH: change 2S-torp for 1R-torp

S-torps are 2-space because the Gorn CLE(?) changes 2Plas-S for 4Pl-D racks. (1 space weapons)

If it was 2-space, it would be on the Orion CA. Why wouldn't a Orion CA want a R-Torp to deal with any other ship.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:34 pm: Edit

R torps are two spaces, and Orions cannot use them. Two different rules.

S-torps are 1.something (current theory is 1.25) and F-torps are such that two photons/disruptors/phaser-1s equals one S plus one F.

Try using the rules I gave you in this topic instead of making some up.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:22 pm: Edit

SVC:

I suspect there just confussing themselves with the rules in CL2...or was it CL2.

At anyrate that's most likely where the error is comming from.


.


HHHhhhhhmmmmmmm...

My Fed CA can replace 4 Photon Torpedoes for 2 type R Plasma Torps.


.


If I were human I beleive the correct response would be ... I'LL BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!


And why does the Romulan KR have two Type Gs and the two Type Ss if they could mount two Type Rs straight off the bat!?!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:49 pm: Edit

SVC:

"Historically" (real world) Pl-S was a "two-space" weapon (as was the Pl-G). Pl-F was a one-space weapon. A Pl-R could replace two adjacent Pl-S, meaning it was a four-space weapon.

This is how things were defined in Commanders' edition and (until now) had never been changed in Captain's edition. This is where the confusion is coming from.

You are now redefining how many "spaces" the various plasma takes up, which I am not arguing. I am just trying to explain where this common confusion is coming from.

As a final note, I would request that a Pl-R be defined to be the same number of spaces as 2 Pl-S. The restriction of only being able to replace a Pl-R with two boxes is fine, but if a Pl-R is taken out, the resulting space really needs to be able to hold 2 Pl-S.