Archive through April 12, 2002
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
Other Proposals:
Starship Construction Manual:
Archive through April 12, 2002
Davidas: You made a good point about Klingon Turn modes and Hull. Maybe it should be included. While i agree with you about statements saying that this cant be done BPV wise. I do disagree about you saying that SFB already has a well defined BPV formula. IMO the BPV formula is based around a # of bench mark ships. (Fed CA being a prime example.) All of the other ships are shoe horned in where they can fit. So that they wont be off by a large amount. Thats why the BPV formula is more an art than a science. And probably the main reason that SVC has Always kept it under wraps. But all that is needed is a system to get a custom ship into the ballpark. If the ship is to off by the other players opions then it will have to be revised Ship/BPV wise. And if the ship designer consistently abuses the system. Then the other player(s) dont have to allow any more custom ships in.
David: Once you get it into an electronic form send me a copy and I'll see what holes i can punch in it. And then send you some possible fixes. I built my own system years ago but was never really happy with it. It could handle average ships but started to show the cracks in it when pushed with some of the more offbeat ships.
David,
I'm not sure about the hull/turn mode parallel. I don't have a book with me, but doesn't the B-10 have a better turn mode than the Fed BB, yet still has more hull? I think the klingon turn mode is better because of the general design of klingon ships. In the "real" world they were made that way on purpose...to be more maneuverable, but overall less lightly armed. Granted, the k refit sort of twists that up somewhat.
Having some correlation between crew and hull sounds reasonable enough, I suppose. I don't know how you'd measure it, exactly, but it makes a certain amount of sense. The only issue I'd see would be how to define it. I mean, you expect more hull on fed ships because they are more "comfy" for lack of a better term. I can easily see klingons hot-bunking and having spartan quarters, thereby having a smaller hull count and still having a larger crew complement.
Let me know when you work all the bugs out...I'd like to see this. Good luck, and keep on posting your ideas. Don't let the negative stuff get you down, man.
Oh, and how does your system evaluate firing arcs? You know, is a 120 degree arc less valuable than a 180?
OK, here's a preview on phaser arcs.
Phaser Arc technology and system workings. (1.36)
Many design systems have simply had the player pay a surcharge for phasers with better arcs. The problem with this approach is that a player has no incentive to put any phasers onto rear-facing arcs except a few phas-3's,- FH or FX arcs will become dominant. In reality, putting phasers on rear arcs would be easier, as heavy weapons will nearly always take up the prime forward-facing weapon hardpoints on the ship.
In this system, each phaser comes with a certain number of arc points depending on its type and the player's arc technology, as depicted in the first table below. These arc points are then totalled, and can be spent on phaser arcs in the second table below.
table 1,# = arc points per phaser installed.
(PS I can't do tables on this)
Arc tech lvel 1/2/3/4
Phas-1,2 arc pts 5/6/7/8
Phas-3 arc pts 1.66/2/2.33/2.67
table 2 # = Cost in arc points for each phaser and its arc.
Phaser arc, arc pts for Phas1/2, arc pts for Phas3
360 deg, 11, 3.67
FX, 10, 3.33
RS+LF,LS+RF,FH+L,FH+R, 9, 3
RX,RS+LR,LS+RR,FH,FA+R,FA+L 8, 2.67
LS,RS, 7, 2.33
RH,RA+R,RA+L,FA,R+L, 6, 2
R+RF,L+LF 5, 1.67
RA,R+RR,L+LR 4, 1.33
LF,RF 3, 1
L,R 2, 0.67
LR,RR 1, 0.33
Not all arcs are covered here, but it'll do for a start.
Mike
Read my turn mode idea again.
Each ship gets hull points according to the number of hull boxes above a mandatory amount. These can (amongst other things) be used to better the turn mode. On a basic level then, the more hull boxes you have, the better your turn mode should be.
However, my idea was that while you spend the same *mass* on hull, you can sacrifice up to (say) 1/2 of your hull boxes on the SSD to generate extra hull points.
i.e.
Klingon D6 spends 22 mass on Hull, giving a base 22 SSD boxes
The hull requirememt for CA's is 16, so the Klingon D6 starts with 6 hull points.
11 of the 22 SSD boxes are sacrificed for another 11 hull points to bring the total to 17 hull points (which is enough for significant turn mode/breakdown/crew upgrades - PS I'm not sure whether to make this a 1:1 trade).
I.e. more of the hull is "spent" on strengthening the ship for fast turns as opposed to strengthening the ship against incoming damage.
The feds simply choose not to do this sacrifice, so have more hull SSD boxes and a worse turn mode (even though they might have a similar mass alloacted to hull). Of course, if they had an enormous 33 mass assigned to hull, they could get the same bonuses as the klingons without sacrificing any SSD boxes.
Basically, I've made hull quite an entertaining system. I didn't like the idea of just paying more for better turn modes.
Interesting. I'd have to play with it, but it sounds like you've put alot of effort and thought into it.
Bear with me here. I will try to keep thins clear and not too long.
Scott,
I come at this from a slightly different mindset than you do. I am looking at *playability* whereas you seem more oriented toward a design system that accurately replicates the first steps in the design process for official ships. Put on your playability cap for a moment.
Old stuff:
If we are going to use BPV, any ship design system MUST make sure that the ships it produces are rated HIGHER than a "stock" design
equivalent.
-----------------------------------
Sez you:
The above seems somewhat pointless as how could you get an accurate comparison?
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
Is there an accurate comparison now? CWs and classic X1 X-Ships were deliberately under-BPVed to name two classes.
More to the point: the most common usage will be as I stated. For building a starship that plays better for me than a stock ship. I'm not going to intentionally build a ship that is worse or even the same. I am looking to do something better. A normal amount of min/maxing is expected. Intentionally making a designed ship more expensive helps counterbalance min/maxing, even rules-abusing min/maxing.
If we leave the BPVs "accurate", a min/maxed ship will always have greater capability than one that is not, and that capability will not (by definition) be included in the BPV.
Unless you are saying that we can build a construction system with sufficient omnipresent safeguards in place to force design limitations on players and that it can be written perfectly, without a single exploitable hole in the rules.
Not a single one. If there is even one exploitable hole, the munchkins of the world will find it and games across the country will be ruined.
Even a perfect set or rules has the effect of cannibalizing Module R sales. The more accurate the BPV, the more cannibalizing.
Sez you:
Again, see above. The reasons a shipcon would not do that are: 1) the ships would not have playtested BPV's. 2) the ships would not be official and/or historical 3) ADB published items would be official, making them desirable in any case. 4) a shipcon manual (in my opinion) would be an optional rule, while published ships would not.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
1) and 2) Not important in a casual, pickup game situation. If an official shipcon generates a BPV, there is always a player in every group that will say, "My creation has a BPV generated by an official product, therefore the number is valid!" and you have the wonderful choice of either arguing the game session away or playing with a monster that could potentially spoil the game. SVC alluded to this problem. Maybe you and I are reasonable. If SFb is at all popular (and we wouldn't be here if it wasn't) the law of averages says there will be a number of jerks who play. Shipcon rules must be written with this in mind.
3) Don't be so sure. You will remember that the Battletech equivalent to SSD books never sold very well. Regardless, a publishable construction system has to present a nominal threat to Module R sales. That is, ship con sales + Module R profits have to be better than Module R profits before the shipcon was released. SVC is skittish about this for good reason.
4) In many ways see 1) and 2). You're in the same social bind.
Sez you:
Without using the existing BPV system a shipcon manual makes no sense as you could not use existing units vs. made-up ones, which most people would want to do. See above for R module sales.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
Sure you can use real and made-up ones together. Build them using the shipcon system. 
A great way of testing the shipcon system is building some of the more obscure official SFB units using it.
Sez you:
I would want as many choices as possible to improve the fun for all, as it is a game we are talking about.
Munchkinism can be mitigated, to an extent, with a good system, but nothing beats common sense and that is why an optional shipcon manual using BPV would provide the greatest flexibility while retaining the optional rule ability of denying a unit if it is ridiculous or a loophole is found.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
This assumes that everyone around the gaming table is always reasonable. Alas for the human race, this assumotion isn't always true. If gamers were always reasonable, comics like "Knights of the Dinnertable" and "Dork Tower" wouldn't be so funny.
Sez you:
The end point is to make the game more fun, and judging by the THOUSANDS of ships on the net, and I am sure FAR more "unpublished" designs, MANY people want to make their own units. People make their own units now, with no central system, a central system would at least provide some basis for comparison between such units.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
...and comparing them to stock designs. Any internally consisten system will compare them to each other.
But that's a nitpick. I actually agree with you. Were the potential for abuse not so great, I'd like to see such a system, but we live in an imperfect world.
David: Your idea is very interesting. I have not had time to really go over it, but it looks like it could be useful. The only problem that may arise is too much complexity, but that is a minor point in SFB!
I know that by removing systems from the base hull cost packages it opens up the system for possible abuse, but when I use the system for making "stock" (published) units, it seems to work fairly well, what do you think about making the trade-off of base systems to changed systems only worth half of the BPV of the base system?
Another point I forgot to add is that you can not remove ALL of the base systems, take a BPV negative then add systems back to get a cheaper unit. In addition you cannot remove systems past 50% of the bhcp, something I forgot to add.
I probably should have a rule that states X hull must be retained per size class.
I must also add crew unit numbers and min crew per bhcp.
The idea of hooking hull amount to turn modes is interesting, I will think about it. The only problem I have with it is it doesn't allow for "hull heavy" units to have a really good turn mode, which might be interesting.
I could definately see a rule for hull/turn modes hooked into an economic system as maybe good turn modes for "big" units are really expensive because it is difficult to manufacture.
The problem I have not paying BPV for turn modes is that then they do not become reflected in the combat value of the unit, and therefore the end BPV does not reflect the potential of the unit as turn mode can be critical in combat.
John:
I come at this from a slightly different mindset than you do. I am looking at *playability* whereas you seem more oriented toward a design system that accurately replicates the first steps in the design process for official ships. Put on your playability cap for a moment.
Old stuff:
If we are going to use BPV, any ship design system MUST make sure that the ships it produces are rated HIGHER than a "stock" design
equivalent.
----------------------------------------
Sez you:
The above seems somewhat pointless as how could you get an accurate comparison?
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
Is there an accurate comparison now? CWs and classic X1 X-Ships were deliberately under-BPVed to name two classes.
More to the point: the most common usage will be as I stated. For building a starship that plays better for me than a stock ship. I'm not going to intentionally build a ship that is worse or even the same. I am looking to do something better. A normal amount of min/maxing is expected. Intentionally making a designed ship more expensive helps counterbalance min/maxing, even rules-abusing min/maxing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply: I disagree that CW's were intentionally undervalued, and early X-1 units had to be completely redone, and still are under question. BPV needs to be the same in a construction system as for published units (or as close as it can be) for the shipcon to be viable. I also think that ADB does its level best to make a ships BPV as accurate as possible, otherwise the game would become very unbalanced. Why do you think so much effort went into redesiging the Andros, the X-1 units etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply: The problem is you end up with intentionally unbalanced ships. This does not make sense as who will build and use a custom unit, if a published one is ALWAYS going to be better in combat. The idea of intentionally overvaluing units would result in even more min/maxing to allow the build units to have a chance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If we leave the BPVs "accurate", a min/maxed ship will always have greater capability than one that is not, and that capability will not (by definition) be included in the BPV.
Unless you are saying that we can build a construction system with sufficient omnipresent safeguards in place to force design limitations on players and that it can be written perfectly, without a single exploitable hole in the rules.
Not a single one. If there is even one exploitable hole, the munchkins of the world will find it and games across the country will be ruined.
Even a perfect set or rules has the effect of cannibalizing Module R sales. The more accurate the BPV, the more cannibalizing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply: R modules are official and therefore any unit from them is usuable all the time. A shipcon manual would make only unofficial units that could be nixed at will by the opposing player(S), that will always keep R sales active. In addition some groups will want to use historical units only, and would not use a shipcon anyway.
I totally disagree on the need to be perfect, nothing is perfect. Loopholes will be found, and fixed as time goes on, look at the volumes of errata we have for SFB already. As time goes on the system would get better and better, but by keeping it an optional rule players would still have the ability to use, or not use ships built by it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sez you:
Again, see above. The reasons a shipcon would not do that are: 1) the ships would not have playtested BPV's. 2) the ships would not be official and/or historical 3) ADB published items would be official, making them desirable in any case. 4) a shipcon manual (in my opinion) would be an optional rule, while published ships would not.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
1) and 2) Not important in a casual, pickup game situation. If an official shipcon generates a BPV, there is always a player in every group that will say, "My creation has a BPV generated by an official product, therefore the number is valid!" and you have the wonderful choice of either arguing the game session away or playing with a monster that could potentially spoil the game. SVC alluded to this problem. Maybe you and I are reasonable. If SFb is at all popular (and we wouldn't be here if it wasn't) the law of averages says there will be a number of jerks who play. Shipcon rules must be written with this in mind.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply: Why would you want to play with a jerk in the first place? I would never write a rule with "jerks" in mind, only maximum playability and potential fun for all involved. An optional rule is just that, if both sides do not agree on it it is not used, period. If your opponent does not like that then they should not be playing the game.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Don't be so sure. You will remember that the Battletech equivalent to SSD books never sold very well. Regardless, a publishable construction system has to present a nominal threat to Module R sales. That is, ship con sales + Module R profits have to be better than Module R profits before the shipcon was released. SVC is skittish about this for good reason.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply: I have yet to see anything from SVC stating or alluding to the loss of R module sales being a reason to avoid a shipcon, only that many players are opposed to it, but who knows you could be correct.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) In many ways see 1) and 2). You're in the same social bind.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
reply: I do not see what you are getting at here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sez you:
Without using the existing BPV system a shipcon manual makes no sense as you could not use existing units vs. made-up ones, which most people would want to do. See above for R module sales.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
Sure you can use real and made-up ones together. Build them using the shipcon system.
A great way of testing the shipcon system is building some of the more obscure official SFB units using it.
+++++++++++++++++++
reply: I agree.
+++++++++++++++++++
Sez you:
I would want as many choices as possible to improve the fun for all, as it is a game we are talking about.
Munchkinism can be mitigated, to an extent, with a good system, but nothing beats common sense and that is why an optional shipcon manual using BPV would provide the greatest flexibility while retaining the optional rule ability of denying a unit if it is ridiculous or a loophole is found.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
This assumes that everyone around the gaming table is always reasonable. Alas for the human race, this assumotion isn't always true. If gamers were always reasonable, comics like "Knights of the Dinnertable" and "Dork Tower" wouldn't be so funny.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply: Unreasonable people are not fun to play with in the first place, and in reality I have yet to find someone who would "fight" for an optional rule if the opponent said no. Again, I see no reason to make a system that must take into account completely unreasonable people.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sez you:
The end point is to make the game more fun, and judging by the THOUSANDS of ships on the net, and I am sure FAR more "unpublished" designs, MANY people want to make their own units. People make their own units now, with no central system, a central system would at least provide some basis for comparison between such units.
-----------------------------------
Sez me:
...and comparing them to stock designs. Any internally consisten system will compare them to each other.
But that's a nitpick. I actually agree with you. Were the potential for abuse not so great, I'd like to see such a system, but we live in an imperfect world.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
reply: You would only have to use a shipcon if you wanted, but you only have that luxury if one exists, if it doesn't you have no choice on the matter. This would be too bad as the endless possiblities of a system would be lost to you.
Scott,
I think we can boil our difference down to a few things.
You:
The problem is you end up with intentionally unbalanced ships. This does not make sense as who will build and use a custom unit, if a published one is ALWAYS going to be better in combat. The idea of intentionally overvaluing units would result in even more min/maxing to allow the build units to have a chance.
Me:
No it won't. I would expect that everyone will min/max their ship as far as they can go whenever they build a custom ship. Again, this is the most common usage of a shipcon. By definition, a min/maxed custom ship competes at an advantage with a "stock" ship. Inflating the BPV of the custom ship balances the scales again.
You
Reply: Why would you want to play with a jerk in the first place? I would never write a rule with "jerks" in mind, only maximum playability and potential fun for all involved. An optional rule is just that, if both sides do not agree on it it is not used, period. If your opponent does not like that then they should not be playing the game.
Me:
SFB players can be hard to find. My personal experience with gaming of all types is that a group needs a "critical mass" of players to be self-prepetuating (example: you have 3 players and need a 4th to make the sides even). That often boils down to not being too choosy. I have been fortunate in a lot of my gaming groups to avoid this, but the gods know I've seen the behavior enough at conventions to know it exists and is common, especially as the age of the gamer drops.
The rules must be written with an understanding of how they'll end up used. And, if possible, abused.
You:
Reply: I have yet to see anything from SVC stating or alluding to the loss of R module sales being a reason to avoid a shipcon, only that many players are opposed to it, but who knows you could be correct.
Me:
I thought sure I read that mentioned. Maybe not by SVC though.
Scott,
I think we can boil our difference down to a few things.
You:
The problem is you end up with intentionally unbalanced ships. This does not make sense as who will build and use a custom unit, if a published one is ALWAYS going to be better in combat. The idea of intentionally overvaluing units would result in even more min/maxing to allow the build units to have a chance.
Me:
No it won't. I would expect that everyone will min/max their ship as far as they can go whenever they build a custom ship. Again, this is the most common usage of a shipcon. By definition, a min/maxed custom ship competes at an advantage with a "stock" ship. Inflating the BPV of the custom ship balances the scales again.
REPLY:
I agree with you on the above point, if your goal is to make a shipcon for min/maxing. I would prefer to make a shipcon manual for the majority of players that would just like to have fun making ships that are as correctly balanced as possible. For those players setting the BPV's artificially high would result in an unworkable manual.
You
Reply: Why would you want to play with a jerk in the first place? I would never write a rule with "jerks" in mind, only maximum playability and potential fun for all involved. An optional rule is just that, if both sides do not agree on it it is not used, period. If your opponent does not like that then they should not be playing the game.
Me:
SFB players can be hard to find. My personal experience with gaming of all types is that a group needs a "critical mass" of players to be self-prepetuating (example: you have 3 players and need a 4th to make the sides even). That often boils down to not being too choosy. I have been fortunate in a lot of my gaming groups to avoid this, but the gods know I've seen the behavior enough at conventions to know it exists and is common, especially as the age of the gamer drops.
REPLY:
I would rather not play than play with someone I was not having fun with. I have never had this problem with SFB, but you are correct, jerks and immature people do exist, but I would not base a shipcon on them, too much work for people who really don't care.
The rules must be written with an understanding of how they'll end up used. And, if possible, abused.
REPLY: I agree, but I would not aggonize over them to the extent of not getting the rule written.
You:
Reply: I have yet to see anything from SVC stating or alluding to the loss of R module sales being a reason to avoid a shipcon, only that many players are opposed to it, but who knows you could be correct.
Me:
I thought sure I read that mentioned. Maybe not by SVC though.
REPLY: I think I read the same post, but it was not by SVC, it was by someone named Peter Wiggens.
In the end I think we (people posting on this thread) have an opportunity to really hammer out a good shipcon manual (both BPV based and economic point based) that would benefit us all. I feel that we stop worring about whether or not it WILL work, and see if is DOES work. Try my system out, and if you see flaws tell me so that I can fix them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for anyone else, but here's my take on this.
Min/Maxing is an unfortunate fact of gaming life. I've played games with people who were positvely shameless about it. Then again, I've played with people who enjoyed making stuff up that was fair, realistic and balanced. Different strokes, you know. How a person uses a ship construction manual is up to them, period.
My only concern (and if I'm wrong about this, feel free to say so) is that ANY ship construction manual absolutely must be able to duplicate existing BPV's to a very close degree. If not, it just won't work. SFB is intimately related to BPV's...the scenarios, commanders options, and tournements all rely on BPV's to a huge degree to set game balance.
Scott, it sounds as if your system does come very close (I think you said you get within a couple of points earlier? Is that right?) and if so, kudos to you. I'd like to try it sometime.
That's just my two cents. If I've misrepresented anyone or anything, I do apologize.
Scott: Build the Design System and they will come A mysterious voice whispers You should build it and put it out for us to review. I'll be a nuisance trying to poke holes in it. They will be there. Anything as complex as this will have to have them before Playtest. But it may work. May not we'll see. It may be to complex. (easy to do with anything involving SFB) to be of intrest in a regular game. Maybe a campaign.
For everyone who would like to give it a shot here is a link to my starship design system, use it, have fun, and PLEASE inform me of anything that you think is wrong, broken, or that needs revising. I am going to make a few changes this weekend due to points people made earlier on this thread (minimum hull amounts, P-G limitations etc.)
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/sdoty/
Note: this usually gets published ships to within +/- 10% of their BPV's, sometimes it is much closer and a few times it is dead on.
I do not know why my link died, but here it is again.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/sdoty/
Mike, et. al -
The problem with an SCM that comes close to current BPVs is that the current system that is used doesn't do that. All ships (except maybe for the Fed CA) have had their BPV tweaked, some several times over the years. I don't think that SVC & SPP just wave a wand over a ship (or run it through a formula), and out comes a final BPV. Also, BPV only works for historical match ups; it's not a universal formula for gauging how powerful or 'point-worthy' a ship is.
John.
John: A BPV generator for a unit (a shipcon) would give you an estimate of the BPV, +/- X percent. NO shipcon would make perfect BPV's, but a good one would come close and thus give you a basis for gauging how powerful a unit is. SFB uses BPV to determine the power level of a unit, a shipcon must do the same thing or how could you compare made-up to existing units? The best BPV's come from MANY playtests of a unit against a variety of opponets, but that takes forever, a shipcon is the best that can be done. At least a useful shipcon would provide some basis of comparison for people who want to make their own units.
Scott:
I agree with what you said, as long as it is understood that BPV is only a guideline, not some absolute measure.
John.
John:
A shipcon producing BPV's would definately be only a guideline, as playtesting is the only way to get a "true" combat value (and even that is somtimes faulty as no one can playtest for all contingencies.) But at least with a decent shipcon we would have a guideline.
Scott,
Your webpage just disappears. Starts to load and then closes itself down. I didn't have that problem at work, however.
As to being new to this discussion...
BPV must be relatively accurate. I'm pretty sure the official BPV calculations are only guidelines and playtesting sorts out the actual BPV.
Min/maxing is a fact of life in gaming. Personally, as in Battletech, I would want the system to allow me to design a ship that better suits my play. The Solaris rules were very good for that because of the expanded turn sequence which meant lower powered weapons fired more often, which meant more variation in design.
I don't know about others but I purchased the Tech Manuals for Battletech for the historical info as much as the game designs. I can't see that I would not purchase an R product just because a construction manual was available.
Glenn,
I did, too. I liked the Battletech universe, so I bought the manuals for that purpose more than any other. That, and I like the look of the mechs. Buying the books showed me what minis I wanted to get next.
How about a direct statement that ships constructed using the shipcon system are default not official and not permitted except by the unanimous mutual consent of all players? Sure, you'll still get the browbeaters who want to fly their ubervessel, but the rest of the gamers in the group will have a solid rule recourse. ("It takes unanimous consent, and we ain't giving it.")
Randy:
I totaly agree. A shipcon manual should be an optional rule that, like all optional rules, requires the consent of your opponent(s).
Glen/Mike: I liked the battletech universe as well, (the pictures, background etc.) That is why I bought the tech. manuals and background infromation. I would still purchase R modules after a shipcon manual was published, and I play lots of created units.
A tip for those printing out Scott's rules (like me). I have Acrobat 5 and IE 5.5.
The PDF displays fine but had a problem printing. The large-fonts and bold text were completly botched (I suspect other stuff, but I din't page through the rules).
I saved the PDF to my hard drive and opened it in acrobat by itself and everything printed out fine.
The worst part is I'm not even sure I can blame MS for the problem.
Scott,
If one walks in assuming that a player will police themselves, these rules are quite good. It's similar (but not identical to) the SFT #1 CDS rules.
I might still want a neutral party grading the ships on the degree of rules abuse or some form of voting in advance.
OTOH, the rules do not have anywhere close to the amount of safeguards I would want if they were used in a competitve or un-self-policed environment, say a convention tournament.
COMMENTS
Default Equipment
-----------------
The system fills a ship out with a full normal amount of support and power systems, along with a standard amount of sensor/scanner/etc tracks.
Would it not be better to fill a ship out with a minimum skeleton of systems and ask the player to buy extra? In the CA class, tractor, transporter and battery allotments are a bit high as compared to some published ships. As is the hull when you consider Klingon ships. There is also a lot of variance in the various tracks as the ship classes get smaller (and Andros are always different)
Buying Systems
---------------
The SFT CDS system escalates the cost of systems after a certain amount are bought. Say APR cost 2 each. After you have bought 4, they cost maybe 3 or 4. Then 6 or 8. You may wish to consider this for your system as a limiting factor.
Warp engine distribution
------------------------
There are only 4 common ways warp engines are distributed in SFB. 50-50 R/L, 33/33/33 R/C/L, 25/50/25 R/C/L (think Rom heavy hawk or some BB's) and 0/100/0 in the case of a few DDs or FFs. The 50-50 distribution should be considered standard. Any use of Center Warp should cost points.
Rules Abuse: Since I can set the amount of R/C/L warp at my whim and at no cost (as long as I don't make all the warp C), I can abuse the rules to create a BB with a 1-box R Warp, 1 box L warp and the rest in C Warp at no cost in points. This would happen in a tournament situation in two heartbeats.
Hull Distribution
-------------------
Similar argument to Warp distribution. Any center hull should cost extra. F and A hull should be the default case.
Note: A little C Hull goes a long way. For a starship's hull to be *functionally* all C. Hull, all that needs to happen is that the C Warp be the last hull hit. When you have a 33/33/33 ratio, that's going to happen almost all the time. I would be a fool to pay extra for the privelege of going all-C. Hull when you give me what I need for free.
This being the case, the ability to add C Hull at all should should cost some amount of points with a slightly increased cost per box added or converterd from the ship's starting complement of F/A hull. Say the starting hull cannot be converted past 33/33/33 unless you're going to do it all.
Shields
--------
If you like, the shield nomenclature A/B/C/D is pretty well understood. And it looks more orderly.
Adding PA Panels
---------------------
As with the old-X1 overloaded phaser rules, it is better and clearer to state the max amount of PA panels you can add over the default. Not a bad idea for shields either.
For shields you may want some kind of "shields 3-5 equal 2 and 6" rule.
Nimble Status
--------------
There should be some restrictions on what size a ship can use this. I can't see a "nimble" battleship, ever, but the rules theoretically allow it. This should be limited to SC 4 ships, possibly only FF's. I don't remember: ARE there any nimble DD's out there? I don't think so...
Stealth Bonus
--------------
Larger ship classes get a +1 ECM, not +2 (RE Orion DN)
Implosion Bolt
--------------
The tab spacing appears off. Same with Light Rail Gun
Maulers
--------
You should give an alternate amount of default batteries if the player chooses to use Andro batteries instead of galactic ones. THEN specify 2x cost for additions.
Max additional batteries should also be given.
Hellbores
----------
1.5 free batteries for each HB? Why not just discount the price of the HB by 3 and let the player worry about his power curve?