I'm not all that familiar with how that works, Richard, so you'll have to take the specific game mechanics up with whoever is doing the rules.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Ok, I think I was misunderstood, so clarification here: I am not implying that the 'how the shields work' be changed (as they work fine) however, I am just trying to figure out how to translate the established SFU rules on shields into d6 functionality so that the d6 rules regarding starship combat are consistant with the SFU. Does this make my quesiton more clear? Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting SFU rules be changed (I like them the way they are).

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 03:53 pm: Edit

The way it works in SFB is that a ship does XX points of damage to another ship, you determine which shield is facing the attacker. Each shield is separate, and there are six of them on anything Size Class 4 or larger.

Incoming damage is applied to the shield first; if the shield absorb all of the damage, there are no internals. Shields are ablative, and can only be repaired relatively slowly.

Once a shields are down, then any (remaining) damage is scored internally.

Example: a Fed ship fires on a Klingon and does 15 points of damage. By looking at the facing, it is determined that the #6 shield is hit. (For this example, assume all of the shields are 20 points each.) Those 15 points of damage are taken on the #6 shield, reducing it to 5 points; because the shield absorbed all of the damage, no internals get though. On the next turn, the Fed does 10 points of damage, again to the #6 shield. The shield is down to 5 points, so 5 points of damage are taken as internals. And until the Klingon player can repair that shield, any damage taken on that facing are automatically internals.

If on the next turn, the Fed ship scored damage on the #5 shield, that shield is still at full strength. Obviously, the strength of each shield needs to be tracked separately from each other.

This is VERY simplified, read the SFB rules for full info.

If there was a central pool as you suggest, then you'd have to do 120 points of damage before you could score any internals, and the defending ship would not have to manuver in order to protect a damaged shield from his opponent. THAT is my objection to your suggestion, and the reason why it will never fly in Amarillo.

By Thomas Holz (Thokuh13) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Darren, having played D6 Star Wars I understand what you are asking. The only two suggestions that spring to my mind are having either multiple shield ratings 1 for each arc (not necessarily 6) or having the D6 rating (ie just the one) and having hits reduce the maneuver rating.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Thanks Gary for the example....as I play various SFB products (the 9.99 cadet version and the new FC game), that reinforces what I already know. My ideas basically pertain on how do we translate THAT into d6 universe terms. The way it works in d6 is that you role to find out if you are hit, and if so, you roll to see how much damage your hull/shields deflected-absorbed...which is NOT the way the SFU does it (atleast regarding shield defenses). I like the fact in the SFU your shields have a set amount on how much they can take..meaning if you have 20 shield points in front, those twenty get marked off before anything gets through...which is not how the d6 rules work. That said, this is where my discussion ideas came from. Does that help?? I sense from your post that you think I am trying to change the way the SFU works. I like the way the SFU works as is. I hope you were not taking anything I said as being negative. Please remember me when you playtest d6 PD as I am eager to do so.
THanks!!

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 09:38 pm: Edit

I think one can "tweak" the concept of blown shields.

If you give each shield a number of die that are thrown by defence (say 1 die per four shield boxes ) and a negetive table exists under the damage table, say 0 to -4 yeilds four die reduction, -5 to -8 yeilds 2 die reduction, -9 to -12 yeilds a one die reduction, then shields will get eaten away as they do with SFB.
Then you allow repairs of shields to be an increase in the number of dice (by 1) when you engage in CDR + DamCon and you get a roll ( CRD or DamCon would be a roll with a higher target that averages out to repairing the sheild back at the same speed as repairing the shield back under SFB ).
Sheild reinforcement could be used to raise the shield rating for a perticular turn and General Shield Reinforcement could be used to raise all shield ratings for a turn...if one went into that kind of thing.

E.g. a Fed CARa+ could have shields of 10/8/7/7/7/8 and then if you took damage that did't get past your shield by say -3 and the hit was to shield #5 then suddenly you'ld be at 10/8/7/7/3/8 and that'ld be fairly well corrisponding with SFB.
We should be able to get a good mix of SFB feel and D6 speed by expanding upon the shield blown rules such that sheilds can be A) protected via manouver and B) repaired slowly. We just need to saythat shields are not repaired "all at once" but slowly "one die at a time".

We could then follow the Hull rating with some number like 4 SSD boxes yeilds one die of Hull rating. We could even tweek it by allowing Hull to count as 2 SDD boxes for such purposses and Armor to count as 4 ( or maybe three ).

Oddly, that would give an imperial star destroyer some 52 SSD boxes and all round shields of 12 boxes which puts it somewhere between a Tholian PC and a Tholian C...but to certain degree the reraising of shields in a job lot will help the Star Destroyer.


Oddly enough, having a die roll for a shield could allow damages ( Disruptors and Photons ) to be static as they are SFB which allows a better dial-up photon (I suspect).

All this presuposses we use a single applied volley from the weapons that of cause.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Also to get an SFB feel we should have Hull score be reduced with damage and we should drop the Ionised Controls rule of taking damage ships ships don't really get stunned in SFB.

I'ld argue that we should change the damage table from.

HULL & SHIELDS	EFFECT
0-3	Shields Blown/ Controls Ionized
4-8	Lightly Damaged. Suffer -1D penalty to Sensors Manouverability & Fire Control
9-12	Heavily Damaged. Suffer -2D to above
13-15	Severely Damaged. Lose one system.
16+	Destroyed

And we should render this as:-

Damage to Shields	Effect
-13 or more	No Effect
-8 to -12	Facing shield rating reduced by 1D
-4 to -7	Facing shield ratuinng reduced by 2D
-1 to -3	Facing shield rating reduced by 4D
0	Facing Shield blown.
1-4	Hull rating reduced by 1
5-8	Hull rating reduced by 2 plus one facing phaser lost
9-12	Hull rating reduced by 3 plus two facing phasers lost plus 4 power lost
13-16	Hull rating reduced by 4 plus one heavy weapon lost plus power reduced by 8
17-20	Ship crippled. Hull rating reduced by 5 plus one heavy weapon and two phasers lost plus 12 power lost.
21+	Ship destroyed.

By having the shield rating at 3 boxes per Die and the Hull rating at four SSD boxes per Die we can actually skip damage die and use the SFB numbers directly to inflict damagwe on target ships.

When shield rating reductions lower the shield to below zero, it would simply be counted as blow and when hull reductions lower the hull to zero or blow then the ship is destroyed.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Oops, that shoyuld read:-

Damage to Shields die roll	Effect
-13 or more	No Effect
-8 to -12	Facing shield rating reduced by 1D
-4 to -7	Facing shield ratuinng reduced by 2D
-1 to -3	Facing shield rating reduced by 4D
0	Facing Shield blown.
Remaining Damage applied to Hull die roll
1-4	Hull rating reduced by 1
5-8	Hull rating reduced by 2 plus one facing phaser lost
9-12	Hull rating reduced by 3 plus two facing phasers lost plus 4 power lost
13-16	Hull rating reduced by 4 plus one heavy weapon lost plus power reduced by 8
17-20	Ship crippled. Hull rating reduced by 5 plus one heavy weapon and two phasers lost plus 12 power lost.
21 or more	Ship destroyed.

In this way if a D7K fires four O.L. UIM Disruptors and 3 Bearing Ph-2 and three Bearing Ph-1s at a Fed CARa+'s Shield #2 when the CARa+ has a shield rating of 8 and hull rating of 25, then the (24 Diruptos +9 Phaser) 33 points of damage shall probably get past the 8D6 of the shield for 5 points of damage which will generate on the CA a loss of 2 of her 25 hull rating an a phaser. And that seems close to be right to me.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:34 pm: Edit

You know, these ideas all have some degree of neatness in them. The problem is that they are all fundamental differences to the way ship-to-ship combat works in the SFU.

If this was a new SFU race, then maybe it could be made to work, but you guys are talking about making changes that affect the whole combat system.

As I understand it, there is a basic, fundamental decision that needs to be made: do we use the D6 ship-to-ship combat system, which I think is what you guys are trying to propose, OR do we do things the SFB way?

You seem to be asking me for my approval, and that is one thing I CANNOT give you; for one thing, I do GPD and will have minimal impact on PD6. It's going to be up to the folks in Amarillo to make that decision, and with SVC so bloody busy trying to do FC and keep all the other balls in the air, I don't think there is going to be any decision until the D6 guy -- whoever he is -- gets the big go-ahead to do the game.

Keep discussing it if you like, it can't hurt.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Gary, I understand more clearly now what you are talking about. I guess I was under the assumption that: since Gurps PD will have "Gurps Vechicles" and "Gurps Starfleet" to figure out how starship combat works in the GURPS universe, I assumed that d6 federation and d6 Starfleet would address the same issues. I hope you don't feel like I was trying to be negative towards you or trying to get you to approve anything.... I was just going off my assumptions listed above and may have been in error for doing so. I only have good things to say about what ADB and you are doing for the SFU!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 07:19 pm: Edit

There is a couple issues involved here. One is that GURPS is typicaly very detailed bot more over Steve Jackson has to approve it or it doesn't pass. Still, the GURPS system may not perfectly cover it and some adjustment will have to be made. There no way of knowing at the moment until the right books get published.

D20 and D6 won't have the same confines to a specific system (I don't think) and so the closer we can get to SFB feel without totally blowing of a system players already know the better. I think the solution is to keep an eye to both and pay respect to both systems.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 07:29 pm: Edit

I started this conversation based on the info I found while looking at the PD info page where it says future products:
"STAR FLEET: The D6 core book is expected to include a space combat system and a few sample starships. A future book will provide a wide array of starships for this system."

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 08:14 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If this was a new SFU race, then maybe it could be made to work, but you guys are talking about making changes that affect the whole combat system.

As I understand it, there is a basic, fundamental decision that needs to be made: do we use the D6 ship-to-ship combat system, which I think is what you guys are trying to propose, OR do we do things the SFB way?

---

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 08:36 pm: Edit

No problem, Darren. My point is that I've never played D6, much less looked at a rulebook, so I am VERY uncomfortable in discussing game mechanics. I'll happily talk your head off re SFU background, but any D6 questions need to be saved for the D6 guy, once they find someone to do the job.

They've tried several; some have gotten sick, others have backed out or dissapeared, so things won't get moving until they hire someone.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Cool. All is at piece then. I appreciate what you have done for the SFU!!! Perhaps these discussion will help guide the "d6 guy" in determining what needs to be done whenever he or she comes along.l

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 09:55 pm: Edit

What about asking the authors who have already done some products for the d6 universe? There are a couple of other publishers listed on WEG website who are doing d6 stuff....

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 11:40 am: Edit

I have no involvement in selecting the D6 guy-to-be. Zero, zilch, nil.

I'm sure they're shaking the trees really hard, but nothing has fallen out, yet. Just keep your fingers crossed!

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 07:24 am: Edit

Not sure why this project seems to be going through so many writers. IT seems like this system has MUCH potential.

By Darren Kehrer (Kehrer1701) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 07:29 am: Edit

Hey Ken,
a while back, you had posted a message that "We're waiting to hear from the fifth freelancer on this one." Any news from this person??
If such a person is onboard, could he introduce himself here and start polling for ideas, etc.....
Sorry is I seem eager and persistent..

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 08:25 pm: Edit

I think discussing shield mechanics is a putting the cart before the horse at this point. We still don't know how Tholians are going to work in D6, let alone their starships, and guess which one gets to come first?

As shown in the Third Edition publication of GPD, what was done there was that the GURPS Space combat system underwent some adjustments to be more SFB-like. I think that trend will continue, with the D20 Star Fleet book having the D20 Future space combat system, with SFB tweaks (I'm not in the know, here, so don't quote me here), and the D6 Star Fleet book will likely include a combat system based on the standard D6 system, with appropriate modification.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 02:29 am: Edit

Tholians only matter if the campaign is likely to involve them. Human starship officers shouldn't be that far from how other D6 rules have created similar character types; those rules are already known to work.

Any one trying a SFU derived game under D6 will probably want starship definitions and shields are the most noticeable difference from the other universes that have D6 rules. Get those rules working and a designer is well on the way to a viable first draft.

By Dave Adams (Roguecop) on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 02:35 pm: Edit

In ST:TRPG from FASA (all those years ago!) the Tholians were always the "mystery race" as far as the game went. No one was ever allowed to play them as a PC, and the books went as far as to say that would never occur, and no stats would be generated to do so. Didn't seem to be a bad idea...having a little "unknown" is always good for story telling.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 06:44 pm: Edit

In the SFU, the Andromedans are the mystery race. Their robots are seen all too often ... as boarding parties.

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 06:06 pm: Edit

My point was that from the RPG perspective, characters come first and should be our primary focus. Once that's taken care of, then we get to other things. The big question I'm curious about is tech levels. Both GURPS and D20 have some sort of tech level system, but D6 doesn't really. At least not in the basic D6 Space book. Is there a tech level system in one of the supplements, maybe we could use that, or would we just have to devise our own? TLs give easy breakpoints for technology and equipment, instead of having to list the date of introduction and any significant upgrades to each individual piece of equipment.

By Dave Adams (Roguecop) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:22 pm: Edit

To piggyback on Knarf (above)...

For those unfamiliar with d6 mechanics, it is a much more "cinematic" approach to RPGs; that's why my game group loved it. Yes, we play d20 games, and other rules-intensive tabletop games as well, but that was why we changed-up to d6 SW:TRPG for a couple of years. We needed a break from all the high-tech, rules-lawyering stuff.

I am hoping that whomever creates the d6 game for the SFU keeps that in mind. To over-tech the space combat would likely be nothing more than an SFB or FC rehash.