Well the short flurry over publications and playtesting and lack of feedback,
made my mind wander back to the days of WOW and SUS.
One of the reasons, I think, that human players are more prevalent then us
alien ones, is that the humans have a far larger selection of options. So with
that in mind I've been thinking up some new swag for the SV in FT. I also hope
to come up with something for BDS, unless there's some design concepts already
in the works.
There are some old concepts that I came up with a few years back that I still
think are a good idea in concept. So I figured I'd start with them and then
move on to some newer ideas.
> ---- Jaime Tiampo <fugugaipan@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
What does this mean??
Can you explain what this means and how it is supposed to work.
One of the things that doesn't work very well for the SV ships is that apart
from the drives and stinger nodes they don't get any mass reductions in their
systems. SV shields effectively cost twice as much
mass as a human tech shield (mass of system + mass of generators).
One of the other things about SV ships is that if they get cripplies they
often can't generate enough power to jump.
Things that might be useful for SV would be the 3 hull rows used in the UN
fleets.
More systems that use up more energy are not good systems for SV ships.
If you want to expand the range of options available to SV ships then maybe
you want to look at different kinds of nodes. Changes to the pod launchers so
they are useful for something other than pod launchers.
If the lance pod is supposed to be the primary AP weapon of the SV then
it needs to be a bit better than a pulse torpedo with a -1 to hit that
does a point of damage to it's own ship.
G'day,
> So to start the discussion:
Has this seen table time? I like the concept I'm just wondering how often it
would be used (I guess less against the KV for instance), I know as an SV
player it hurts a lot to repair stuff as you see your hull shrivel in front of
your eyes and by yur own hand;)
G'day,
> Endocrine System: MASS 50% Carapace allocated
I had interpreted it to mean that the system itself costs 50% of the initial
carapace mass (i.e. at design time) and then in game to use it
costs 1 biomass box + 1 power point from the repair pool for every
carapace box regenerated (done during the normal repair phase of the turn).
Cheers
On Thu, March 8, 2007 1:50 pm, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au said:
> G'day,
Correct.
On Thu, March 8, 2007 1:25 pm, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au said:
> G'day,
No table time yet. I want to hash out some feedback with the group first.
It's almost useless against KV, but then so are shields ;-)
On Thu, March 8, 2007 1:22 pm, john_tailby@xtra.co.nz said:
> ---- Jaime Tiampo <fugugaipan@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
Beth is correct.
> One of the things that doesn't work very well for the SV ships is that
I agree. That's why I stopped using them. The mass/power is better
allocated elsewhere.
> One of the other things about SV ships is that if they get cripplies
True. I've lost a lot of ships trying to repair power generators. It's one of
the most frustrating things playing SV. They realistically loose 50% of their
effectiveness after the first row.
> Things that might be useful for SV would be the 3 hull rows used in
That's actually one of the ideas I was going to bring out eventually. Changing
to that though is a big difference. You'd have to divide power into thirds, so
you're loosing 33% effectiveness or 66% if you try and repair. I'd almost
think that MORE hull rows would drain power slower then less.
> More systems that use up more energy are not good systems for SV
Well won't all systems to that? Isn't that the whole shtick of the race?
;-)
> If you want to expand the range of options available to SV ships then
I've got some ideas for things like that too. For instance I've been trying to
put some numbers down for a lightning node. Power is allocated to it in turn 1
and held like a capacitor for a turn. Next turn you fire a stinger node and
for each hit from the stinger you apply D6 damager like a grazer.
Trying to figure out range limits and stuff so that it's viable, but not some
sort of super weapon.
> If the lance pod is supposed to be the primary AP weapon of the SV
I agree. I don't even use lance pods. To me they're more anti ordinance
launchers. I'd like the Pod Launcher re evaluated.
I would like to see rules for ships that combine the organic and mechanical
systems.
Andrew Apter Wizzard Software Corp. Deerfield Beach, FL offices
(954) 678-4155 Ext. 213 Voice
(954) 678-4182 FAX
http://www.wizzardsoftware.com
[quoted original message omitted]
Can you repair generators? I didn't think you could repair them. They don't
take threshold tests like normal systems they are just destroyed when you
reach the end of the row.
Are they affected by needle weapons?
What about EMP?
Or in order to repair the hull damage do you transfer biomass between ships
equipped with a drone womb by making a squadron of fighters and having it
transfer to the new ship to replace the damaged hull boxes?
The idea of having mixed standard and organic tech is that all you would
keep from the organic ship would be the power generators main drives and
stingers.
So you would end up with a starfleet battle type ship with the ability to
allocate power between engines and weapons. Every other system is better
from the standard tech.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lHi
Can you explain to a lurker why SV ships do not have non-structural
biomass? Both MT & FT2 say the ships are designed living entities, but ships
with pod launchers and drone wombs have to consume their own structure to use
them. ThatÂs like me consuming muscle when I exercise instead of fat. If in
extremis (eg equivalent of starving, all reserves gone) then use structural
biomass, but it always seemed strange that SV ships destroy themselves to
fight. Did I join the list too late and miss this discussion?
Surely when a ship reaches the size to mount a pod launcher or drone womb they
would also have an option to lay down spare biomass, which could be used to
make pods and drones or even be used to replace carapace and perhaps even
structural biomass in campaign games. These ships are designed by an ancient
race after all and should have some advantages other Âyounger races just
cannot get. Yes, it would make them more expensive, but also more capable.
Regards
Ian
> Jaime Tiampo <fugugaipan@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
On Thu, March 8, 2007 1:22 pm, john_tailby@xtra.co.nz said:
> ---- Jaime Tiampo wrote:
Beth is correct.
> One of the things that doesn't work very well for the SV ships is that
I agree. That's why I stopped using them. The mass/power is better
allocated elsewhere.
> One of the other things about SV ships is that if they get cripplies
True. I've lost a lot of ships trying to repair power generators. It's one of
the most frustrating things playing SV. They realistically loose 50% of their
effectiveness after the first row.
> Things that might be useful for SV would be the 3 hull rows used in
That's actually one of the ideas I was going to bring out eventually. Changing
to that though is a big difference. You'd have to divide power into thirds, so
you're loosing 33% effectiveness or 66% if you try and repair. I'd almost
think that MORE hull rows would drain power slower then less.
> More systems that use up more energy are not good systems for SV
Well won't all systems to that? Isn't that the whole shtick of the race?
;-)
> If you want to expand the range of options available to SV ships then
I've got some ideas for things like that too. For instance I've been trying to
put some numbers down for a lightning node. Power is allocated to it in turn 1
and held like a capacitor for a turn. Next turn you fire a stinger node and
for each hit from the stinger you apply D6 damager like a grazer.
Trying to figure out range limits and stuff so that it's viable, but not some
sort of super weapon.
> If the lance pod is supposed to be the primary AP weapon of the SV
I agree. I don't even use lance pods. To me they're more anti ordinance
launchers. I'd like the Pod Launcher re evaluated.
Jaime
> On 3/9/07, Ian Downing <iandowning112@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Can you explain to a lurker why SV ships do not have non-structural
If you punch an overweight person in the stomach, the fat still acts as a
protective cushion.
If you were going to carry biomass "fat" to build drones out of, would you put
it in the middle of the ship in a blob where it does nothing? Or would you
place it around the outside of the hull or along internal "bulkheads" where it
works to seal punctures, shore up structural members, add to the structural
integrity and protect the ship?
Note that the biomass for production is consumed is from the opposite end of
the biomass damage track. Does it not make more sense that the SV would take
their production biomass and put it to some good use while it is not being
used to produce drones, rather than just have it sit there as so much useless
mass?
In other words, the biomass damage track is sufficiently vague that it could
be interpreted, PSB wise, in any number of ways.
It might be interesting to come up with a biomass track for production, so
that a ship could not cannibalize itself beyond a certain level. If that were
the case, the SV ship design system would have to be redesigned. In all
likelihood the number of structural biomass boxes would be lowered, so the
ships would need their cost
re-evaluated, and probably lowered. The end result wouldn't be that
much different than happens now, except that a ship that never used its drone
wombs could be destroyed after all structural biomass is gone even though it
still has production biomass. You'd end up lowering the tactical complexity of
the SV, removing a sometimes tough decision from the player's control, and
making them a little less interesting to play.
Then you'd get people arguing, "Hey, if it can use biomass to produce
constructs and drones, why can't it use that biomass to protect the hull?" and
we'd be back where we are now.
> John Tailby wrote:
> Can you repair generators? I didn't think you could repair them.
The FB2 Sa'Vasku rules explicitly say that you can.
> Are they affected by needle weapons? What about EMP?
No to both. [Official] post-FB2 statements equated Power Generators with
"Core Systems" wrt vulnerability to special-damage weapons; and neither
Needle Beams nor EMPs can damage Core Systems.
Regards,