"Starships" Questions

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
LOL! :) Dude, build your own! That's what's so great about RPGs! :)

Counting the exact number of shuttlecraft/fighters on a vessel isn't really that important, as VOY has shown us. :) Much like counting the number of torpedoes you're carrying. ;)

So, honestly, you going to run a battle with an Akira, a couple of Dominion ships and 21 fighters? :D

---

Now, that's what I wanted to hear! I'll be happy to play with you anytime! You reminded me that the system is to create the spirit of the design- not the nuts and bolts.

Thanks again, Don!:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Powers
Now, that's what I wanted to hear! I'll be happy to play with you anytime! You reminded me that the system is to create the spirit of the design- not the nuts and bolts.

Thanks again, Don!:)

---

[High-fives Cmdr Powers] Keep the faith, buddy! :D

For everyone else I refer them to the sidebar on page 6 of "Starships." ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Aside from the dialog in "Balance of Terror" I think it's pretty silly to say the Romulans have no warp technology, especially since ENT has shown the Romulans galavanting about the galaxy nearly 100 prior. But, that's just me. :)

---

I agree with you...I just don't see how the Romulans were able to have an empire without significant warp technology (and fight an extended war with Earth 100 years earlier :) ).

One thought I had to simulate Romulan "magnetic bottle" warp drives was to attach a no cost flaw that forces Romulan ships prior to 2268 to "refuel" after every use of the drive (requiring some indeterminate amount of time, yada yada yada). Following the 2268 treaty, all Romulan ships are reverse engineered to correct this problem.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately my shitty copy is unreadable so I'll have to take your word on this! :D Perhaps the weapons section was reversed or something? I'll take a look at this ship as soon as someone sends me a readable copy of the book.

---

I was mainly making an observation on this one...based on what I thought would be logical for an upgrade. :) Of course, it may have been a typo (maybe copied over from the B'rel/K'vort page, which does have use the K-GDM-2). Otherwise, I'm absolutely pleased with everything I've seen in the book....and I have about 50-75 ships to rework. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
I agree with you...I just don't see how the Romulans were able to have an empire without significant warp technology (and fight an extended war with Earth 100 years earlier :) ).

---

Ideally, now that we've covered the bulk of the UFP ships, I'd like to see another volume of Starships with more of an alien slant -- more gear, Traits, and especially maneuvers, aimed at factions like the Romulans.

Quote:

---

One thought I had to simulate Romulan "magnetic bottle" warp drives was to attach a no cost flaw that forces Romulan ships prior to 2268 to "refuel" after every use of the drive (requiring some indeterminate amount of time, yada yada yada). Following the 2268 treaty, all Romulan ships are reverse engineered to correct this problem.

---

Nice idea.

hate to sound like the official nitpicker here :( ... plz don't throw bricks at me (!)

but last night as I was working on another design I realised that some ships showed weapon reliability discrepancies in the same fashion as propulsion reliability glitches.

here's the list:

K'Vort
K'tinga
Negh'Var
Vor'Cha
D'deridex
Theta
Borg Scout

Also last night I realized something: I had one impulse engine rated at D and a warp system rated at CC. Now I would have to pick the lowest of the two but then it occured to me that CC is actually a better rating than D. The way I see it is that with D a system can sustain 3 hits, each hit with a penalty that cumulates, and a last hit that renders the system inoperational. With CC you can also sustain 3 hits (plus a fourth coup de grace) but 2 of those hits actually carry a penalty while the very first hit is a freeby. Hence a CC-rated system being better than a D-rated one. So for my ship I picked what I perceived to be the "lowest" rating and thus made both "Ds".

I made a list showing the ratings from the most brittle to the most solid ones:

A
B
AA
C
BB
D
CC
E
DD
F
EE
FF


-snake runs around dodging the bricks thrown at him-

My point-of-view-only, of course, since I'm not Don.

I am not hurl;ing any bricks either, Snake, I enjoy your nitpicks.

Anyone can value the extra hit durability of the AA/BB/CC/DD/EE/ etc. However, it is the actual change of letters which call for various damage effects to occur (Going from F to E, E to D etc).

I think the spirirt of the Starships design is that the letters signify which is better or worse, and that the double letters don't change that. Hence, the value list would be (going from lowest to highest):

A
AA
B
BB
C
CC
D
DD
E
EE
F
FF

In your example, in choosing the worst, it would be the CC not the D.

I actually agree with Snake's argument, the CC is "better" than the D in a fight (durability). The reliability mod is not as high however (as I recall, I am at work and don;t have the book with me), which lends credence to ImperialOne's suggestion that a D is "better" than a CC (fucntionality). In the end, I guess it depends on what you are going for (functionality vs. durability) and how you want to justify it in your backstory

Examples:

• The system was cutting edge at the time but has not been replaced (delicate but higher functionality = D).
• The panel works when you smack it, taking a hit to the system just makes it work better (greater durability - at least the first time= CC).

Okay, I have a question on the application of the prototype edge flaw, that doesn't seem inherently clear as I thumb through the ships that use it.

The description on p. 27 states: "Take one value of an installed system and 'shift' that value up or down..."

Okay, does this mean that if I have the PB-32 Mod 3 warp drive (wf 6/7/8) with the Prototype (warp drive, speed +1) edge, does the PB-32's speed increase to wf 7/9/12? Or, does only one of the three ratings increase by one column (to, say 6/7/12)?

On the same note, does the reliability move along the A, AA, B... route, or does it move along the chart of the appropriate system (which may not follow the linear progression from A-F)?
----------------------------------
Also, Snake and Imperial One, there is no reliability rating "FF."

Sea Tyger:
If the prototype is meant to be in your favour, I believe the column shift is meant to shift the entire set of values to the next favorable one in the table (i.e. for beam weapons, a favourable one shift makes Pen from 6/5/5/0/0 to 6/6/6/0/0).

Thanks about the FF, I don't have my book here at work with me. Hey, I was only using it as an example. I stand corrected.

Charles

Quote:

---

Also, Snake and Imperial One, there is no reliability rating "FF."

---

some of the Borg ships' systems do have a FF rating.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
some of the Borg ships' systems do have a FF rating.

---

You're right, but it may be a typo. Class 4R ops and life support systems are rating EE, and the reliability chart only goes up to F.

Quote:

---

You're right, but it may be a typo. Class 4R ops and life support systems are rating EE, and the reliability chart only goes up to F.

---

that was my first thought (typo) but then I thought that maybe it was some sort of exception for the Borg since they are so, well, kick-ass ;) But if I had to bet I'd say 'typo'. OTOH a FF rating would be easy to conceive as you'd simply ignore the first damage box.

Quote:

---

The reliability mod is not as high however (as I recall, I am at work and don;t have the book with me), which lends credence to ImperialOne's suggestion that a D is "better" than a CC (fucntionality)

---

and that is something that further confused me- you are correct; a system rated BB is more durable in combat than a system rated C but it is less reliable (a system rated BB has a +3 mod while a system rated C has a +4) ... and just to get even more confused if you look at table 1.6 (ops + ls costs) you realize that a system with a BB rating will cost the same as a system rated D, which is both superior in reliability and durability.

One thing I was wondering even before 'Starships' came out: when you have a wide difference in reliability between 2 "cousin" systems (impulse/warp; beam/missile) such as one being 'A' and the other 'E' instead of picking the worst of the two how about averaging them out? For instance if we take the example above (A and E) both systems could be given 'C's.

Lastly I know that the system is not meant to be really 'tight' and the point of all this is too clarify things a bit- in the end it doesn't make that much of a difference if your escort frigate has weapons'reliability set at D instead of CC when 3 Jem'Hadar ships are pounding on it :D

ah and for the record, which goes to show you, I have this rule whereas if I go over in space cost I can cram up to 5 'freebie' space points- so if I'm designing a size 8 warship (119 pts of space) and I my final tally is 123 then as long as I'm within 5 of 119 its fine. I find that useful when designing large ships that are supposed to have a lot of systems at the same time (ie a large klingon or romulan assault vessel of some kind which means lots of systems like weapons, strong shields, a cloak, transporters and shuttlebays)

ah yes I forgot also:

Quote:

---

I think the spirirt of the Starships design is that the letters signify which is better or worse, and that the double letters don't change that. Hence, the value list would be (going from lowest to highest):

---

I would think so too. And I personally would prefer in a way to keep things that way because with a straight logical progression you can compare the relative ratings easily, whereas if you go by 'effect' you'll get headaches in no time (ie :"why is C only a step above AA?" or "wait what's better again DD or E?")

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
LOL! :) Dude, build your own! That's what's so great about RPGs! :)

---

Have to agree with Don here, I am working on a carrier now for Starfleet fighters. Size 8 I think or maybe 9 have not decided yet but should do the job effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lt Cmdr Matt
Have to agree with Don here, I am working on a carrier now for Starfleet fighters. Size 8 I think or maybe 9 have not decided yet but should do the job effectively.

---

That's fine. The point is to create the 'feel' of what you're looking for and come up with the closest thing. Don just showed me that the Akira in the book is already what I wanted, by pointing out how the rules work for you.

By all means, show us your carrier, but I think I'll go ahead and stick with the one we already have that's already a canon part of the ST universe.

Quote:

---

you realize that a system with a BB rating will cost the same as a system rated D, which is both superior in reliability and durability.

---

I take that back partially; a D rating is actually equal to a BB rating in terms of durability- a BB rating has 1 damage box with penalty, one final "system screwed" box and a "freebie"; a D rating has 3 damage boxes with penalty and the final box, so it has one extra box (advantage) negated by the fact that it carries a penalty. Hence equal systems and the same cost. Although in the reliability dept D still wins (+6 over +3)

gee... I should have been an accountant :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
gee... I should have been an accountant :)

---

The wonderful world of chartered accountancy. :p

As many have noticed, the new double ratings (AA, BB, etc) are a little difficult to quantify as far as which is "best." That's intentional. :) You starship designers will have to determine what's better for your vessels.

A system with a double rating gets that additional hit for 'free' in essence, but can not remain in operation as long as a comparable system. It's a tradeoff of reliability versus durability as Snake has pointed out.

I prefer to think of a system with a double rating as older and hardened, able to take more punishment. However these systems lack finesse and flair versus their more modern counterparts. Those systems (single rating systems) can do more and have better overall ratings but when they fail, they fail hard. It adds a new, interesting twist to the system that I enjoy. :)

Oh, there are not officially any systems rated "FF" although that really isn't a big deal; as someone pointed out you would just mark off that first hit as free and treat as an "F" system from that point forward. Don't know what cost they used for that "FF" if it was done intentionally. (Is probably a typo.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
The description on p. 27 states: "Take one value of an installed system and 'shift' that value up or down..."

Okay, does this mean that if I have the PB-32 Mod 3 warp drive (wf 6/7/8) with the Prototype (warp drive, speed +1) edge, does the PB-32's speed increase to wf 7/9/12? Or, does only one of the three ratings increase by one column (to, say 6/7/12)?

---

Prototype is the most complex piece of "Starships" and I'm not surprised that you might find confusing. You're pretty close in your understanding.

Essentially, you take your base system and you're shifting 'rows.' Up or down has no meaning; the result of the shift--making an item better or worse--is what we're interested in.

In your example the PB-32 Mod 3 WD with a Speed +1 shift would alter that engine's speed ratings to 6/7/12 and only its speed rating. In this particular example you're allowed to shift that PB-32 Mod 3 +2 (to 8/10/13) or -6 (1/2/4). Remember, those plusses and minuses are relative to you gaining or losing functionality. On some systems, depending on the column, three row shifts "up" the page could provide 1 bonus and 2 penalties.

If it improves a system its a positive shift. If its detrimental to the system its a negative shift.

Quote:

---

On the same note, does the reliability move along the A, AA, B... route, or does it move along the chart of the appropriate system (which may not follow the linear progression from A-F)?

---

It moves along the chart.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImperialOne
Sea Tyger:
If the prototype is meant to be in your favour, I believe the column shift is meant to shift the entire set of values to the next favorable one in the table (i.e. for beam weapons, a favourable one shift makes Pen from 6/5/5/0/0 to 6/6/6/0/0).

---

This is incorrect as a Beam or Missile weapon can only have their Offensive Value shifted; not their Penetration. (An important distinction.)

For example, the Prototype (Beam +1 OV) to a Type VIII phaser would alter it thus: 5 Space, 9 OV, 5 Min Size for an additional cost of 2 Space (the cost of the Trait).

Okay, why do that? In this manner you've effectively got a Type IX phaser that can be mounted on a Size 5 vessel (Type IX phaser can only be mounted on a Size 6 or larger) for a total net cost of 7 space. Prototype lets you do very interesting alterations and essentially take any of the 250+ systems in "Starships" and build your own on the fly. (Previously you would have had to use Unique System for 5 Space.)

Quote:

---

You starship designers will have to determine what's better for your vessels.

---

so if I have an impulse system rated at D and a warp engine rated CC I can either rule that D is better than CC and make them both 'CC's or go the other way around and slap'em with 'D's (?)

Quote:

---

I believe the column shift is meant to shift the entire set of values to the next favorable one in the table

---

ok so if I decide to have a class 3 cloak (rating 20) with the protoype edge do I pick the next highest value in the table (class 4 cloak 22) and make it '22' or do I award a simple +1 bonus (21)? If I award a +1 bonus it'll cost me 2 space pts- but if I choose the enhanced system (cloaking device) edge I get a +2 but at a cost of 5 space.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin

In your example the PB-32 Mod 3 WD with a Speed +1 shift would alter that engine's speed ratings to 6/7/12 and only its speed rating...

---

Okay, then the Delta Flyer may have a typo in its warp rating. :) So, just for clarification, we are counting the net shift in functionality (+2 to -6 in the case of WD speed ratings) of the prototype device. And, that when the speed rating of the WD is shifted, it shifts all three values together (cruising, max. sustainable, and maximum emergency).

On a side note: I have a size 5 ship (okay, it's the Mediterranean-class frigate) that has a separation system. If I wanted to install the FIG impulse engine (requiring me to purchase two units), do I have to purchase two units for each section if I want both separated systems to have impulse capability?

Or, by virtue of the fact that the component parts are likely at least a size smaller than the original vessel, will one pair of impuse engines...one unit on the saucer, the other on the stardrive...be sufficient to drive both sections when separated?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
so if I have an impulse system rated at D and a warp engine rated CC I can either rule that D is better than CC and make them both 'CC's or go the other way around and slap'em with 'D's (?)

---

You took my comment entirely out of context. I was referring to choices that starship designers have when installing systems with these new Reliability ratings.

The chart of ratings and their scale from worst to best is on page 9.

Quote:

---

ok so if I decide to have a class 3 cloak (rating 20) with the protoype edge do I pick the next highest value in the table (class 4 cloak 22) and make it '22'

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Okay, then the Delta Flyer may have a typo in its warp rating.

---

Yep, this is a known typo. The Delta Flyer should have an LF-9X4.

Quote:

---

So, just for clarification, we are counting the net shift in functionality (+2 to -6 in the case of WD speed ratings) of the prototype device. And, that when the speed rating of the WD is shifted, it shifts all three values together (cruising, max. sustainable, and maximum emergency).

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

On a side note: I have a size 5 ship (okay, it's the Mediterranean-class frigate) that has a separation system. If I wanted to install the FIG impulse engine (requiring me to purchase two units), do I have to purchase two units for each section if I want both separated systems to have impulse capability?

---

Yes. See the rules on page 10 for more details. You can get a space reduction if the components can only be used when separated, however.

Quote:

---

Or, by virtue of the fact that the component parts are likely at least a size smaller than the original vessel, will one pair of impuse engines...one unit on the saucer, the other on the stardrive...be sufficient to drive both sections when separated?

---

Nope. Nice try. :)

Oi. I can see the Federation-class is going to give me a headache just because of the emergency separation system....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Nope. Nice try. :)

---

Well, I had to make the attempt. :) Oh, and for the record, I'm now finished with all of my 23rd Century starships and the Starfleet 2300-2339 ships. :cool: Only the 2340-present Starfleet ships and the 24th Century Romulan and Gorn fleets to go.... :eek: :D

call me slow but I just want to confirm if I've gotten the prototype rule correctly:

the numbers (like +2 or -4) do NOT represent the actual numerical value you grant to a system but the # of systems you go up/down within a given chart (like alien sublight engine chart or the sensors chart). So if you have the following on (say) the shield table:

shield A: 17 2/5
shield B: 17 2/5
shield C: 18 2/6

then you have a ship with shield A at 17/4 (you bought 2 extra treshold pts); you want to 'prototype' the treshold value of the shield to a '6'- the next highest treshold value after shield A on the table is shield C. Now, does that mean you have to purchase the prototype edge twice?
Also, if you have shield C, which is the end of the chart, that means you cannot 'prototype' shield C?

also, regarding the reliability ratings- in cases like weapons and propulsion taking the lowest of the 2, does that apply to reliability tests? Can you make a reliability test specifically for (say) the impulse engines or the torpedo launchers? If so then I could see why both reliability ratings (say for impulse + warp if they're different) would be indicated.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
So if you have the following on (say) the shield table:

shield A: 17 2/5
shield B: 17 2/5
shield C: 18 2/6

then you have a ship with shield A at 17/4 (you bought 2 extra treshold pts); you want to 'prototype' the treshold value of the shield to a '6'- the next highest treshold value after shield A on the table is shield C. Now, does that mean you have to purchase the prototype edge twice?

---

Prototype is a variable cost Trait; you never buy it multiple times unless for different systems, as outlined in the book.

In the example above you did two shifts (+2) for a total cost of 4 space.

It's worth pointing out that as per page 27 a Defensive System can only have a maximum positive shift of +1 for your Threshold so your above example is illegal (although you understand the process).

Quote:

---

Also, if you have shield C, which is the end of the chart, that means you cannot 'prototype' shield C?

---

Yes you can but only down the chart in a 'negative' fashion. Prototype also allows you to take deficencies in a system. Again, as outlined in the book. As as per Table 1.25 only Protection and Reliability can have negative shifts.

Quote:

---

also, regarding the reliability ratings- in cases like weapons and propulsion taking the lowest of the 2, does that apply to reliability tests?

---

You never take the lowest of the two for weapons. See the NG page 142 for how to calculate weapon reliability ratings. This rule has not changed.

Quote:

---

Can you make a reliability test specifically for (say) the impulse engines or the torpedo launchers?

---

No. A Reliability test for the weapons systems reflects the systems as a whole; not individual components. That's why you use the aggregate OV to calculate weapon reliability ratings.

thanks for the clarifications;

Quote:

---

You never take the lowest of the two for weapons. See the NG page 142 for how to calculate weapon reliability ratings. This rule has not changed.

---

DOH! I knew I was doing something out of whack !!! I thought it was really weird when you had a lot of (say) beam weapons and a low launcher value, by taking the lowest of the two I often ended up with 'A' or 'B' ratings even though I had like 6 beam weapons.

Quote:

---

It's worth pointing out that as per page 27 a Defensive System can only have a maximum positive shift of +1 for your Threshold

---

so basically you cannot improve Shield A's treshold value with the prototype edge, but you cold do it for Shield B (?)

Thanks again (!)

I have another Q (hey guys why are you wielding those bricks?)

I was looking at the Ambassador and it says it has a beam penetration of 6/6/6/0/0 but above it says that it has only a pair of type IX phasers, which should give 4/4/4/0/0. ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
I was looking at the Ambassador and it says it has a beam penetration of 6/6/6/0/0 but above it says that it has only a pair of type IX phasers, which should give 4/4/4/0/0. ?

---

Your figures are correct, however I looked at my handwritten build sheet (that I built all the ships with) and I show the Ambassador having Type IX x6 phasers for an OV of 54 and a 6/6/6/0/0 beam penetration. So, until I reverse-engineer the ship against my notes I'm tempted to say that line of "Type IX (x2/E) is a typo and should read "Type IX (x6/E)". The rest of the ship appears to be correct.

Hi Don,

I wanna say thank you and your crew for Starships. Its great and i love it. I'm looking forward to more :).

Questions:

1. Will there be an errata thread, like the one for NG and PG?

2. I was wondering if there's any typos in the Romulan BOP section? If i'm reading that section right... the modified BOP has no cloaking device..is this correct?

Do the space limits based on Ship Size (Table 1.3) indicate a hard maximal limit. If so, what about the spaces between any two given sizes (i.e. Size 6 has 81, Size 7 has 99 spaces)?

Finally, if one were going to add an extra system (say an extra Phaser X to an Intrepid Class Explorer that the PCs have their campaign based around) would they pay for 6 spaces AND the 5 picks to install the new system, OR just the five picks?

Thanks.
Charles

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Space_Cadet
1. Will there be an errata thread, like the one for NG and PG?

---

I have a copy of the book at last and am reviewing for potential errata. I'll then submit that list to the Line Developer (Jesse) to evaluate and then it'll be made available to Doug to post.

Quote:

---

2. I was wondering if there's any typos in the Romulan BOP section? If i'm reading that section right... the modified BOP has no cloaking device..is this correct?

---

I haven't made it that far so I'll have to review.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImperialOne
Do the space limits based on Ship Size (Table 1.3) indicate a hard maximal limit. If so, what about the spaces between any two given sizes (i.e. Size 6 has 81, Size 7 has 99 spaces)?

---

For abstraction purposes we don't track the amount of space between two sizes. As a rule of thumb (it may even be in the NG or Starships) a vessel should fall within two dimensions of a size (height, beam, or width) to qualify for that size.

Quote:

---

Finally, if one were going to add an extra system (say an extra Phaser X to an Intrepid Class Explorer that the PCs have their campaign based around) would they pay for 6 spaces AND the 5 picks to install the new system, OR just the five picks?

---

If their vessel has enough excess space they pay just the 5 picks. However, if they don't have space then they'll need to purchase that first (6). Remember that any systems 'refunded' count towards their available space. This doesn't matter if they're keeping the existing systems.

Don: first off, stellar work on this one, though I notice Decipher managed to screw up your authoring credit on yet another book; they're one for three so far...

Second, I must say I'm annoyed by who/what ever is responsible for the layout snafus in the starship listings. Most are just fine, but some writeups look like they randomly sorted the entries. Someone needs to hunt down that problem and shoot it now, before it gets worse.

Thirdly, I've got some Prototype edge questions. I was trying to figure out how it works from comparing the wording with how it is used in the ship writeups, and some of it just does not make sense.

Several ships have Prototype (+1 Missile) to increase their missile offensive value enough to reach the next penetration category, but according to Table 1.25 this is not possible.

How does Prototyping a weapon work? Is +/-1 a shift up/down one category on either Table 1.17 or 1.18, or does it directly change the offensive value (a 24 into a 25/23, for example)? The Constitution refit has Prototype (+1 Missile), but if the latter case is true, this only increases the Offensive Value to 9, not enough to boost it to 4/4/4/4/4 penetration. The Nova class has Prototype (-3 Beam), but if the former case is true its penetration should be lowered to 3/3/2/0/0 (leaving aside entirely the fact that Table 1.25 only allows a -1 beam Offensive Value shift). Either way one of the Starfleet ships has to be wrong.

If I'm reading your explanation of Snake's example right, then Prototyping a system is stepping up/down on the appropriate table. If so, how does one explain the Nebula w/ Tactical Pod's Prototype (+1 Sensor) giving it a sensor bonus of +5? One step up on table 1.7 from Class 4 sensors is Class 4a, which has the same set of bonuses; you'd need Prototype (+2 Sensors) to reach a bonus of +5. Similarly, the Sovereign class has Prototype (+1 Warp reliability), giving its LF-44 engines a D reliability (normally C). But one step up Table 1.11 is the LF-45, also reliability C, and one step up Table 1.4 from reliability C is reliability CC. So how does the Sovereign get a D reliability?

Is Prototype just not well explained in the book, did someone make a lot of errors in utilizing it to create ships, or am I just slow?:confused:

On a closing note, I did notice that someone slipped in mention of Commodore Dan Stack, and the Galaxy-class USS Venture as well. Nice to see the forums becoming part of the game.:D

-Chris Landmark

Both the NG and Starships write-ups for the Intrepid Class Explorer indicate D reliability ratings for both the NG phaser array [Type X (x3/D)] 5/5/4/0/0 and the Starships [Type X (x4/D)] 6/5/5/0/0

The point is both NG (30) and Starships (40) offensive values would seem to make the reliability rating at C. I feel I must be missing something... am I?

Thanks.
Charles

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImperialOne
Both the NG and Starships write-ups for the Intrepid Class Explorer indicate D reliability ratings for both the NG phaser array [Type X (x3/D)] 5/5/4/0/0 and the Starships [Type X (x4/D)] 6/5/5/0/0

The point is both NG (30) and Starships (40) offensive values would seem to make the reliability rating at C. I feel I must be missing something... am I?

---

I have no books with me but it sounds like you're forgetting the rule that to calculate your reliability for your weapons array (both beam and missle) you add their OV together and use that aggregate value to determine their rating.

You never take the lowest of the two for weapons. See the NG page 142 for how to calculate weapon reliability ratings. This rule has not changed.

Thanks... I can't believe I forgot about adding the beam and missile OV together.

Charles

Don-

Are there any rules for building pods for ships (tactical, sensor, etc.) or is a matter of using un-allocated space?

Will there be anything more specific on building space-stations (I have some ideas for space-dock facilities)?