Give me your Coda Q's and Feedback (Good and Bad)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancer


Now if that is what happens as the effect of a Disengage maneuver, when do you warp away?

I am asking, 'cause the last two sentences of the maneuvers description read: "In either case, this maneuver leaves your ship vulnerable to attack. Your ship suffers a -5 penalty to its protection until your next helm maneuver."
The duration for a Disengage is "Instant", but if you just warp away as soon as you execute the maneuver you wouldn't suffer any measurable penalty as you are not gonna make any more helm maneuvers since combat is over. That would make Disengage an extremly usefull maneuver, especialy against a single opponent where the difficulty isn't very difficult at all.

OTOH if you warp away in the next round or something like that it should be mentioned in the text IMHO.

---

Here's how it works.

You decide to disengage.

You want to warp out
->You Succeed, you're out, end of story.
->You fail. -5 Protection until your next helm maneuver.

You decide to switch targets
->there is no test, you succeed, but you're at -5 to your next helm maneuver.

So the "in either case" means "Regardless of whether you're still there because you failed to warp out or because you switched targets, you're at -5.

If you're not still there because you succeeded in warping out, there is no -5.

Okay Matt, thanks for explaining that.

That said I still think the Disengage makes it too easy to get away from a single opponent compared to the Open maneuver.

The -5 doesn't make it much worse, as you can always declare a second helm maneuver with a Disengage. That way your next helm maneuver would happen before the enemy ship can act and therefore wouldn't trouble you at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancer
Okay Matt, thanks for explaining that.

---

No problem, always glad to help.

Quote:

---

That said I still think the Disengage makes it too easy to get away from a single opponent compared to the Open maneuver.

---

The open maneuver just increases your range, it doesn't get you out of the battle. If you want out of the battle, Open won't do it. If you want to just increase range, Disengage won't do it.

And getting away in Star Trek is always as simple as going to warp. The fact that Disengage requires a test and can be failed is controversial to some. Some people think you should just be able to push a button, go to warp, and be safe. After all, that's how it is in the show.

Quote:

---

The -5 doesn't make it much worse, as you can always declare a second helm maneuver with a Disengage. That way your next helm maneuver would happen before the enemy ship can act and therefore wouldn't trouble you at all. [/B]

---

What if you tried to disengage as your second maneuver?

1st - I don't think CharGen is difficult, but it would benefit from some chapter rearranging.
2nd - love the NG
3rd - like the ship pages in the NG except for 1 thing -- those multi-views of the ships are just way too dim. I'd like to actually see the ships on the page. Apologies to whoever made the layout decision, but IMO this was a poor one and should not be done this way in the upcoming ship book. I'd much rather have either 1) color pics like those in the ST:Encyclopedia, and LUG's Price of Freedom, or 2) simple grey-scale. In either case, I'd rather have white-backgrounded pages.

Thanx for listening,

-- Daniel

Just got the NG. Feedback based on initial read-through: the campaign stuff at the beginning is well done, though less than useful to me. The rules expanded on the one in the PG; I'm surprised by how complete the rules for play were, seeing these. They're just better arranged in the NG.

Ships & ship combat: love it from first view. Can't wait to try it out. The design is simple and still covers almost everything. I like the shields don't necessarily keep you from taking damage, even when they're still up. Well done. Agree with Sho-sa -- the ship schematics could be a bit more pronounced.

The creature, species, planet, etc. creation. Just bloody lovely.

The only mar on an otherwise perfect book: these various sheets at the end. You'd think Decipher would have learned from the abject failurde of teh character sheet...NO FRIGGIN' BLACK BACKGROUNDS!!

The layout's really tight, the production values high, and its information heavy. This one got knocked outta the park Don and co...

Out-freakin'-standing.

Now if we could just get a good character sheet (or get the good one finished...)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by C5
I'm a bit disappointed by the new Renown rules. I loved the Renown aspects, since it allowed me to sanction or award the different player's behaviour in the game. I'm gonna keep them anyway when I switch.

---

The ICON Renown aspects are taken into account in CODA, however, by the "Fame" and "Infamy" traits. There is no need to retain the aspects... you can just award an appropriate trait when the player's roleplay warrants it.

I really have to say...WOW!! I have been playing around with the Sector and System generation system and it is just great. It gives alot more info for making sectors and Systems interesting (at least for those of us who know next to nil on astrophysics :D)

In just the hour or so I came up with about 3 times the amount of sector info then I did with ICON system...I pretty much have the whole sector map out now. Yet another point for me to say "good job, guys."

Okay, here's a question on rules for two professional abilities.

The Caitian character I wrote up as an example of the race and some enlisted house rules I adopted is quite experienced and has a reputation of being a tinkerer. So, I thought it appropriate that he use the Innovative edge to take the Technophile and R&D Specialist abilities from the Scientist profession.

He also has the Engineering Expertise ability from his Starship Engineering Officer elite profession.

For Engineering Expertise, he receives half his Physical Science level (currently 9, so +5) as a bonus to one engineering skill and skill specialty. I chose Propulsion Engineering and Inmpule System specialty for Karl (he started as an impulse propulsion technician as an enlist).

Now, R&D Specialist grants the same bonus (half the Physical Science skill level, rounded up) to Construct and Repair tests (should the character choose to get the bonus and not the half time).

So, say Karl is in a situation where he is making repairs to the impulse engines. His Repair skill is level 12, and he purchased the Impulse Systems specialty for Repair. Allowing for the +1 to his Intellect and -1 for his Reckless flaw, he ends up with a +14 for repair of impulse engines (based only on his skill).

He chooses to add his R&D Spec bonus to the skill (vice reducing repair times), giving him a +17 for the roll.

Now, here's the question: since this is a repair of the impulse engines, does he also receive the bonus from Engineering Expertise, essentially giving him double the "half Physical Science skill level" bonus and a +22 to the test?

No he does not. The bonus from Engineering expertise is used only if making an Engineering test with the specific skill and speciality. However, he would get a +1 Affinity bonus to his Repair skill, since he has Propulsion Engineering (Impulse).

Okay, so to clarify, the Engineering Expertise applies to any test with the chosen engineering skill (Propulsion Engineering in this case) or with any engineering skill test (propulsion, systems or structural) that uses the chosen specialty (Impulse Systems in this case)?

Or, is it only, in Karl's case, applied when he makes a Propulsion Engineering (Impulse Systems) test?

Karl the Caitian? Well its better than some others I've heard as a GM. I had a player who made up "Fred the Ferengi" and I myself was working on "Tommy Tellarite" at one time. Of course thats just the tip of the iceberg...I had a player (trying to give me a hard time) make up "Shawn...the Wookie". Who knew the number of Stormtroopers that Shawn the Wookie would kill?

Well, Karl is short for Karlinarsti, who was originally a character in a number of (I think) Diane Duane's novels, as part of the security department.

"Karl" is a nickname bestowed upon the character by his human shipmates (for their own ease), and I've been playing this Caitian for nearly four years now. It's almost second nature for me to call him Karl.

Question for Doug/Don: The D'Deridex is classified as a battleship, but the classification also lists it as a "Heavy Warbird." Does this mean that the D'Deridex receives the "heavy vessel" bonus to beam weapon costs?

I'm trying to extrapolate my own rating system for plasma torpedoes to tide me over 'til the starships book comes out this Fall.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Well, Karl is short for Karlinarsti, who was originally a character in a number of (I think) Diane Duane's novels, as part of the security department.

"Karl" is a nickname bestowed upon the character by his human shipmates (for their own ease), and I've been playing this Caitian for nearly four years now. It's almost second nature for me to call him Karl.

---

That's what I figured. Its sort of like the Time Lords using shorter versions of thier full name...cause you don't got a week to say it. Thaydoxexcorontosholgonostobid...or simpy The Doctor...you decide.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth Sarcastic


That's what I figured. Its sort of like the Time Lords using shorter versions of thier full name...cause you don't got a week to say it. Thaydoxexcorontosholgonostobid...or simpy The Doctor...you decide.

---

No wonder the Time Lords developed the regenerative process. It take 3 incarnations to say their names.:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth Sarcastic


That's what I figured. Its sort of like the Time Lords using shorter versions of thier full name...cause you don't got a week to say it. Thaydoxexcorontosholgonostobid...or simpy The Doctor...you decide.

---

The scary part was that I was thinking about including The Doctor and Romana's conversation about just that as I was writing the post. :eek: