Star Trek 2009 Movie

[Captain Quirk]

Has anyone made the characters from the reimaged movie? I'd love to see an interpretation. (In fact, I'd love to see any CODA conversions that have been done for the movie.)

[PGoodman13]

I believe you'll find several ST-2009 conversions on my site (the URL is in my sig).

[Captain Quirk]

Thanks for the reply. All I can find is the new Enterprise and the Kelvin. Was there something else that you were referring to?

[IceGiant]

Wouldn't the characters be essentially the same as done in the coda books? They still are the tos characters just with the altered timeline. It's like the new enterprise no real reason to make new stats, just use what we have already as it's "supposed to be the same in the end.

[Captain Quirk]

My understanding is that the TOS characters in the books are at the end of the five year mission. In the movie, the characters have just graduated from Star Fleet at the end of the movie (at least that's what I think is happening).

[WarriorKnight]

Actually they haven't graduated so their skills shouldn't be anywhere near where they were in TOS(Kirk had at least 15 yrs in the fleet over his NuKirk counterpart).

[BaronVonStevie]

One thing I find makes ship building easier if you're going to convert is that you have to rework the scales. The new enterprise is a bit bigger than the D, but it's still supposed to be the original. I just say to heck with it. It's a size 6 ship.

As far as the characters go? They shouldn't be the same. Kirk is much younger and rasher. The prime kirk has like 11 years of experience before taking command of Enterprise. I don't think he's as tough or strong either as Kirk prime. Sulu is a much better combatant (especially with a sword; the prime Sulu only ran around with a foil because he was under the influence of an alien disease). They're not quite the same. Uhura was never able to speak all those languages. There are many other examples.

[Mazza]

Despite what has been claimed on commentaries and the like, I am of the opinion that the new Enterprise isn't supposed to be substantially bigger than the old one. This is based entirely on the look of the ship (and windows on it in particular) by itself, not judging its relative size to anything else seen on the screen. The general lack of attention to detail about scale of starships shown in Star Trek 2009 (which DS9 was even more guilty of lest anyone think I am just bashing JJ Trek) means that I don't think you can use any of the relative shots to establish a proper size.

There is a good discussion of this here:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...mment.htm#size

I would suggest that it is better to just use the established stats for the Constitution class to represent the Enterprise in Star Trek 2009. Put the on-screen differences down to visual effects differences only. I have seen people try to stat up ships with more phasers and torpedoes and shuttles etc based on the Trek 2009 continuity and I think it's a mistake to do with the system we find in the CODA books - because that system was made to represent ships from the original Trek. You might convince me that in Trek 2009 the Enterprise is meant to be more powerful than the Enteprise from the proper timeline, but you won't convince me that it is relatively better (i.e. whatever performance enhancements the new timeline made to the Enterprise, it also would have made to other ships of the Abramsverse). So from a gameplay perspective you won't run into trouble just keeping the original stats for both the Enterprise and her potential foes - they will be relatively the same anyway.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

(which DS9 was even more guilty of lest anyone think I am just bashing JJ Trek)

To be fair, both of them involve a huge number of composited shots containing dozens of ships; getting things 100% straight each time is probably not feasible in a weekly television show, especially when transitioning between physical and computer models. When they worked on BSG they probably had an easier time of it, since they had the time to sit down and construct models which fit together in a common scale reference (bsg->viper->raider->basestar) and build on that.

[Mazza]

Oh absolutely, especially in the case of DS9 the time for post production was much more limited than it would be for a motion picture as well.

But the whole basis for the JJ Enterprise being the size of the Enterprise D is one shot with a double-layered shuttle bay. Personally, I don't think that shot is worth us ignoring the rest of the evidence of the actual visual design and even the subsequent shot of Pike's shuttle which are more consistent with the JJ Enterprise being about the same size as the TMP Enterprise.

Evidently some people are too unwilling to admit the possibility that they might have made a mistake on a DVD commentary, and so instead we are supposed to believe that the ship is over 700m long. I guess half the decks just have no windows then.

[ILikePike]

I think there are a few technological differences between the starships depicted in NuTrek vs the prime universe. For example, the shuttle bays tend to be huge and shuttles are evidently the primary means of moving crew and supplies (ignoring the fact that evidently the transporter can reach Earth orbit from Titan something like 8.2 AU) and the fact that the phasers seem to be able to be employed in a defensive role like a modern navy CWIS system, so I think using the CODA stats for the ships as written isn't "accurate" or at least misses some of the flavor from the JJverse.

When my group gets together we homebrewed up a few ship design rules for NuTrek, such as shuttle bays can be installed up to the size of the ship, and we playtested point-defense phaser rules. If anyone's interested I'll write them up and post them.

But I agree the Connie is still a size 6 ship, thinking its a 1,200 meter long monster is silly IMO.

[ILikePike]

My group play tested these rules and we all thought it captured the idea of the Kelvin's battle against the Narada. I'd be very interested to see what other people think of the rule or if you've come up with your own. The only downside is that because it gives a Federation ship essentially a free defensive action per combat round, the restrictions need to be a bit weighty to balance it out and it reads like a small novella.

Dedicated Point-Defense:


Starfleet vessels have the option of mounting dedicated point-defense computers aboard their ships. Rather than solely rely on passive defenses such as shields these computers, when slaved to an appropriate phaser bank, greatly increase the overall protection of a Starfleet vessel. The computer will target all incoming projectiles designated by the acting vessel as hostile, and will allow the Tactical Officer to engage them with a minimum of effort.


The computers cost 5 space to install and must be slaved to a beam weapon system at installation. The vessel must have the available space to mount the phasers, and these phasers do not contribute to the weapon system reliability rating or offensive phaser penetration values. This configuration cannot be changed once installed unless the system is completely removed at a starbase and is then re-installed from scratch, a lengthy process that most engineers would prefer to avoid.


After installation, the computers will take over tracking and aiming the associated phaser banks, However as a fail-safe, firing of the point-defense phasers still requires the Tactical Officer to engage the firing system either on manual or automatic. If the system is set to manual firing mode, the computer will not automatically fire on incoming projectiles instead tracking them and alerting the tactical officer to fire if needed using the Manual Point-Defense tactical maneuver (STXI pp.xx). If the system is set to automatic, the computer takes over prioritization, aiming, and firing of the point-defense phasers. In game terms this means that the system will fire on projectiles fired from the the defending vessel’s primary target first, and if no missile weapons are fired from the primary target the system will fire on any projectiles fired from the closest enemy to the defending vessel; and if no missiles are fired from that ship, then the next closest and so forth. Like any other weapon system it can only fire once per combat round, so once the point-defense system engages a missile weapon it cannot fire on any other missile weapons that round. The point-defense computer has a Systems Operation: Tactical skill of 10 when engaging incoming projectiles. The base TN to successfully intercept an incoming missile is TN15; If the missile is fired at either close or point-blank ranges +3 TN or if the missile is fired from extreme or extreme + range -2 TN; additionally if the missile being intercepted is not fired from the primary target +1 TN. On any simple success subtract the dedicated point-defense beam weapon penetration value at medium range from the incoming missile weapon’s offensive penetration value, apply any remainder normally. For a complete success subtract the beam array’s penetration rating at close range, and for a superior success or greater use point-blank penetration.


In the event of the loss of the primary offensive phasers, the point-defense phasers may be disengaged from the targeting and tracking computers by making a Systems Operation: Tactical test TN10 and used in the normal manner. However, as these phasers were never tied into the main targeting and tracking system, they must be aimed and fired manually at a +5 TN to all Tactical tests made with the weapons array. Further, while the computers are disengaged, the phasers cannot be used in a defensive capacity unless the Tactical Officer is attempting to intercept incoming warheads manually. Finally, the point-defense phasers may not be used offensively while slaved to the point-defense computer. Because of this limitation, ships that mount only a single phaser system are discouraged to mount dedicated point defense.
The point-defense system can be re-engaged at any time using a Systems Operation: Tactical test at TN10.


Because the point-defense system is integrated into both tactical and sensor systems, any critical hits that damage either the weapons or sensor tracks, even no effect results, trigger a reliability test against the damaged system plus appropriate modifiers. If the test is a failure, the dedicated point defense system goes offline until repaired; this means that the acting vessel is unable to use the Automatic Point Defense or Missile Shield tactical maneuvers and if either maneuver is currently active, the effects are lost. The tactical officer may attempt the Manual Point Defense maneuver using the dedicated point-defense phasers, if they are still functioning. To repair the system, either a Systems Engineering: Sensors or Systems Engineering: Tactical roll (TN 10) - depending on the effected system, will repair the point-defense system. Once repaired the tactical officer can use the Automatic Point-Defense and Missile Shield tactical maneuvers; note that if either or both maneuvers were active prior to the point-defense system going offline, the maneuver must be attempted again, the effects do not automatically restart once the system is repaired.


Prerequisite: Federation Starship, Available beam weapon.
Minimum Size 3.
Cost: 5 space
Effect: Allows the use of the Automatic Point Defense and Missile Shield Tactical Maneuvers (STXI pp.??)
Available: 2220
Additional: The phaser system selected for point defense must be “purchased” and list penetration values separate from any regular offensive beam systems. These phasers do not contribute to the vessel’s weapons reliability or offensive penetration values.

[skree]

This is a very good Starship Trait.

[ILikePike]

Thanks Skree. Oh and I love the quote, it sums up my feelings on 4th ed nicely. It was like throwing an MMO on paper and failing...

[TFVanguard]

Wouldn't the characters be essentially the same as done in the coda books? They still are the tos characters just with the altered timeline. It's like the new enterprise no real reason to make new stats, just use what we have already as it's "supposed to be the same in the end.

Actually, no. They're all younger by at least 10 years or more, Kirk is about 20 years younger than he should be, for instance. Spock is also about 20 years too young, McCoy about 10 years younger. Chekov is the only crew member that remains about the right age.

As for skills, you'll need to lose all the 'boring' professional skills and most RP-centric and replace them with combat-related skills. Each crew member can get ONE skill that's relavent to their job, and it will be completely maxed out. The 2009 movie is largely a cast of action-heroes, and not characters as such.

This isn't a slam on the movie per se, just a note about what this take on these characters are actually like. It's just important to note that these are not really the TOS characters. These are the TOS characters stripped down and put through a 'summer popcorn movie' filter.