System Damage Tracks

[Ramage]

This was probably already covered, but I haven't found the precise thread...

In the NG there are those nice little tracks for keeping track of the damage done to different systems. They run from E to A on a downward scale, seemingly matched to the quality of the system on the ship.

Now what happens if you have, say, a Class B Life Support system? Are you already down the E, D, and C boxes? Are all three of those boxes checked off the first time the system is hit?

Any aid would be vastly appreciated.

[qerlin]

I check 'em off ahead of time, ramage.

You don't get docked those damage mods either if you don't have that level of system.

[ImperialOne]

You are already down to Box B to begin with in your example. Check the Coda- Utopia Planitia boards for the original posts.

Charles

[RaconteurX]

Originally posted by Ramage
This was probably already covered, but I haven't found the precise thread...

Yes it was, but it does appear to confuse a lot of people.

If you have a Class B Life Support system... are you already down the E, D, and C boxes? Are all three of those boxes checked off the first time the system is hit?

No, no, and no. Ignore the damage boxes for higher classes than the system in question possesses. Yes, this means that a Class E system may suffer greater overall penalties than a Class B system (which to some extent defies logic), but the most important factor is that the Class E system still functions (albeit at a reduced level) after sustaining two hits, whereas the Class B system does not.

To use your Life Support example, which is the more desirable result: losing a crewman or two (one to stun and another to injury) to exploding panels, or having to abandon ship in 2d6 rounds? With a Class E system, you only suffer the former result; with a Class B system, you suffer the latter.

[Ramage]

Hmm, so what we have here is another case of the notion is clear once explained, but the rulebook does a poor job of explaining.

Man, I just feel like the rulebooks could have stood with at least one more pass on editing. There is far too much in them that fits under the category of, "Well, you know what we mean" rather than explaining the rules based on the assumption that the reader has never played previous editions of the game...

Sorry to come off peeved, but more examples REALLY would have helped and might cut down on the number of "redundant" questions.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Ramage
Sorry to come off peeved, but more examples REALLY would have helped and might cut down on the number of "redundant" questions.

Then text would have had to have been cut from other places. (Nothing is free.)

These rules have been clarified in the Starships book. I'm sorry this confusion ruined your enjoyment of the game.

[RaconteurX]

Originally posted by Ramage
Hmm, so what we have here is another case of the notion is clear once explained, but the rulebook does a poor job of explaining.

I disagree... the rules are very clearly written, just poorly organized in places, and in need of a better index. Organization and indexing are always casualties when a book gets edited for space and things get shuffled around. Some information ends up in related sections: for example, the rules for reinforcing shields are not found in the Starship Combat section of Chapter 7 of the Narrator's Guide, appearing rather four pages earlier in the Starship Systems section of the same chapter.

Skimming a rulebook, regardless of the game system in question, will rarely provide all the answers you seek. Consult the index and follow up with a close reading of each chapter before condemning the designers and publishers, however. Mistakes are inevitable, but typically are not as severe as you might believe.

[John Guo]

Originally posted by RaconteurX
I disagree... the rules are very clearly written, just poorly organized in places, and in need of a better index. Organization and indexing are always casualties when a book gets edited for space and things get shuffled around. Some information ends up in related sections: for example, the rules for reinforcing shields are not found in the Starship Combat section of Chapter 7 of the Narrator's Guide, appearing rather four pages earlier in the Starship Systems section of the same chapter.

Given a choice, I would rather pay a little more for a book that has things where they ought to be. Disorganization makes the game as much frustrating as it is fun. I like to see related material in the same place or, at the very least, properly referenced (see page 200, for example), so that it isn't a struggle to find stuff.

For the writers, the next time you update the book, I would rather wait for a near perfect product than read something that feels rushed to the presses. I used to QA Test video games for a living, and it has the feel of a game where they didn't get all the bugs out. I know there's a fine game lurking in there somewhere. It could really have done with some more polishing, though.

[LStyer]

Here's where to look in the Narrator's Guide, on page 115, under the heading "System Daamge Tracks. Second paragraph in the section:

"Every system recorded on the starship profile has a reliability rating, ranging from A to E. Systems with a Class A reliability lack backup and redundant systems and are more easily damaged in battle. Systems with Class E reliability can sustain more damage while continuing to function. (For more information on reliability ratings, see page 137). This reliability rating establishes an individual damage track for each system."

This is just above the example System Damage Tracks graphic, and right in with all the rules on damagong ships and systems, and even includes a cross-reference to the Reliability rules on page 137. It might have been a tad clearer, but it's hardly opaque, and it's certainly in a rational place in the book.