"Starships" Questions

[E W Dawson]

Of all the typos that can occur, omitting a designer from the credits--even if by mistake--is unacceptable. Isn't that a major breach of elical, professional as well as legal protocol? I mean come on; who do they have editing these things? It seems like every rpg Decipher product to date has some major typo or omission. At least they are quick to unofficially and officially address these problems, but what about the fans that don't keep abreast of the lastest online developments?

That being said, good job, Don! While I haven't had a chance to fully explore this tome, it has been very entertaining so far. I particularly like how you expanded the starship rules while not adding too many new or excess rules.

[Darth Sarcastic]

I picked up STARSHIPS yesterday and I like all the improvements and such. Now I can start building all those ships I have in mind without wondering "...banks?!!...arrays?!!...emplacements?!!..." It's all good.

I did notice (bitch mode is off) that for some of the descriptions of Federation "gear" they used part numbers from a book called "Ships of the Fleet". I like that because it makes translating all the Federation ships oh-so easy(er). Anybody know if that was intentional (I'm not calling plagerism...especially if I ain't spelin it rite.)

"Good Job" to the folks at Decipher. Don...you can re-start your heart now.

[ImperialOne]

A couple of points to clarify, Don.

In the NG, it is stated that edges and flaws for the vessels can be acquired at the cost/savings (respectively) of 5 space. I assume this is during the ship design sequence.

In the newly-arrived fabulous tome that is Starships, it is now possible for ships to gain experience as well (great concept by the way). As such, edges, space, etc. can be bought for experience picks. Does this mean no space costs are associated with them (i.e. in the case of a purchase of an edge)? I understand some space cost may be paid if an edge requires the prerequisite purchase of some item/equipment.

I was thinking about this.... a built-in handicap to slow the pace of ship experience is present if one is required to buy space for the edges as well (with picks at the 1:1 price... it would make the 'real price' of an edge 8, +1 per space up to five and then 3 pts for the actual edge as per Table 1:28). However, I think this interprestation is not likely the first one would take in looking at the cost table.


The SECOND clarification is for pulse phasers. Are they considered an edge that provides like an optional "setting" (like widebeam is a setting) or is it a different beast altogether. I ask this despite canon reference to pulse phasers as a new system. However, from reading the rules in Starships, as it is a phaser, the pulse phasers would seem capable of doing those versatile effects phasers are capable of (i.e bringing down power grids, setting to mass stun, set for drilling). What is correct?

Thanks.
Charles

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by buck rogers
Also in the SOM the Daedelus class has Polarized hull plating with a protection/threshold 2/1. Am I correct in assuming that that should read 12/1?

Buck, you are correct: a vessel that has its shields lowered has an effective protection of 5 (very easy to hit). While I did not do the write-up in SOP, I would suspect that entry of "2/1" is a typo and should be "12/1" -- polarized hull plating does not make you easier to hit.

It's worth pointing out (again) that the ships in SOP were not built using the "Starships" rules; many of them are redone in "Starships" with those new 'advanced' rules.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by ImperialOne
In the NG, it is stated that edges and flaws for the vessels can be acquired at the cost/savings (respectively) of 5 space. I assume this is during the ship design sequence.

Correct.

In the newly-arrived fabulous tome that is Starships, it is now possible for ships to gain experience as well (great concept by the way). As such, edges, space, etc. can be bought for experience picks. Does this mean no space costs are associated with them (i.e. in the case of a purchase of an edge)? I understand some space cost may be paid if an edge requires the prerequisite purchase of some item/equipment.

That's correct. You only have to purchase space with XP (advancement picks) if you need additional space to later purchase a new (larger) system. Purchasing or upgrading traits through XP (advancement picks) does not have a space cost associated with them.

I was thinking about this.... a built-in handicap to slow the pace of ship experience is present if one is required to buy space for the edges as well (with picks at the 1:1 price... it would make the 'real price' of an edge 8, +1 per space up to five and then 3 pts for the actual edge as per Table 1:28). However, I think this interprestation is not likely the first one would take in looking at the cost table.

Keep in mind that starship experience comes from character experience or more specifically, character advancement picks. If you follow the XP awards from the NG your characters won't be gaining advancements every episode and, even if they did, they wouldn't be advised to all dump their advancement picks in their starship. A starship that is destroyed or lost doesn't give a "refund" of picks; characters are well advised to weigh the consequences of donating their personal advancment picks to improve their vessel.

The SECOND clarification is for pulse phasers. Are they considered an edge that provides like an optional "setting" (like widebeam is a setting) or is it a different beast altogether. I ask this despite canon reference to pulse phasers as a new system. However, from reading the rules in Starships, as it is a phaser, the pulse phasers would seem capable of doing those versatile effects phasers are capable of (i.e bringing down power grids, setting to mass stun, set for drilling). What is correct?

Pulse phasers as designed are an upgrade (trait) to the standard phaser system but are one-way; you can't retro them back to a standard phaser array and switch them back-and-forth at will.

[ImperialOne]

Don sayeth:
Pulse phasers as designed are an upgrade (trait) to the standard phaser system but are one-way; you can't retro them back to a standard phaser array and switch them back-and-forth at will.

Thanks for the prompt reply...
So, can i still use a pulse phaser to drill, stun and all the other fun "versatile" things a regular phaser can do?

Charles

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by ImperialOne
Thanks for the prompt reply...
So, can i still use a pulse phaser to drill, stun and all the other fun "versatile" things a regular phaser can do?

I don't believe the text states this but the intent was "no."

[buck rogers]

Thank you for the quick reply to my post. Was I also right about the Borg cube? Oh and this is from another post but I think it fits in here as valid question. How long does it take to restore lost shield strength. Once the battle is over (assuming the shields weren't damaged only depleted). Once again you all did a most excellent job on "Starships" not to mention on the whole line of books for this game.

[Snake_Plissken]

I have a few questions;

question regarding the prototype edge-
on the 1.25 table, there seems to be a few systems where only flaws can be "bought", such as ops, life support and missile weapon. Yet a few ship stats have the protoype- missile weapon +1 edge ... ?

also, I assume that when a bonus is indicated it is already factored in into the stats? For instance the Excelsior has the battle tested edge and has +3T, so the +1T given by the battle tested edge is already factored into that +3T right? Can I assume the same applies to system bonuses like the Galaxy upgrade which has the prototype-missile weapon edge? So the 6/6/6/6/6 penetration value takes into account the +1 bonus (?)

Also, I noticed that some ships have a number of transporters that don't match the previous rules. My understanding is that you get a "free" basic allotment of each type of transporters equal to half the ship's size (rounded down). Then at the cost of 1 space you get an extra allotment equal to the basic allotment. But the Vor'cha is size 7 so there should be a basic allotment of 3 and if extra transporters were bought then it would have 6 but the value given is 4. Did I miss a new rule?

also (again!), I see some ships that have 2 different reliability ratings for the impulse and warp systems (such as the Ferengi D'kora which has a D for impulse and B for warp)- does the older NG rule still apply where you had to pick the lowest rating of the 2?

Lastly, I noticed that the stats for the Galor and the Keldon are almost identical- is that some sort of mistake?

Thanks!

[Sea Tyger]

I posted this in another thread, when it should have gone here:

1. If the Romulans didn't have a true FTL drive before their 2268 treaty with the Klingons, why is the RWC series available as early as 2221? Are these earlier models supposed to be the "magnetic bottle" FTL drives (I thought those were primarily one-way devices, based on the BoP description)?

2. The K'tinga actually uses less space than its D-7 predecessor, and uses the inferior K-GDM-2 disruptor, when its size and the weapon availability would dictate that the K-GDM-4 should be mounted (less space, more powerful). Mounting 4 K-GDM-4's also puts the K'tinga's cost equal to the D-7.

Both of these, of course, are relatively minor. Don, if you have any thoughts behind your decisions on these two things, I'd love to hear them.

Edit: Huge BZ to Don on the Nebula! The mission pods are phenomenal!!!!

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by buck rogers
How long does it take to restore lost shield strength. Once the battle is over (assuming the shields weren't damaged only depleted).

There are no hard rules for this because this is one of those arenas in the show that are story driven -- after combat the shields are back and working.

If you really want rules on it I'd use pg 106 of the NG and require a System Engineering test as to reinforce the shields but with a duration of 1 hour per roll and no mandatory application of 1 block of damage to another system. Follow the same rules for superior successes to restore the shields even faster.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
question regarding the prototype edge-
on the 1.25 table, there seems to be a few systems where only flaws can be "bought", such as ops, life support and missile weapon. Yet a few ship stats have the protoype- missile weapon +1 edge ... ?

Good catch (reviewed the Nebula). I'll have to review and see what my reasoning was and try to offer a solution. Which other ships did you see with this snafu?

also, I assume that when a bonus is indicated it is already factored in into the stats? For instance the Excelsior has the battle tested edge and has +3T, so the +1T given by the battle tested edge is already factored into that +3T right? Can I assume the same applies to system bonuses like the Galaxy upgrade which has the prototype-missile weapon edge? So the 6/6/6/6/6 penetration value takes into account the +1 bonus (?)

Correct -- all modifiers are already reflected in the vessel stats.

Also, I noticed that some ships have a number of transporters that don't match the previous rules. My understanding is that you get a "free" basic allotment of each type of transporters equal to half the ship's size (rounded down). Then at the cost of 1 space you get an extra allotment equal to the basic allotment. But the Vor'cha is size 7 so there should be a basic allotment of 3 and if extra transporters were bought then it would have 6 but the value given is 4. Did I miss a new rule?

Nope, you've got it right. I didn't do the ship in question so I'll have to reverse-engineer the design to see if it was done incorrectly. What other ships did you notice this in?

also (again!), I see some ships that have 2 different reliability ratings for the impulse and warp systems (such as the Ferengi D'kora which has a D for impulse and B for warp)- does the older NG rule still apply where you had to pick the lowest rating of the 2?

This is certainly an error. I don't know if the vessel was done incorrectly or fat fingers during layout -- the rule continues to be that the reliability is the worse of the two ratings. Glancing through my galley copy it would appear that Dave's ships are in error in this regard. In this case remember to use the lower of the two values for the entire Propulsion system.

Lastly, I noticed that the stats for the Galor and the Keldon are almost identical- is that some sort of mistake?

Again, I'm going to plead the fifth and say this wasn't my design so I can't really comment. I'd have to agree and say the designs are so similiar as to not merit a new class designation.

Thanks!

Thank you for spotting these problems.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
1. If the Romulans didn't have a true FTL drive before their 2268 treaty with the Klingons, why is the RWC series available as early as 2221? Are these earlier models supposed to be the "magnetic bottle" FTL drives (I thought those were primarily one-way devices, based on the BoP description)?

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'd say the date for the RWC is in error, as you've pointed out.

2. The K'tinga actually uses less space than its D-7 predecessor, and uses the inferior K-GDM-2 disruptor, when its size and the weapon availability would dictate that the K-GDM-4 should be mounted (less space, more powerful). Mounting 4 K-GDM-4's also puts the K'tinga's cost equal to the D-7.

Unfortunately my shitty copy is unreadable so I'll have to take your word on this! 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.

Thanks for pointing these out.

Edit: Huge BZ to Don on the Nebula! The mission pods are phenomenal!!!!

Nebula is the bomb.

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by buck rogers
Although there are few questions I have concerning the Borg was there a type-o on its structure? Later when they talk about increasing the Structure for the Class-4 tactical vessel, the amount they give is much less than the standard amount for the cube.

I'll have to reverse-engineer the numbers but I don't think there's an error; the additional structure was bought with surplus space. The Tactical variant uses this space to upgrade its particle beams, purchasing seven (!) more. Leftover space is used to upgrade its structure to 115 (from its base of 80 for a Size 16 vessel).

[Publius]

Short Question: I was wondering about the differences in the Scout classification Don. In the Narrator's guide, they basically got a drastically reduced cost on sensors (in some cases a -1 in others a -2 because of the different scale), yet in Starships, they get a flat -1. Was that intentional?

Long Explanation: I always saw the enhanced sensors as a means of making up for the crappy base Maneuver modifiers that Scouts recieve. All of the other classifications balance out except Stations (which really don't count as they are an entirely different beastie) and Destroyers/Escorts which get a +1. Scout/Auxiliary Vessels get a total mod of -2 (ouch) which I can understand for auxiliary vessels as they are not designed for combat, but not for scouts unless you add the fact that they get a nice sensor package in return (in addition to the -1 they already get for cloaking which doesn't factor in for Fed ships anyway).

The reason that I ask is that if the Nova is added up (other than the fact that it should have Transporters 2/2) with the Class 4 Sensor package from the Narrator's guide (cost of 2) rather than the Starships cost of 3 (4-1 for being a Scout) we would get a total of 65 spaces, without requiring that "Prototype (-3 Beam)" for balancing out the numbers. Since the Prototype flaw does not really change the penetration values of the vessel I would prefer leaving it out completely (since many other ships could use this as a means of getting points back without any real loss and no other design uses it to decrease offensive values for their weapons).