Inherent "Q" as part of the hull

A place for all those house rules and custom campaign ideas from the players.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Re: Inherent "Q" as part of the hull

Postby Cralis on Sat 09 Mar 2019 18:52

szurkey wrote:I don't really like the thought of another free system. There is too much already in StarFire. I don't have a problem with adding command functions to Q's, but leave the number of Q's alone (for Ultra, I still haven't gotten Solar).


Honestly, it's not really a "free" system. It's just a different way of looking at how that part of the whole "system" works. This is very similar to how (in SSF) we allow a ship to have enough internal space in the hull to carry 1 month of maintenance without an extra H. Only this is about crew.

We STILL have this debate because we try to make any system that is always purchased, or always required, to be part of the hull. Q for the required crew falls under that. But there are many, many reasons why we need it to not be invisible. In the SDS we haven't been able to agree on a change, as recently as last week.

So this home rule I created is an attempt to do what I'm suggesting. There won't be any penalty if you disagree and don't use it. :D

P.S. This home rule should work well for Ultra Starfire too.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10936
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Inherent "Q" as part of the hull

Postby Starfire on Sun 10 Mar 2019 15:31

One thing that Q (or a we just talking Qs) allows if separate from the hull is direct and indirect targeting with needles, primaries, etc. If I remember right, there was some sort of minor penalty for losing too many Qs. That would go away.

On the other hand, a ship that always has X "Q"s per Y number of hull spaces definitely sounds like a system that could be assumed into the hull size since the amount of Q needed is directly dependent on the size of the ship. And sure we have a ton of Q science levels but that just basically would go up with improved general EL and hull tech making the game a tiny bit simpler.
Nerf Rock, Paper is fine. Signed: Scissors.
Nerf Scissors, Rock is fine. Signed: Paper.
Nerf Paper, Scissors are fine. Signed: Rock.
User avatar
Starfire
Marvin Lamb
Marvin Lamb
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:59
Location: The Villages, FL

Re: Inherent "Q" as part of the hull

Postby Cralis on Sun 10 Mar 2019 20:50

Starfire wrote:One thing that Q (or a we just talking Qs) allows if separate from the hull is direct and indirect targeting with needles, primaries, etc. If I remember right, there was some sort of minor penalty for losing too many Qs. That would go away.


If we didn't have an actual "Q" system, we would lose the ability to target life support and command systems. That's why the proposed home rule retains the "Q" (no generational code) as the "required Q" system(s).

As for the rules, I think you are talking about reduced/missing life support. In SSF the relevant rules are AA.Q.02.2 (insufficient life support), AA.Q.02.3 (no life support), and AA.Q.03 (complete loss of all life support)

On the other hand, a ship that always has X "Q"s per Y number of hull spaces definitely sounds like a system that could be assumed into the hull size since the amount of Q needed is directly dependent on the size of the ship. And sure we have a ton of Q science levels but that just basically would go up with improved general EL and hull tech making the game a tiny bit simpler.


And that's the entire point of this proposed home rule. Because the space is inherent, and the number of "Q" is based purely on the HS size of the ship, I've made it completely independent of the Q SL. My thinking is that the command systems and crew quarters are always going to be relatively the same size, so the only variable will be the amount of life support provided and that can be abstracted into a non-counted variable hull size that is assumed to just be part of the hull itself. What matters is how many "Q" it takes to destroy the basic life support and command systems, and that will remain a constant, avoiding all the nasty problems Lomn brought up.

All of these assumed larger than the actual HS systems are part of the reason why I have no problem with the massive size of Starfire ships. The system code and the HS size of that code is more about how much damage the system can absorb, not necessarily it's actual physical size. That can be presumed larger in some cases (like drives, passive defenses, quarters, bays and holds (specifically BL and Hb), etc.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10936
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Previous

Return to House Rules

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests