ImperialOne

Revelation Eodin: The evolution of TNGHero continues to unfold beautifully. It just occured to me the other day, as I was deconstructing some things, that you use a value of three as the "average" value of 1d6 (versus 3.5). An example is the phaser damage table on Page 98. You show us the basis of the damage and then the actual damage listed as a digitally controlled weapon: i.e. at setting 8, I see a RKA 8d6 damage, translating to 21+1d6 damage. My interpertation is that you took 7d6 at three points of damage per die to derive the 21. My contention is that we should get that extra half point for a truer translation, so at this particular setting, we'd get (7 x 3.5)= 24.5 or 25 points + 1d6. The principle should apply throughout all derivations regarding d6 principles. Anyway, it seems like a bit of a nitpick on my part, especially in light of the fine resource you've written. PLease accept it as constructive feedback:) Charles

Bump Anything new?

Just an FYI I engaged Steve Long in an attempt to understand his thinking behind MPEW, here is a cut/paste just for our benefit: "First, you're assuming the MPEW is a direct attempt to mirror a Trek phaser. That's not correct. It's obviously inspired by the phaser; I wouldn't deny that for a minute. But it's not a direct correlate, so complaining that "it's not quite right" or "it doesn't work just like a phaser ought to work" is missing the point, unless you're just using it as an example. Second, the GM can define an NND defense as whatever he wants given the campaign's parameters. Though the rules generally forbid establishing "defense thresholds" for NNDs (like "defense is 10+ PD FF"), there's no reason a GM couldn't allow that if he wants to. It's a lot less problematic in a Heroic game where characters buy equipment with points and everyone has the same sort of weapon and knows how it works." Hmmn. Something for me to reflect on, but I love your work as is. ;)

I am really fascinated by this bit of reverse engineering and was hoping to get your opinion: Inspired from a discussion regarding Trek Hero conversion of what a phaser translates to in Hero terms. While a discussion of the MultiPurpose Energy Weapon (from Star Hero pp154) was done, there was some disagreement about giving the MPEW NND status in its attacks: "I have read (and re-read) the Multipurpose Energy Weapon, and have come to the conclusion that the GMs may choose whichever one they like. My personal feeling on the NND vs. any FF ED (1+) is it's not quite right. Phaser fire can bring down an energy wall (as in when the Enterprise fired on the forcewall surrounding Vaal), and can lead to abuse (20 PD 1 ED FF would be immunity to phasers). And if the Borg can adapt their forcefields to ignore phasers, then they've got more than 1 ED in their FF). That's my take, anyway." A recent addendum to this comment: "what you could do with the NND if you want to give it a try...I'd do something like make the Defense either 10+ ED in the FF, or Hardened ED FF, or something similar. 1+ ED FF means phasers in starship combat would never do damage to another starship with its shields up." Is that right? What is your opinon o the matter? By the way, ith regards to the Borg forcefield issue, another user suggested: "perhaps the Borg forcefield could be written up as Missile Deflection, possibly with a Limitation that it only works versus an attack already used against another Borg, or with a lot of extra Skill Levels with that Lim."

Superb You can now really understand the dilemma with phasers and their powers. Of course, in Star Trek, the GM can simply create some power to obviates the lethality of the weapons (plot device or what?). Anyway, I think taking this approach with ratcheting up the RKA per setting works fine, when Last Unicorn Games did the damage tables for phasers, they increased the values astronomically as well up through setting 16. Decipher (which has similar designers, using a refined version of the LUG system), simply made setting 9 and higher a Kill (and they did quantify the amount of rock that can be blown/disintegrated). I also like what you did with the charges for energy/shot use of the weapon and how you tied the strength of a charge to wide beam use. If I recall, didn't Captain Tracy is ST:TOS episode "Omega Glory" (?) said they killed "thousands of Coms" with their phasers in a pitched battle (and lost). I still wonder about the NND for the MPEW, but thats me:) Charles

Sounds Good I find your design views logical. It just goes to show how there are often more than one way to achieve a goal. I will look forward to seeing your adjustments for the phasers by srtting, as well as all other refinements to the TNG Hero pdf. I'll start thinking about ship design matters as they present themselves. Charles

Constructive Comment The TNG Hero is off to a great start! I was reviewing things, realizing that things can always be changed by the GM, but I wonder about the derived values of for the phaser. When you constructed them for Trek Hero (since the values in TNG Hero appear to be the same thus far), did you draw any inspiration from the Multi Purpose Energy Weapon on page 154 of Space Hero? According to Steve, he created it based on a TNG phaser (down to the "Heat Rocks" setting). In comparison (basically the same as yours with wide angle settings for each option as well), I note that your Disintegrate setting for damage is 18+2D6 based on RKA 8d6 explosion... whereas the MPEW listed RKA 6d6 NND (except for Energy Fields). What do you think? I like the RKA 8D6, but the NND is also quite attractive as well. I personally think that with the lethality of phasers in the Trek universe (heck, you see it in the Decipher rules, settings 9 to 16 in a phaser are all 'Kill' results, the precursor ICON rules simply kept on piling on more dice with even bigger bonuses to damage). Also, the number of charges available for the various weapons seem a bit less in comparison... then again, the MPEW is a 608 point item. Anyway, food for thought. Keep up the excellent work. By the way, Decipher recently released the Aliens sourcebook, nearly 60 aliens developed.

Sources Gaming Resources for any post The Original Series (TOS) TreK: Well, there was the who ICON Trek collection of books from Last Unicorn Games. There was quite a bit of inofmration and source material there. Steve Long wrote the Deep Space Nine rules/setting book. All the books had to be vetted by Paramount as well, so there won't be mcuh breaking with Trek approve canon. The new license holders, Decipher games, have their cinematic rules system (CODA) for Star Trek (as well as Lord of the Rings). It is a fine system, but it is designed for a wider audience per se, not the detail that Hero system fans adore. Quite a bit of source tidbits in the four books released to this point as well. An aliens sourcebook is due out soon. This website is considered the biggest player resource for Trek on the interent, check out the netbooks (all are free, many wriiten by Steve) as well as the discussion forums. http://www.trek-rpg.net/trek/index2.htm Hope this is a good start.

EXCELLENT The document is fantastic. I have yet to actually use it, but I play/Narrate Decipher's CODA (previous ICON) Trek. My players are old Champions players. ANy chance you'll make a section or version for TNG/DS9/Voyager era? Charles