| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, November 10, 2022 - 01:51 pm: Edit |
This is something which popped up over in the CL55 Battle Group discussion:
In the 2011 edition of the Omega Master Rulebook, the Hiver heavy carrier (OR10.6) is listed in the MSC chart (and in the OR-section data itself) as having a YIS date of Y183.
Based on the OR-section and MSC data for the Hiver medium escort (OR10.9) and the Hiver Barb-2 fighter (OR10.F2), I might wonder if the CV's YIS date is set too late, relative to the time at which the Hivers 'built ships specifically for the purpose of carrying and escorting.'
It is true that, with the exception of the Federal Republic of Aurora, most Omega Octant empires do not keep their escorts tied to their carriers to the extent seen over in the Alpha Octant. Indeed, it is also true that the CV itself does not require "formal" escorts, not least since 'to the Hivers, the term "escort” and “carrier” became almost synonymous after a time.'
Even so, for 'a relatively common variant', I might ague that Y183 is rather late in the timeline for such a ship to appear. Thus, I ask if it might be possible to consider adjusting the YIS date to Y141, to match the CME and Barb-2. Or, as an alternative, perhaps to Y158, possibly in response to encountering their first Worb CVLs (OR16.9) the previous year.
Of course, if the current YIS date were to remain in place, well and good.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 11, 2022 - 02:09 pm: Edit |
The Hivers are not well developed (as indeed is the case for most empires in the Omega octant) and the year in service for their CV is what it was submitted by the designer. It is apparently a ship similar in construction to the CA. The CME was apparently difficult to produce (the CM is also LPW), so I cannot see tying the date of the CME to the CV.
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, November 11, 2022 - 04:23 pm: Edit |
SPP, I have some ideas for possible development of the Hivers and I think Gary does as well. Would ADB, Inc. be interested in hearing some of them? If so, I'd be happy to email them.
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, July 21, 2023 - 03:32 pm: Edit |
Apologies in advance if this topic was addressed and answered at some point beforehand:
(OE31.31): For the purposes of this rule, do Andromedan ships - or Ryn Enclave ships, or Juggernaut Empire ships in facings not protected by their rotating shields - count as "shieldless targets", in terms of how the antimatter cannon's "caseless" firing mode affects them?
I don't know if the designer of this firing mode for the antimatter cannon intended the "caseless" mode to act as a de facto discount against Andromedan, Ryn, and/or Juggernaut warships or not. Or, for that matter, if such interactions were considered at the time this firing mode was added to the game system. But I hoped to clarify the situation nonetheless.
For what (little) it's worth, I might wonder if there was a difference between "energy-infused" non-shield defensive systems, such as active PA panels or Juggernaut electrostatic armour, and "inert" systems such as Ryn ceramic-composite armour, in terms of which was vulnerable to "caseless" antimatter cannon fire and which was not...
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 24, 2023 - 02:24 pm: Edit |
Gary Carney:
See (SL246.462) in Captain's Log #33. It would apply to "careless" anti-matter. As to Ryn Ceramic armor, I would have to look that up. Andromedan PA panels basically absorb the energy, I am not as of right now certain how the energy would be divided up, or if it is divided at all, but I am pretty sure you would use the same procedure as was used for enveloping torpedoes hitting the Andromedan.
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, September 11, 2023 - 10:29 pm: Edit |
Last week, I posted an Omega question on the regular SFB area; I was having a "Red-and-Black" moment.
(In short, to quote legendary Qixa strategist Bugs Bunny, I was being a Maroon. 
)
Okay, okay. I'd like to repost the thought here, where it belongs.
Tachyon Missiles. Big and Scary.
The rules for "Identification" (OFD1.34) state, "If a tachyon missile is successfully identified by any of the procedures listed in (F1.4), the identifying player learns all information about its construction, including all basic statistics (maximum size, size points carried, weaponry, etc.); amount of negative tractor energy being generated by the missile; targeting information; and so on. Note that some information, such as speed and EW status, are always known."
Both maximum size and size points carried are specifically brought up, as is weaponry (which I'm assuming refers to whether phasers are carried, how many, and what type; wide, micro, quantum, etcetera).
Armor and warhead are not specifically mentioned. Are they part of the "Basic Statistics?"
My reason for asking is because of the value of having an enemy NOT know what sort of warhead or armor a given tachyon missile has.
My (alleged) mind went through this scenario. In a battle, possibly a Battleforce 550 fight, someone facing a Maesron (or FRA or Bolosco) group has a pair of tachyon missiles launched at them over the turn break (one missile on Impulse #32 of turn 'X' and a second missile on Impulse #1 of turn 'X+1') and knows (having read their enemy's proposal for their Battleforce) that there are a half dozen or more different missile constructions in the enemy fleet.
So, s/he sees a pair of missiles flying at him/her and based on the known identification, the two could be of the same, or different types.
IF one of those two types has only the basic warhead strength of eight, but has an armor of sixteen, it's something s/he might judge as something s/he is willing to take a hit from, due to it taking more pounding to destroy than it's worth.
ON THE OTHER HAND, what if it is a virtually identical one, but was constructed with the four space points being devoted to warhead instead of armor? Destroyed by eight points of damage, but if it hits, will do twenty four points of damage.
For that matter, something in between.
("Okay, it's taken eight points of damage and is still flying, so it ain't the monster with the twenty four point warhead. Could it be a dangerous one with a twenty point warhead, and I'm so close to destroying it? Shame to take that sort of hit that I don't have to...)
("Maybe it's one with a sixteen point warhead, and I'm so close to destroying it...")
IMMO (In My Mad Opinion), that unknowable aspect may be the greatest capability of the tachyon missile, but only if the exact composition isn't revealed by (OFD1.34) "Identification."
So my question is, "Is the exact disposition of the spaces revealed, or just how many were?"
Thank you
Jeff "the Dingbat"
| By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, September 12, 2023 - 08:23 am: Edit |
A good question. But I think the "etc." covers armor and warhead. Pity.
| By Stephen E Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, July 30, 2024 - 05:04 pm: Edit |
If the Worb launces an SSR, say on impulse 10, does it then hit a target that is 0-4 hexes away on impulse 11, a target 5-9 hexes away on impulse 12, etc. Or if it fires on impulse 10 does it hit a target 0-4 hexes away on impulse 10 and hit a target 5-9 hexes away on impulse 11, etc. I think it is the first, but would like an official reading of this to be absolutely sure, and avoid an argument. Thanks!
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, July 30, 2024 - 05:40 pm: Edit |
Good question, Steveparrish. While I'm not an ADB, Inc. judge, I still agree with your assessment of the rules. Here's why...
At the top of the "Time-on-Target" rules section (OE22.35), it states, "Subspace rockets do not immediately hit."
Furthermore, later on, it states in (OE22.352), "The weapon arrives at its target at the same phase in the Sequence of Plat at which the weapon was originally fired."
Given the absolutism of it not immediately hitting, were it truly able to hit on the same impulse, it would be an immediate hit.
(GAH! I know what I WANT to say...)
Can I just say that the way I interpret those two rules sections is that, if fired on Impulse #10, the dice are rolled for a hit on Impulse #11 for targets 0 to 4 hexes away, and so on?
Again, I'm not an official, but that is my interpretation.
| By Stephen E Parrish (Steveparrish) on Tuesday, July 30, 2024 - 06:58 pm: Edit |
Thanks Jeff. I agree with you, but in the chart on page 60 where it says that 0-4 hexes has a 1 impulse time on target it is a little confusing, at least to me. I really do wish that the other interpretation were correct--the Worb would be much more dangerous. Maybe in an upgrade?
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, May 28, 2025 - 03:51 pm: Edit |
I had a couple of questions, as regards the potential interaction between the quantum wave torpedo rules (FQ1.0) from Module C6 - which might, or might not, one day apply to the Omega-Paravians also - and those for the Qixavalor Cloud (OP1.0) in the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook:
-----
Firstly, to do with feedback damage scored when a QWT is launched.
For comparison's sake, "normal" (as in, "out-of-cloud", or perhaps "in a clear pocket of the cloud") feedback is triggered if both the launching and target ship are in the same hex. Under (FQ1.36), a standard load QWT triggers one feedback damage point to each of the three nearest-facing shields, while an overloaded QWT scores two points of feedback damage to each of these three facings instead.
In most cases - drone-like weapons and certain other categories of weapon (such as short-range cannons) are marked separately, under (OP1.223) - direct-fire and seeking weapons trigger 20% of the total damage that would have been scored if all weapons in the same volley would have hit for their maximum damage at the level they had been fired or launched, at their closest legal range, at the moment of fire or launch. This damage is scored on the shield facing the target, even if the weapon (such as, say, a hellbore) would score hits on multiple facings of the target itself.
Both "normal" and "cloud" feedback are cumulative, under (OP1.222).
So, in the case of a standard or overloaded quantum wave torpedo, would the following be the correct set of interactions here:
*A standard QWT is assumed to have a "maximum" of 7 (1+5+1) damage points, while an overloaded QWT is assumed to have a "maximum" of 12 (1+10+1) damage points;
*A standard QWT causes 1 point of feedback (1.4, rounded down) in the facing shield only, if launched at a range of 1 or more;
*A standard QWT causes 2 points of feedback (1+1) on the facing shield and 1 point of feedback damage on each of the "splash" facings if launched at a range of 0;
*An overload QWT causes 2 points of feedback (2.4, rounded down) on the facing shield only, if launched at a range of 1 or more;
*An overload QWT causes 4 points of feedback (2+2) on the facing shield and 2 points of feedback damage on each of the "splash" facings if launched at a range of 0?
-----
And secondly, to do with the impact on the target unit.
Under (OP1.24), damage scored on the target unit is increased by 20%. However, unlike the case with feedback damage, this is scored per weapon, not per volley. A weapon whose added damage is less then half an added damage point has no bonus effect.
So, by my understanding, the "splash" elements never score any bonus damage inside of the cloud - unless they strike the same hemispheric defensive system (such as a PA panel on an Andromedan warship) as the central element, and if that total is enough to trigger a bonus higher than .5 damage points.
To give two examples:
1) An overloaded QWT hits a target with six shield facings at Range 5. The core element adds 2 points of damage (20% of the 10 points it would normally score at that range), for 12 points in total on the facing shield. However, the "splash" elements score no more than the regular 1 point per facing, as the added amount is lower than 0.5.
2) An overloaded QWT hits a target with two PA panel facings at Range 5; in this case, all three elements strike the same panel facing. Since the core and "splash" damage is combined under (FQ1.344), this amounts to 12 points of damage, plus 2 points (2.4, rounded down) of bonus damage, to score 14 points of damage on the panel facing overall.
Are these calculations correct?
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |