In any case, I believe that the restriction on erratic maneuvers applies to voluntarily using erratic maneuvers, not involuntarily. AFAIK breakdown does not prevent guiding seeking weapons, only launching them.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 22, 2011 - 08:43 am: Edit

Oh, yeah, that is important--when you break down, you get to continue guiding your seeking weapons (that knowledge won me a game once). You can tumble. I don't know that you do or do not get ECM from tumbling. That being said, I'm hard pressed to figure out a situation where it would matter. But then, I did win a game 'cause you get to keep guiding your seeking weapons when you break down...

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Friday, July 22, 2011 - 09:30 am: Edit

Terry: T2000 lists tumbling as a rule to be used.

Peter: Tumbling restrictions on seeking weapon guidance may be more severe.
"(C6.552) Ships that are tumbling cannot fire weapons or take any other action. There are no exceptions to this rule, not even Q-ships
(R1.7)." - this is not entirely clear to me that this precludes guidance buy itself BUT with the fact that tumbling is considered to be a form of EM then
"(C10.512) A unit using EM cannot guide seeking weapons."

Stephen and I must have made simultaneous posts. In the particular case, my Fed tried to HET after the Fed and Kli both exchanged R1 fire, Fed under passive, and both took 62 internals. The HET was to avoid a ss and type 6 drone through the down shield. As such, I took ~11 internals due to the breakdown+tumble, a somewhat better trade still than the 20 from the seekers. On a subsequent impulse, I tumbled a down shield towards the Kli and the Kli scored another 12 pts of damage (without the EM shift). As it was, the Fed still probably had too much damage to make a difference, BUT, 8 pts fewer for the Fed and maybe. Recalling the events, another minor error was made, as the Fed took the 2 pts + tumble roll internals as 2 seperate volleys (should have been only 1).

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Friday, July 22, 2011 - 09:32 am: Edit

Also if tumbling had given ECM, then the SS and type 6 drone may not have had full effect, but this would not have made any difference in this particular game.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 22, 2011 - 09:37 am: Edit

David wrote:
>>Peter: Tumbling restrictions on seeking weapon guidance may be more severe.>>

Probably. The issue I was involved in was just a break down, not a tumbling break down.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Friday, July 22, 2011 - 12:27 pm: Edit

My copy of T2000 went missing. Any chance we could get it up on e23, perhaps with the latest SSDs attached?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 22, 2011 - 03:36 pm: Edit

You can get all the SSDs as downloads on this here web site, or on SFBOL.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Friday, July 22, 2011 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Oh yeah, the SSDs are easy. But little things like whether the Kzinti's scatter-pack comes from his drone rack or are extra, exactly when the three-turn limit applies to cloakers, etc.
that info is harder to find now that I've lost the book.

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 11:21 am: Edit

SPP: Can we get some official word on my tumbling question from before. I am reposting it so you don't have too look back in the topic.

Question from a game tonight:
My opponent broke down and then tumbled. He was asking if he got the 4 ecm from tumbling as provided in C6.553

I believe he does not, as that rule states the ship is considered to be using erratic maneuvers, which are not used in the tournament. He disagrees, so we thought we could ask here.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Stephen McCann asked on Thursday, July 21, 2011: Question from a game tonight: My opponent broke down and then tumbled. He was asking if he got the 4 ecm from tumbling as provided in (C6.553). I believe he does not, as that rule states the ship is considered to be using erratic maneuvers, which are not used in the tournament. He disagrees, so we thought we could ask here.
ANSWER: Your opponent was correct. The tournament rules for electronic warfare provide that a ship cannot generate EW itself and a list of some specific options that will not or that are cancelled, and some specific things that still operate. There is no prohibition on the ECM produced by tumbling, but it is not powered (at least voluntarily) ECM and is not prohibited by the electronic warfare rule. And while the ship is "considered to be using erratic maneuvers", it is not (the player cannot even voluntarily tumble as a result of the breakdown), it is simply an effect of tumbling like a wild weasel's ECM is simply an effect of the wild weasel.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Monday, November 07, 2011 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Have the Basic Set rule book and Tournament Reference rule book been updated to the 2010 MRB Standard?

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Monday, November 07, 2011 - 01:06 pm: Edit

When I asked Leanna about the possibility of Modue T2k on e23, I was told that it needs to be updated first.
So they know it's something we want, just gotta wait for them to have time to do it.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Monday, November 07, 2011 - 01:21 pm: Edit

The Tournament reference rule book is different that the T2000 module, I think it was said once that T2000 will not be uploaded as they will never sell out of T2000 books.

By Mike Johnson (Akira) on Saturday, January 14, 2012 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Hey does anyone know if the TKE's R-torp has any launching restrictions? I seem to remember hearing that it could track any target in the FA arc, but had to actually launch in the same direction as the ship. I guess the question is whether the R launcher is fixed as per FP3.11.

Thanks in advance!

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, January 15, 2012 - 10:21 am: Edit

Huh. I always thought it had to launch facing directly forward. But now that I think about it, I don't know that it says that in the tournament rules.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, January 15, 2012 - 02:20 pm: Edit

If it is a non-swivel FA arc launcher then it must launch facing forward. That would be a basic SFB rule, not a specific tournament rule. (FP3.11) ...The counter must be faced in the same direction as the launcher...

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 12:21 am: Edit

Mike Johnson asked on January 14, 2012:

Hey does anyone know if the TKE's R-torp has any launching restrictions? I seem to remember hearing that it could track any target in the FA arc, but had to actually launch in the same direction as the ship. I guess the question is whether the R launcher is fixed as per (FP3.11).

ANSWER: As Nick Blank points out, by (FP3.11), the torpedo must be launched straight ahead, as it is not a swivel launcher.

By Mike Johnson (Akira) on Monday, January 16, 2012 - 05:22 am: Edit

Thanks guys!

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 04:08 pm: Edit

In a recent game we had a bit of a rules question come up.

A WAX BBFF package had 6 drones on the map, and launched both F torps.

It was my understanding that you had to control the plasma at the time of launch, but my opponent argued that he could immediatly release control involuntarily.

I say launching more when your at your control limit is very voluntary, damage to the sensor track is involuntary.

Looking at Dogfight drones it specifically says they need a control channel on the impulse of launch.

In the specific rules for plasma self guidance its not really clear to me if they can launch and involuntarily release because they feel like firing when they cant control the plasma.

So who is right, can you launch plasma and immediatly release to self guidance, and call it involuntary when you knew you couldnt control any more.

Voluntary release is before plasma launch so my argument was that to launch plasma that impulse drone control on 2 of the drones would need to be released, then the plasmas can come out. And after they have been out for one impulse they can go to self guidance and the ship could then have 8 seeking weapons on the map.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 04:15 pm: Edit

(F3.531) specifies that all seeking weapons require a channel on the impulse of launch.
This question burned me once flying that exact same ship, so I know it well.
See also (D19.224) in case he tries to use that as an argument.

By Andrew J. Koch (Droid) on Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 04:19 pm: Edit

so could you launch the plasma first?

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 04:23 pm: Edit

What I suggested that I had seen players of the WAX BBFF do was keep only 4 or 5 max drones on board at a time.

Then they are free to launch 1 or 2, releasing them the following impulse to self guidance. They could then on that impulse launch drones to reach 6 controllled drones and 2 SGSW the plasma F's.

By Frank Di Vincenzo (Madoverload) on Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Not that I was his opponent. Nor do I have a dog in the hunt. But since I was there and have been playing Devil's Advocate for Josh I'll provide some of the counter-argument:

I hunted around for something that explicitly required a control channel to launch a weapon. Now, under voluntary release it does mention that a plasma takes a control channel on the impulse of its launch. However, nowhere I've seen states any restriction that an available control channel has to exist to actually fire the weapon. Without that, it can be argued that nothing stops the weapon being fired, which immediately put the controlling ship in violation of F3.3 and, thus, invokes involuntary release under F3.532.

The argument was not that the plasma uses a control channel on the first impulse of launch. I even found the rule stating that and presented it to both sides. However, that still doesn't restrict the firing. In fact, one could argue that it doesn't even make a difference, since the involuntary release rule is in place to handle the situation should said channel not be available at any point, even at launch.

Reinforcing the lack of restriction implicitly allowing a launch of a plasma without an available channel is the fact that the plasma rules provide several restrictions on the launch of plasma [must have a lock-on, must be in the weapon's firing arc] but does not bother mentioning a control channel requirement. While I'm not a fan of "no rule exists therefore I must be able to do it," when the rules you do have show what you need to actually perform the launch and it does not include this then one is forced to assume it is not needed.

Again, just debating the counterpoint. However it is supposed to be is fine with me.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Droid:
Yes, then you can release the plasma to their own control at the instant you launch all six drones.

By Frank Di Vincenzo (Madoverload) on Thursday, February 23, 2012 - 04:59 pm: Edit

(F3.531) Voluntary transfer of control takes place during the Seeking Weapons Stage of the Impulse Activity Segment. It cannot take place on the impulse in which the seeking weapon itself was launched because of the order of procedures in the Sequence of Play, so a self-guiding seeking weapon would use a control channel during its first impulse.

It says it would use a channel on impulse of launch. Not that it requires one. It merely states what will happen based on sequence of play. It does not exclude the ability to launch. And the Involuntary release rule covers what happens in the case once it is launched, and there are more weapons being controlled than slots available.

In fact, your response to Droid, that you can release the plasma at the point you launch the drones, supports that theory. In your example, voluntary control doesn't apply, since that step in the sequence of play has already transpired. At that point, the release is handled through involuntary means. Thus, there is no reason that release couldn't be done to the weapon that was just launched.