++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions to this point have been downloaded for Captain's Log #48.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Hiver Fighter Energy and Shields:

So Hiver fighters can use some of their energy to raise shields:

(OJ1.243) "A fighter can raise a one-point shield for one point of energy; heavy fighters can raise a two-point shield."

The rule is kind of vague. Does the above mean:

-A single space fighter can use exactly 1 point of energy to raise exactly a 1 point shield, or that a single space fighter can use X points of energy to raise X points of shields on a 1:1 basis?

-A double space fighter can use exactly 1 point of energy to raise exactly a 2 point shield *or* a double space fighter can use exactly 2 points of energy to raise exactly a 2 point shield? (and/or extrapolate to the same question about single space fighters and using multiple points of energy).

I *think* the rule is trying to indicate that a single space fighter can use 1 point of power to raise a 1 point shield (and no more) and a double space fighter can use 2 points of power to raise a 2 point shield (and no more), but when I read it, it still seems a tad vague.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 04:52 pm: Edit

From the Omega Errata File:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/All_Omega_Errata.pdf

(OJ1.243) CLARIFICATION: It has been asked if a fighter other
than a heavy fighter can use more than one point of power for a
stronger shield, but the rule is explicit that only one point can be
used, and it must be allocated at the start of the turn. The
reference to “points” at the end of the rule is to the fact that a
heavy fighter can use two points of power for shields.

So standard fighters only one point, heavy fighters, 1 or 2 points.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Thanks for the nice and clear answer!

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I was looking through the OMRB double-checking certain weapons' power requirements, and was surprised to note that antiproton phasers, the antiptoton beam, and the antiproton lance each have no need to make use of warp power during their respective arming cycles. (I'm wondering how I didn't notice this before...)

Usually, if a weapon is described as having some sort of antimatter-based component, there is at least a partial need to use warp power to arm it. For example, the antimatter cannon's standard load needs two of its three arming points to be warp energy, in order to provide the "antimatter" and "holding field" portions of the warhead.

Is there a particular way that the antiproton weapons work that allows them to use both warp and impulse power to arm?


I should note that my intention is not to suddenly make life more awkward for Ymatrian and Worb players (and potentially for Omega-Paravian and Zosman ones further down the road). If the weapons work fine the way they are, great. It was just that the way in which the weapon is described got me to thinking, not least when compared to other weapons known to make use of antimatter in order to do their damage.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Steve P might have other thoughts, but to me this is something that does not need to be messed with or explained.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 05:42 pm: Edit

I asked Steve P and he said "The nitwit who ran SFB before me used to mess with rules on the flimsiest of pretexts and that is not my management style. No change will be made and no explanation needs to be added."

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Haha!

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 05:51 pm: Edit

SVC and SPP:

Understood, thanks. (So long as the weapons work the way they are supposed to, well and good.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Some considerations, Gary...

1. There are only so many designer man-hours. Should they be spent on needless mucking with perfectly good rules or on new products?

2. Omega doesn't get as many designer man-hours as it needs. Should they be spent on needless mucking with perfectly good rules or on new Omega empires?

3. You can probably expect a similar answer to similar questions in future. Perhaps your time is ill-spent pouring over the rulebook seeking some irrelevant nit-picking horse-frightening question to ask? "I'm jus' sayin' what we all know is true."

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 05:56 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

I do not see any reason to revise a weapon's arming rules (anti-proton phasers, anti-proton beams, and anti-proton lances) after it has been in the game for more than a decade.

Further, anti-protons appear normally in nature (cosmic rays) and are relatively stable until like anti-matter.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Anti protons ARE antimatter.

Anti-matter is just as stable as normal matter, ie the anti-equivalents of sub atomic 'normal' particles behave (as far as we can tell) as their opposites do (other than the 'anti' part).

My apologies for the minor science lesson.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Antimatter is made up of antiprotons, and antiprotons can exist normally in nature on earth, found in cosmic rays, but antimatter is not normally found naturally on earth and it was a very big deal that they managed to create and maintain the stability of antimatter for about a quarter hour a few years ago. So I will stand by what I said, and if you want to argue the point, do it in e-mail as it is no longer relevant to this conversation. The rules for arming anti-proton phasers, beams, and lances are not going to be changed.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, January 23, 2014 - 01:49 pm: Edit

No argument intended for rules changing, sorry if I gave that impression.