Well, I don't know if it is a clever term paper, so much as a "Huh. This is apparently specifically how these things were designed to work…"

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 11:27 am: Edit

Like many things it is not a "wonder weapon."

If a death bolt is launched at that rate, consider what you are telling your opponent about it.

Unlike drones from a type-C drone rack there is no mystery to resolve.

That second drone from a type-C drone rack launched during a turn could be carrying almost any drone warhead, and could be a type-IV frame.

A second death bolt launched within a turn not only tells your opponent that you have two deck crews there, but that the second death bolt is not modified in any way. He does not have to identify it, the mere fact that two death bolts were launched from that death bolt hatch in that interval tells him it is a standard death bolt. He may not know for sure what the target is, but he knows there is nothing special about its warhead or how much damage it will take to destroy it.

This is one of the things the Carnivon player has to keep in mind when trying to launch death bolts at maximum rate.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 11:34 am: Edit

Term Paper posted.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 12:04 pm: Edit

How are Death Bolts treated by Short-Range Cannon or Multi-Purpose Defense System fire?

I still haven't gotten a copy of Module C6 yet, sadly. But it has been noted elsewhere that CL48 will feature a preview of the C6 empires for Federation Commander, so I was wondering how I may need to address SRC/Death Bolt interactions in the WIP FC Omega playtest file.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

Under the last sentence of (FD20.32), an SRC or MPDS treats a Death Bolt as a drone.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 02:08 pm: Edit

SPP:

Duly noted, thank you.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 07:47 pm: Edit

I was more suggesting that there was a term paper in the tactics around the possible faster rate and such, rather than that the ability to launch more than one/round was inherently a term paper.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - 12:46 am: Edit

(R19.4) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. That entry is likely to absorbed in the Y179 entry as the fighters seem to be the same (based on YIS of the DG-2/DG-2i). (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.8) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.15) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.23) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.37) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.46) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.61) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.61) Heavy Fighter table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.63) Carrier table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)
(R19.63) Heavy Fighter table is missing the Y178 entry. (Matthew Potter February 25, 2014)

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Question on Firing Arcs and QWTs.

Most (all?) QWTs have an FA firing arc. They are treated as plasma torpedoes for most purposes. The QWT rules are non-specific on what directions the QWTs can be launched. The rules for plasma torpedoes indicate that plasma torpedoes that fire FA are "fixed" and can only be fired facing directly forward (i.e. direction 1 relative to the launching ship). There is no indication that Paravian QWTs have "swivel" launchers. Which would suggest that QWTs can only be launched facing directly forward.

Is this the case? Or can Paravians launch FA QWTs facing in directions 1, 2, or 6 (relative to the launching ship)?

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Yes, this is a topic we've been discussing recently. It is a substantial consideration for the Paravian since it has been suggested that it may be easy to mug in a corner. This would certainly be the case if the target ship can be acquired in the #6/#2 arc but can only fire out of the #1. Not necessarily a deal-killer, but would require the QWT to travel farther and/or HET both of which could be a detriment at closer ranges. Whereas the ability to fire the QWT out of the 6/1/2 would expand it's options and perhaps lend itself towards better handling if it's cornered.

DF ships that fire in the FA have the protection of being able to fire out of the 6/1/2 facings which helps. And though the QWT isn't a DF weapon, it isn't necessarily a plasma weapon either though it does follow many of the plasma rules. I would be interested in the official stance.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 01:13 pm: Edit

FA seeking weapons FP3.11 & FP3.12 is the only reference that we can find. As Peter mentions though, "The rules on "fixed" plasma launchers are pretty specific (and only apply to a small number of old ships)".

This is why many (perhaps most/all) of us are a tad unclear as to the ability of the QWT. Is it a fixed plasma-like weapon only capable of firing out of the #1 or at least flexible enough to be able to also acquire/fire out of the 6/2 as well.

As mentioned, the restriction to firing only out of the #1 isn't necessarily a deal-killer on the QWT...but it could put a monkey in the wrench and a hitch in their git-along.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I will quite honestly state that, to my knowledge, no one mentioned this problem with the QWT when Module Y1 was published. It was also not mentioned, the best of my knowledge when Captain's Log #28 was published. And I have no memory of this coming up in response to the publications of Module Y2 or Module Y3. Not even in the run up to Module C6's publication. It has not appeared (in a fast review) anywhere in any of the C6 development topic.

I can only assume that all players made their own determinations and that, prior to Peter Bakija asking, everyone assumed that their individual (as in their group's) determination was the correct one so, prior to Peter, no one bothered to actually ask.

As of right now, and in consultation with the overall universal guardian, they have to go out the #1 shield facing, just like a plasma torpedo without swivels launching in the FA arc.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Thank you SPP. Until further notice, that is what we will do.

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 02:41 pm: Edit

For what its worth, the my design intent was for it to be able to launch facing out the 1,2,6 shields...
But as SPP States it never is stated as such. I think that will make it difficult to play a tournament Paravian...
Just my .02... certainly SPPs ruling is the definitive thing

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Is there perhaps room for further discussion on this in regards to Gregg's original intent for the weapon?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 04:12 pm: Edit

SPP wrote:
>>I can only assume that all players made their own determinations and that, prior to Peter Bakija asking, everyone assumed that their individual (as in their group's) determination was the correct one so, prior to Peter, no one bothered to actually ask. >>

I don't think anyone noticed until discussion of a tournament version of a "modern day" (i.e. not Y era) Paravian ship came up, and folks started sussing out what would or would not work.

For one, I have never actually put a Paravian ship of any type on the map, so until this kind of discussion came up, it never occurred to me to wonder about it.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Module C6 is my introduction to the Paravians, since all my CLs are pre-Interregnum and I haven't ventured outside the GW era (in either direction)

Post-Dave-Edit: Everytime I've seen a paravian on the board, everyone involved assumed a "natural" FA launcher, rather than a fixed #1 launcher with FA tracking.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Prior to Peter, Jim and I discussing it, our group had assumed the ability to fire out of the 6/1/2 shield facings. We've used the Paravian in free-for-all type games after C6 came out and played it with the ability to fire out of the 6/1/2. It played fine in this regard. It would be interesting to hear how it was played in various playtesting groups.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Thursday, March 20, 2014 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Annex #4: HY-3 lists drones as "2xADD-FA". s.b. listed as "2xRALAD-FA". (Matthew Potter March 20, 2014)
Annex #4: HY-3M lists drones as "2xADD-FA". s.b. listed as "2xRALAD-FA". (Matthew Potter March 20, 2014)

Reasoning:
The bare "2xADD-FA" notation could lead players to think that this is some sort of HY-specific ADD rack and that the designers forgot to put in the ADD-rack capacity on the table.
(R19.F7) describes these as "two small rails that could be armed with anti-drones". With the FA, these seem to match RALADs and should be noted that they are treated as such so as to not be confused with fighter-born ADD racks.

EDIT: Double-checked (R19.F7). Modified post as a result.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Friday, March 21, 2014 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Annex #7G: Paravian HDW Stores is "rule". s.b. "G33.42". (Matthew Potter March 21, 2014)
Annex #7G: Paravian HDW-V Stores is "rule". s.b. "G33.42". (Matthew Potter March 21, 2014)
Annex #7G: Carnivon HDW Stores is "rule". s.b. "G33.42". (Matthew Potter March 21, 2014)
Annex #7G: Carnivon HDW-V Stores is "rule". s.b. "G33.42". (Matthew Potter March 21, 2014)

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, March 22, 2014 - 05:07 pm: Edit

(R1.15-R18) Module C6 Paravian DefSat-QWT - The disruptor defense satellites have a range of 15, are the QWT's limited to range 15 also?

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, March 29, 2014 - 06:56 pm: Edit

I'd guess that it follows the same rules as the range for heavy weapons on PFs, where DF weapons are limited to r15. Of course plasma torps on PFs and Defsats (being plasma-F) are limited to r15 anyway so this rule is neither here nor there. So if there's a ruling for Paravian PFs, it might logically copy that.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 29, 2014 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Jim and Ken, I don't think so. Photon, Disrupter, Hellbore, Phaser 1 and Phaser 2 Def Sats appear to have range 30+ depending on the weapon type from the range tables I have. Keep in mind that my copy of Advanced Missions is from the Captain's Rulebook published way back in 1991.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, March 29, 2014 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Disrupter DEFSATS are range-15 by design, but the main thing with DEFSASTS is what is controlling them (DS or as command mine)...

DS by itself fires out to range-5 unless it's returing fire, as a vommand mine, it fires out to the weapon's limit

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Sunday, March 30, 2014 - 09:29 pm: Edit

This may have been asked before, my apologies in advance if it's been discussed. In regards to the Carnivons and Paravians, if a group wishes to include them into the GW is there a consensus as to what side either of them would fall into?

Thoughts would be appreciated or comments on if this has already been done/debated/discussed.

Thank you.