Archive through April 12, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through April 12, 2019
This issue came up, and I am posting it here so that it can become more general knowledge. Way back in the late 1980s I had a hand in creating this in a game with David Zimdars. At that time, the rule had not been formalized and I incorrectly used it, which led to its formal development and codification.
=================
Rule (H7.132) makes a clear statement that the energy is transferred from the batteries at the end of the impulse, and it is specifically listed in the Sequence of Play as happening in the Post Combat Segment (6E).
If the decision is made to place reserve power into a future High Energy Turn on Impulse #X, even if that High Energy Turn is not going to be made until Impulse #X+#, the energy leaves the batteries (or battery, accounting for using reserve power to complete a contingent allocation) after the resolution of damage due to direct-fire on Impulse #X.
If a battery (or batteries) are destroyed during Impulse #X, this would be before the power could be transferred in (6E), so any power in the battery (or batteries) is lost with its (their) destruction.
If the decision to transfer the power is made on Impulse #X, and the battery (or batteries) was not destroyed in the immediately preceding steps of the impulse, the power is transferred in (6E).
If the battery (or batteries) from which power was allocated to a delayed function on Impulse #X are destroyed by any means on Impulse #X+1 (or later), it does not stop the transfer of the energy previously held in the battery (or batteries) on Impulse #X; the battery (or batteries) have already been emptied on Impulse #X before they were destroyed on Impulse #X+1.
This is one of the reasons why the "TACTICS" after (H7.134) discusses the decision process when taking damage. A Klingon D7 commander knows (or should know) that 18 points of internal damage will most likely destroy all of his batteries, and so needs to go ahead and use the power to reinforce the shield [which might be in (6A2) or (6D2)], because the power will otherwise be lost with the batteries at that point. It will not be available to him to redirect in (6E).
Note that the above covers transferring the power for a "future action." If the power is to be used immediately, then it is used at that point. Thus if you decide on Impulse #X to do a high energy turn during movement on Impulse #X, you simply do so with the reserve power. But if you are allocating for a future action, that allocation takes place in (6E). So if on Impulse #X you decide you may want to do an HET on Impulse #X+2, and the batteries are destroyed on Impulse #X, the power is lost because you cannot allocate for the future action until (6E).
Charles Carroll:
It is something of a loophole, and one of those things that slipped through the cracks. Fleets, in general, are intended to be large groupings of ships, and not "one squadron," which is in essence what you have if there are just two ships. Thus the Klingon force in (S8.362) could have a D7C and a D5L, and an F5L, and could, under (S8.363) have another D7C added as the fleet flagship.
The intent of the rules is that you should not have just two D5Ls, but as they are currently written it is legal.
Charles,
It is something I used to see happen in campaigns that I had been involved in (when I did my own campaigns I made house rules that removed that from being a choice of squadron or Fleet structure).
Lol....well it is what it is. I can live with it.And even use it if needed. But...as Steve said...its a loophole and really was never intended to work this way. So is it cheating? Not quite. But it goes against the intent.
Chuck
A question came to my (alleged) mind some time back, and I've never really been able to think of a satisfactory answer to it. It has to do with an interaction between the limitations of the Early Years Plasma Bolts (rule YFP8.1) and the rule for Accelerated Arming (rule FP1.93; the "Two Turn Eff" rule).
According to rule (YFP8.1), "The maximum true range (of an early years plasma bolt) is 5 hexes... If the true range is greater than five, there is no damage to the target."
Given that even as poor of a player as I knows that a Plasma-F and a Plasma-G torpedo have equal strength up to a range of five hexes, I wondered if there was any real reason for the Gorn WBL (and pre-Y105 refit WBI) to arm its Plasma-G bolts AS Plasma-G bolts. Why not save the power and arm them as Plasma-F bolts?
(For that matter, if the Gorn engineers were able to replace the atomic missile racks on their WCA with Plasma-F Bolt launchers on a one-for-one basis, why didn't they replace the atomic missile racks on the larger WBB with Plasma-F Bolt launchers on a one-for-one basis as well? Why did they replace them with the Plasma-G Bolt launchers?)
The only thing that came to mind (although I'm sure I missed SOMEthing) was the "Two Turn Eff" rule (FP1.93).
According to rule (FP1.93), the Gorn in question has to have two points of reserve power to apply to a launcher (two points EACH for multiple launchers) to finish arming the "Two Turn Eff." The WBL/WBI have five boxes worth of Battery, enabling them to do so...
IF it's allowed.
It is here that I have a concern.
Rightly or wrongly, I can't help but think of rule (FP1.93) as a pretty advanced trick, and a bit of flexibility that I have trouble accepting as such an early feature. It is with this thought that I have to ask, is this legal?
Aw, heck, with the poor reserve power I'm familiar with on the classic (R6.2) Gorn Heavy Cruiser, I almost want to ask if the hefty reserve on the WBB was a deliberate design feature to USE this rule... 
A potential tactic (?) for this little feature may involve the Gorn using their superior mobility (a thought that, by itself, makes me chuckle) to charge in on the second turn of their mutual arming cycle with their Romulan enemies as a way of forcing the Romulans to quick finish their Plasma-R torpedoes as Plasma-F; a balance that will greatly reduce the ratio of Romulan plasma throw weight to Gorn plasma throw weight away from what they'd have with fully armed torpedoes.
I was leaving this alone to allow others to review and comment.
To make some observations.
If you just armed plasma-Fs, you are committed to a three-turn arming cycle (assuming you do not upgrade it with a point of battery during the first turn).
So to get the possible benefit of the two-turn-F you have to start by arming a plasma-G.
And you may not want to commit your batteries to this since you are surrendering your tactical flexibility.
It is thus not illegal.
Thank you. The explaination for WHY it's legal is very reasonable.
A plasma using ship at weapon status 1. Has two PFs (causal PFs) in its Mech links. Rule K2.432 says that Plasma Fs are not armed except for the leader and two Pfs. This i am assuming is for a Tender with a full flotilla.
So would the two causal Pfs plasma Fs be armed are not?
GOOD question, Vandor.
TBH, I'm NOT a good judge when it comes to rules, but I tend to agree that because rule (K2.432) specifically talks about a PFL and has specific numbers, it would apply IF you have a full flotilla, or, in this case, if you had more than two casual gunboats.
Outside of that, I honestly think the blanket statements under the fourth bullet point of rule (S4.10) would allow you to have the Plasma-F torpedoes on both your casual gunboats armed.
On the other hand, because rule (K2.432) specifically states that ONLY a gunboat leader can have its Plasma-F torpedoes armed at WS-0, a SPECIFIC exception to the fourth bullet point of (S4.10), a qualified judge could rule "No."
BUT as yet another back-and-forth, under (K2.432), at WS-I, the leader and TWO OTHER GUNBOATS will have their weapons armed. Since you are talking about BEING at WS-I, I think your two casuals qualify as "The Two Other Gunboats" and, as such, this rule would allow you to have their Plasma-F torpedoes armed as well.
(Between us, this sort of thinking may keep me from EVER being a qualified judge... )
Gregory S. Flusche:
Nothing in (K2.114), or any of the rest of (K2.11), says that (K2.432) does not apply to casual fast patrol ship tenders, and nothing in (K2.432) or any of the rest of (K2.43) says that there is an exception for (K2.114) casual fast patrol ship tenders. So, yes (K2.432) applies to the fast patrol ships on a casual PF tender (usually two), and both can have their plasma-F torpedoes armed (if so equipped) under this rule.
thank You very much. Was hoping it was that way. I was reading it that way
Quick question. Hydran true Carriers like the Uhlan show it needs a DE and 2 EH for an escort? So it needs all 3 or the DE or the two EH? This is taken from the Hydran Master Starship book. R9.17
Second question....as was pointed out to me. If we are using flexible escort rules. S8.15 Then a single EH could be used instead of the normal 3?
Charles Carroll:
The Uhlan carries a strike group of 16 fighters and as such has a large escort group, it is supposed to have the DE/DA and two EH/AH as its escorts.
Rule (S8.315) as written would allow you to escort the Uhlan with a single EH/AH, but under Federation & Empire rule (515.22) an Uhlan counts as a "medium carrier" because its 16 fighters constitute "eight fighter factors" requiring at least two escorts.
Or you could upgrade those escorts to (say) a trio of DWA.
Though the DEA is pretty rocking with it's mass of Phaser Gs making it a menace at close range.
I apologize if I'm misreading things, Charles, but it's almost sounding like an attempt to minimize WHAT is being used.
While I recognize a need to keep excessive BPV costs down when putting together a battle group, you still need to buy what you need for your plan. If you're planning for the Uhlan to be nothing more than a rearming point for the fighters, it might work. On the other hand, what if the Enemy doesn't go along with those plans? What sort of back-up plan do you have?
With just about EVERY Hydran carrier operating with an escort group of one Destroyer (or Light Cruiser) hull and two Frigate (or DW) hulls, I've long felt that the Hydrans regarded the escorts as acceptably expendable; if one gets destroyed in a Gatling overrun, there's always another with the group.
(Hey, Hydrans have a suicide overload arming level for their Fusion Beams; if they're willing to cripple themselves for an attack, why wouldn't they be willing to have smaller ships be sent in on suicide runs?)
look at the hunter? nothing but a ship sized stinger2
Emperor Hydrax what should we do about that one who is like 12th in line with the throne?
reward him. Give him a hunter to command...
Honestly speaking, the Hunter FF can (with direct fire weapons) put out around double the damage of a ST-2 (under optimal circumstances) at range zero. It's more likely than a ST-2 to actually get there as well.
While I agree with you, Richard, the situation you're describing is comparing the Hunter and Stinger-II on a one-to-one basis.
In fairness to the Stingers, they operate in packs (or swarms); a lot fly towards a target, most get killed ("Suicide Runs," anyone?) but the survivors get to die gloriously as their enemies blow up.
Hunters sometimes operate in Frigate Squadrons, but they also sometimes fly alone. Regardless, I guess they too can die gloriously as their enemies blow up...
... as a result of zero hex range suicide overload fusion beam shots...
Hmmm...
Excuse me, Admiral. May I please transfer to a Cuirassier?
The Hn=St-2 joke is old and ubiquitous among SFB players, but actually the HN is a good deal.
From a combat BPV perspective. St-2 = 10 combat BPV. HN = 63 BPV (6:1).
The Hunter has roughly twice the firepower and five to seven times the damage absorption ability of a St-2 (depending on how much damage it can take on its shields). The Hunter is also capable of twice the speed of the St-2, meaning it's much more likely to reach the target. Overall, this (to me) justifies the 6:1 price difference.
Another way to look at it is this: Can a HN take on 6*St-2 and kill them? Probably, given that the HN can stay at range and has regenerating shields, but the St-2 take damage slowly and get worn down. That makes the HN a good deal.
From a strategic perspective, the HN can maintain long distance operations, and the St-2 can't (really) so it's just in a different class as a ship versus a fighter.
So, the cost difference is justified. Now, all that being said, which you prefer: 6*St-2 versus 1*HN will depend on your mission. If you're doing a base assault mission you will prefer the 6*St-2. If you're talking open-fleet combat against Klingons or Lyrans.... You *may* be better off with the HN given its speed and durability.
YMMV
Now now, no one was arguing otherwise. No need to belabor the obvious.
@Richard:
Raspberry
Ahem.
I hope that you are all engaged in good humor and not allowing animus to arise and fester.
Richard Eitzen may not have used a smiley face, but the tone of his response can be read as essentially admiration for the detail of Ted Fay's response.
Keep in mind, this is a print medium lacking visual and verbal cues in which to interpret the text, and assume good intentions in your responses.
I was responding to Jeffrey, with moderate good humor.
There's never any animosity between myself and Ted that I know of, we've been shooting at each other in good fun with F&E for 8 years or something.
Thanks Steve as always helpful and useful information. Will get a ruling from the powers that be about this in the campaign.
Jeff...as a Rom/Hydran mostly player. Its a pretty important distinction for me. If I could bring less. At least till I get enough to fill out the carrier group. But to be able to add that kind of FP would be great without the added cost of extra Escorts. Of course in the situation I am in...where I do not have the Uhlan and the other guy does. I prefer the rule as Steve explained it...since it would mean he could not bring it hehe.
It is not critical either way. I am behind in so many ways either way. One way though is unplayable. The other is just likely suicide.
I do love the quick responses and often well thought out replies from so many of our group.
Thank you everyone who replied for your perspectives.