Jeffrey Coutu asked on Wednesday, August 07: On the Klingon G1PL, if the first B weapon hit was obtained, since there are no B weapons (just the transporter for being a leader), I assume that you move to the text item on the DAC (it would not hit the transporter just because there were no other B weapons left)?
ANSWER: Yes.

Jeffrey Coutu asked on Wednesday, August 07: On the Klingon G1PL, if it was an even numbered C weapon hit, and there was no longer an attached shuttle, I assume the damage is then applied to a phaser 2 if possible, (it would not move to the next item on the DAC unless there were no phaser 2s remaining)?
ANSWER: Yes.

Jeffrey Coutu asked on Wednesday, August 07: The Klingon G1C (cargo version PF) replaces a C Hull and Disruptor with the 2 center cargo boxes. I assume that both of those cargo boxes are hit on weapon A (one is not it on a Hull hit and the other on a Weapon A), correct?
ANSWER: There is no rule other than that on versions the box is destroyed on what it replaced, so one cargo (or barracks, or mine rack, or shuttle) is hit on Weapon A (the first such hit might be taken on the anti-drone rack) and the other is hit on hull.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Maybe I've misunderstood the interactions between J1.85 and S2.23 and rounding.

S2.23 does say to retain fractions when calculating scored VP for shuttles/fighters. However, it was my understanding that J1.85 specifies to round up fractions of .500 and higher when calculating the EBVP.

So *I think* (but could be missing something!) that A-Admins have a EBPV of 2 (50% of 3 = 1.5 rounded up) per J1.85, and thus destroying 2 of them on the board would score you 4 VP. If you damaged one, however, that would score you .5 VP (25% of 2), since you retain fractions for scoring per S2.23.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnson:

(S2.24) FRACTIONS: In the case of all of these percentages, round any fractions of 0.500 of more up to the next higher number, those of 0.499 down to the next lower one. Exception: See (S2.23).

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Steve:

I'm not sure if you are referencing S2.24 for clarity or correction. But I think I've got it.

J1.85 is used to determine the Economic BPV of shuttles and fighters. Using it we can determine A-Admin's Economic BVP is 2 (50% of 3, round .5 up)

S2.23 gives various percentages for scoring based on EBPV (retain fractions):
Damage 25%: .5 VP
Crippled 50%: 1 VP
Destroyed or Captured 100%: 2 VP

In one of your posts, I do see you mention that destroying 2xA-Admin might get you 3 VP, but I don't see how to get to that without ignoring J1.85.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

Rule (S2.23) tells you to RETAIN the fractions.

"(retain all fractions in the case of fighters and shuttles):"

So the economic cost of an advanced admin shuttle is 1.5. The economic cost of an early admin shuttle is 0.5. The rule is specific to shuttles: You RETAIN the fractions, you do not round up.

Rule (S2.24) notes that (S2.23) is an EXCEPTION to rounding fractions.

"Exception: See (S2.23)."

So two A-admin each worth 3 combat BPV are worth 1.5 economic BPV and get you 3 VP.

So two Y-admin, each worth 1 combat BPV are worth 0.5 economic BPV and get you 1 VP.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Right, when applying "all these percentages" (verbiage from S2.24) we retain fractions in the case of shuttles and fighters. I take that to mean the 25%/50%/100% percentages.

However:
(J1.85) ECONOMIC BPV: The economic BPV of all shuttlecraft and
fighters is equal to one-half of the combat BPV listed on the Master
Fighter Chart. When dividing the combat BPV in half, round fractions
of 0.50 or more up and fractions of 0.49 or less down.

So the A-Admin has an Economic BPV of 2 (not 1.5), J1.85 specifies that .5 should be rounded up. It seems very specific about it.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Thursday, August 08, 2019 - 06:29 pm: Edit

I lost a battle playing the Jindos. He stayed out and i ended up getting most of my Prospecting shuttles killed. I really thought i was doing so well. Then after he took some nasty internals from my rail guns. He ran off when we added up VP i lost by the points of killed Prospecting shuttles

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Jeffrey Coutu:

I answered these in something of a rush, and I think I need to take the time to be more thorough.

Jeffrey Coutu asked on Wednesday, August 07: On the Klingon G1PL, if the first B weapon hit was obtained, since there are no B weapons (just the transporter for being a leader), I assume that you move to the text item on the DAC (it would not hit the transporter just because there were no other B weapons left)?
ANSWER: Yes.

ANSWER EXPANDED; I am going to use a G1BL disruptor PF leader. The first time a Weapon-A hit comes up, it can be scored on a disruptor or the anti-drone rack, it cannot be scored on the transporter. The second time a Weapon-A hit is scored, it MUST be scored on the transporter, you do not have the option to score it on the anti-drone rack or a disruptor. The third time a Weapon-A hit comes up it must be scored on the anti-drone rack or a disruptor. The fourth time a Weapon-A hit is scored, IF THE TRANSPORTER HAD BEEN REPAIRED, the hit must be scored on the repaired transporter, it cannot be scored on a disruptor or the anti-drone rack. If the Transporter has not been repaired, it would be scored on either a disruptor or the anti-drone rack, depending on which was available. Note that if the anti-drone rack had been taken as the first Weapon-A hit, and was subsequently repaired, it could be taken instead of a disruptor on a subsequent Weapon-A hit, but the transporter is always taken first in any even Weapon-A hit. If the G1BL were to take four Weapon-A hits in a single volley, it could take them as Anti-Drone or disruptor, Transporter, Anti-drone or disruptor, anti-drone or disruptor.

Jeffrey Coutu asked on Wednesday, August 07: On the Klingon G1PL, if it was an even numbered C weapon hit, and there was no longer an attached shuttle, I assume the damage is then applied to a phaser 2 if possible, (it would not move to the next item on the DAC unless there were no phaser 2s remaining)?
ANSWER: Yes.

ANSWER EXPANDED; Note that the shuttle is a special case. If it is not there, it would be skipped (a phaser-2 would be hit if one were available), but the shuttle might reappear (dock back aboard, or another admin shuttle from some other unit might dock to he PFL). In such case that shuttle is again going to be available to be destroyed on an even Weapon-C hit.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston;

I am sorry, but the rules may appear to contradict, but your interpretation would mean in the case of the example given in (S2.23) that whether the two admin shuttles were crippled, or destroyed, they would be worth two point.

50% of 1 is 0.5 rounded up to 1 x 2 = 2.
100% of 1 is 1 x 2 = 2.

(S2.23) is explicit that fractions are retained. (S2.24) is explicit that (S2.23) is an exception to rounding the fractions up or down.

Note also that what you are trying to say is that an admin-Y's crippling produces no victory points e.g., its EPV is 0.5 of which 50% would 0.25 rounded down to zero.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Steve

I'm not sure where you're getting that the two admin shuttles in the example would be worth two points if crippled. Regular admin shuttles are worth .5 points when crippled and 1 full point when destroyed (or captured). They're also worth .25 points if damaged and not crippled.

How I got these numbers:
1) An Admin shuttle has a combat BPV of 2
2) J1.85 says that its economic BPV is half of that, so it's 1
3) S2.23 gives the following percentages for scoring, these are percentages of the economic BPV (retain fractions):
Damage: 25% (.25)
Crippled: 50% (.5)
Destroyed or Captured: 100% (1)

The example is correct, saying that two destroyed admin shuttles are worth two points (1 each).

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Now to continue, let's follow the same steps for Advanced Admin shuttles:

1) An A-Admin shuttle has a combat BPV of 3
2) J1.85 says that its economic BPV is 2 (J1.85 very specifically says that when calculating EBPV you round .5 up and .49 down).
3) S2.23 gives the percentages for scoring based on economic BPV:
Damaged: 25% (.5)
Crippled: 50% (1)
Destroyed or Captured: 100% (2)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

Admin Shuttle Combat BPV is 2.
Y-Admin Shuttle Combat BPV is 1.

Admin Shuttle Economic BPV is 1.
Y-Admin Shuttle Economic BPV is 0.5.

Admin Shuttle Destroyed is 100% of Economic BPV, i.e., 1.
Y-Admin Shuttle Destroyed is 100% of Economic BPV, i.e., 0.5.

Admin Shuttle Crippled is 50% of Economic BPV, i.e., 0.50.
Y-Admin Shuttle Cripples is 50% of Economic BPV, i.e., 0.25.

You have decided that (J1.85) takes precedence and that (S2.23) which specifically says that fractions are retained is ignored, even though (S2.24) explicitly notes that (S2.23) is an exception to the rounding.

So a crippled admin shuttle has the same value as a destroyed admin shuttle, because you are rounding 0.50 up 1.00, the same value if it had been destroyed. And a crippled Y-Admin has no value because you are rounding 0.25 down to 0.00.

I do not know how to make this any clearer, and I am not trying to be pedantic, rude, or mean (honestly, keep in mind that this is a print medium, lacking tone, facial expressions, and other body language cues), the tone of voice and expression should, if anything, present confusion on my part that I seem to be unable to get the information across and freely admit that the error might be on my side, but the text of the rules is very plain to me.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Right I guess we're just disagreeing on rule precedence. How I got to where I got (for what it's worth):

My understanding is "specific overrules general"

J1.85's language is *very* specific.

S2.24 says "for these percentages" which I have taken to mean the various percentages that are used when scoring.

What you are saying is that 2.24 (which seems to be a general statement) overrides J1.85, a very specific one. That's fine if that's correct, but it doesn't feel right. J1.85 also has the advantage of making sure that all EBPVs are always integer values, so that guarantees that all VPs will be (at worst) in 1/4 points, so there's that.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

For VICTORY CONDITIONS a subrule in that rule is SPECIFIC, i.e., a subrule of (S2.0) takes precedence over a rule on shuttles.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Friday, August 09, 2019 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Yeah I can see that. But I would say that S2.0 in its entirety is explaining how to calculate VP and determine victory, but it's all based on knowing the economic BPV of everything already. With that, I'll give you one more argument in favor of my position, and I guess leave it at that:

This is the last sentence of S2.12:
The economic BPV of shuttles and fighters is one-half of the
combat BPV; see (J1.85). Fighter EPV is not included in the EPV of
carriers, or Hybrid ships (including Hydrans).

Note that it specifically references J1.85 as how to calculate EBPV of fighters and shuttles.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 04:50 am: Edit

Question regarding special sensors.

I just want to confirm I am interpreting YG24.0 correctly. I assume that the listed restrictions apply to ALL ships with special sensors (including modern "Middle Years" ships) through Y134 at which point ALL ships (including EY bases and ships) are released from these restrictions.

It's also confusing because YR2.48 states that improved special sensors were introduced in Y120 but that would appear to contradict YG24.0 which implies there were introduced in Y134.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Douglas Saldana:

The restrictions in (YG24.0) do apply to all special sensors, whether mounted on a base or a ship, and no longer apply after Y134.

There is a caveat in that special scenario rules might define that a given unit had not been updated (might apply to a base in a backwater, or to a civilian survey ship).

The Federation CLS is noted in the Federation Master Starship Book as being under the Early Years restrictions until Y134, so the reference to "improved sensors" may simply refer to "special sensors able to be used by ships of empires other than the Vulcans" (quote marks used simply to outline the statement, it is not a direct quote from any place else).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

While it refers to the rule for how to get the economic BPV, it is itself saying that the for purposes of the victory conditions in the victory conditions rule that you retain fractions. Yes, that is a contradiction with (J1.85), but it is, again, specific as a sub rule of (S2.0) and is specific to it, and supported by (S2.24) that notes when rounding fractions that (S2.23) is an exception.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Next question:
(J5.11) specifies that players desiring WBP in a patrol scenario must buy them, and that the stockpile rule (J5.42) is how many you have *if you purchase them*. This all makes sense. If you pay for WBP on your shuttles, each shuttle has 1. If you pay for WBP on fighters, you actually get 3 per fighter.

In G3, page 144-145:
It says that the BPV of fighters increases by 1 for WBP, but carriers get them for free, so if the carrier is present you get WBP for free.

Seems to be a contradiction, is that a mistake (something to add to errata for G3)?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

What it is saying is that if the scenario year is set such that the warp booster packs are available, they are "assumed unless specified otherwise." So if you set up the scenario in Y180, and purchase your fighters, and the carrier is present in the scenario, the warp booster packs are already assumed to be part of the carrier, and thus you do not have to buy them for the fighters and shuttles, they are in essence "free."

But if your scenario, set in Y180 or later, envisions the fighters operating independently of their carrier (the carrier is not part of the scenario), e.g., conducting a distant strike, conducting a sweep, conducting a search and rescue operation, etc., you have to purchase the warp booster packs or they are not there.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 03:57 pm: Edit

I get that part. Sorry I should have been more specific to the questionable part.

In (J5.11) it specifically says that you have to pay for them to get them, and the carrier only has the storage amounts *if you paid for them* (emphasis added).

G3 suggests that you don't, and those storage amounts are included free.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

"(J5.11) SPECIFIED: The availability of WBPs will be specified by scenario. Generally, they were used during and after Y180. In published scenarios in Y180 or later, booster packs are assumed unless specified otherwise."

The above says that if you are playing a "published scenario" set in Y180 or later the booster packs are "are assumed" unless specified otherwise. So if you are playing a published scenario set in Y180, the warp booster packs are present (barring a special scenario rule saying otherwise) and you do not have to pay for them. They are essentially "free" because they are already there.

"In "create your own" scenarios (S8.0) of an appropriate time period, players desiring this equipment must buy it."

If you create your own scenario, and want to use warp booster packs, and the year of your scenario allows, you have to purchase them. Also applies if your fighters are appearing without the carrier present, i.e., if you want them to have warp booster packs, you have to pay for them, and while technically this means the extras are on the carrier, the carrier is not here.

Again, if a published scenario says you have them, you have them and if the carrier is present the stockpile is there, and they are free (you are not spending any points and do not have buy them with Commander's Options and they are not deducted from the Commander's Option points available to your force in the scenario). Design your own scenario, if you want them, they are going to cost.

I hope that helps.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Saturday, August 10, 2019 - 06:01 pm: Edit

That does. So the G3 statement (about WBP being free if the carrier is present) is only correct in the case of published scenarios. In a build your own (S8.0) even if the carrier is there, you must pay for them.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Two more questions about WBP!

I assume (Question 1 is "Is my assumption correct?") that WBP increase the cost of a shuttle or fighter by 0.5/1. In other words, the one point is charged against the Combat BPV of the shuttle or fighter, and thus increases its Economic BPV by 0.5.

Question 2: If fitted on a SWAC, does the WBP (in this case) increase the BPV by 1/1, increasing both the Economic and Combat BPVs by a full point?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 15, 2019 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston:

I assume (Question 1 is "Is my assumption correct?") that WBP increase the cost of a shuttle or fighter by 0.5/1. In other words, the one point is charged against the Combat BPV of the shuttle or fighter, and thus increases its Economic BPV by 0.5.
ANSWER: There is no rule granting a warp booster pack a lower economic BPV, it is a unit in and of itself (you may as well claiim that drones or pods loaded on a fighter's rails have a reduced economic cost). Adding a booster pack to an admin shuttle (BPV 2) increases the BPV of the shuttle by one (to 3), but the pack does not have a reduced economic cost, so the economic cost of the shuttle is 2 with the warp booster pack. So with the pack the combination's economic/combat BPVs would be expressed as 2/3.

Question 2: If fitted on a SWAC, does the WBP (in this case) increase the BPV by 1/1, increasing both the Economic and Combat BPVs by a full point?
ANSWER: As per the above, this is correct.