Gregory S. Flusche:

Moray Eels will continue on course, even if there is a minefield in front of them. They can only be pulled off course by "biting" a unit that fires at them. In this sense, a captor mine can pull them off course (because they will bite it), but it then resumes moving to the planet. But explosive mines simply detonate and the Moray Eel, if it survived, would keep moving straight ahead.

Marcel Trahan:

Total the warhead (e.g., if it was an overload that moved less than eight hexes it would be 12) and then apply the fractions in (G13.37) (you would still get a bang even if the warhead was reduced to 25%, but would not have a splash element). If the warhead was not an overload, moved 15-21 hexes, it would be strength five, 1/2 of five is 2.5 rounded to three, both splash elements would be gone.

Marcel Trahan:

If the Boar was operating under decision #3, it would use the same decision, but would choose a different target ship. If it was operating under Decisions #1 or #2, it would not choose a new target ship and simply continue doing what it was doing.

Marcel Trahan:

It would have to allocate for the erratic maneuvers during energy allocation of Turn #2. Note that announcing erratic maneuvers does not incur any benefit when you announce, the benefits take effect on the following impulse.

Marcel Trahan:

Y168 as given in Module G3, but note that prototypes are in service and this is the squadron date so a prototype could have been in service in Y165.

By Charles H Carroll (Carroll) on Saturday, June 27, 2020 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Question about Cloak to be sure. My understanding because of rule 13.372 is that EW is not used once fully cloaked. While during fade in or fade out, EW can be used, or the chart with a modifier which is about the number of impulses so far.

So...fully cloaked. Get flash cubed. Technically at this moment you lock on. But the chart is still in effect no matter what. There is a disagreement where it is believed by some that using ECCM will somehow effect the chart. That seems pretty clear that it won't in 13.372.

Or does it and The rule state ECM effects do not apply to the chart do apply?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, June 27, 2020 - 05:57 pm: Edit

A good question, Charles, but as I read the rules, the one you're asking about (G13.372) only deals with the roll to reduce damage as a result of hostile weapons; it has nothing to do with retaining lock-ons or re-establishing them.

By Charles H Carroll (Carroll) on Saturday, June 27, 2020 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Oh Agreed. The point raised was that Oh...I have ECCM....Therefore I get a - on the dice roll...and so I roll a 3...it becomes a 2...and I do full damage...

This made 10 phaser ones hit full strength at range 0 50% of the time. With of course the +5 range. Added. So somehow he managed 37 damage. He also had 2 Phaser 3s that rolled and hit...so 1 each....so take the 2 points off...and he hit for 35 damage out of 50...an amazing shot in and of itself. But after reducing damage by the chart he some how got 35. I have no idea what his initial rolls produced damage wise before the chart. But 35 out of 50 would be amazing for 10 phaser 1s at range 5.

Now this is told to me by the guy who shot the ships. They are my ships. But someone else was running it for me. He said his ECCM lowered the chance to do less damage so he scored just about everything full strength. Therefore lol.

I want to be sure before I say no that cannot happen. That ECCM has no effect on just the Chart rolls.

Not on attempting to break or maintain lock on. Which it does there.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, June 28, 2020 - 09:42 am: Edit

(G13.372) This table is used in place of, NOT in addition to, the
effects of any ECM shift. Cloaking is a very gross effect which
effectively destroys the basis on which the ECM shifts are calculated.
The cloak is the maximum possible effect. ECM helps ensure that the
cloak will work (G13.331), but cannot increase its effect.

So the fellow is wrong and his ECCM does not help the roll. That is the way I have always done it and so far no complaints.

As a Romulan Player. Even if they gain lock on.. the chart works as is. The only shift is during fade in and Fade out. Also if you are using the Optional rule (G13.62) EXPERIENCE IN TRACKING (Optional) That gain change the damage roll. Mind You in favor of the cloaked unit.

By Charles H Carroll (Carroll) on Sunday, June 28, 2020 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Yeah since I was not playing as someone else was for me lol. I was surprised by the interpretation. I decided maybe? I had been doing it wrong. But thought I would check.

By Charles H Carroll (Carroll) on Sunday, June 28, 2020 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Yeah since I was not playing as someone else was for me lol. I was surprised by the interpretation. I decided maybe? I had been doing it wrong. But thought I would check.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, June 28, 2020 - 07:17 pm: Edit

ON particle cannons. Power firing restrictions.
(E17.212) The cost of each shot fired is as follows:
• Overloaded shot (first or second shot of turn)..................3 points
• Standard shot (first shot of turn)..........................................2 points
• Standard shot (second shot of turn).....................................1 point

Then there is under the example. During Turn #1, another one point per PC is provided by
allocated power, bringing each to four points (the most that can be
fired in a single turn). The PCs fire an overloaded shot, expending

The example states 4 power is the most A PC can fire in a single turn. However I see no way then that there can be a second shot as overload. witch is it please?

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, June 29, 2020 - 05:20 pm: Edit

I have found my answer. Digging thru the archives. Was a change allowing a Overload shot and a standard shot in a turn. So the power chart is correct the example has not been changed it seems.

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Thursday, July 02, 2020 - 12:45 am: Edit

Question re fighter/MRS seeking weapon launching arcs.

A fighter/MRS has the target in its FA arc. When it launches a plasma D or drone, is the facing of the plasma/drone at time of launch out through the #1 of the fighter/MRS or can the facing be out through the #2/#6 ?

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Thursday, July 02, 2020 - 02:49 am: Edit

I think as long as the MRS/Fighter has the target in FA arc, and the drone has its target in FA arc on launch, it can be the #1, #2 or #6 (unless empire specific fixed launcher, #1 only).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 02, 2020 - 11:49 am: Edit

Follow up to Frank Lemay's question. Is there *any* requirement that the facing of the seeking weapon launched by a fighter be restricted, other than that 1) the fighter must have the target in the FA arc (J4.21) and 2) the target of the seeking weapon must be in that of the seeking weapon's FA arc when the weapon is placed on the board (F1.24)(FD1.21)(FP1.312)?


Frank and I tackled this question last night, and neither of us could find any restriction on the required facing of any seeking weapon (plasma, drone, etc.) launched by a fighter, other than J4.21 and F1.24.


There is a distinction here with respect to Frank's question, because Frank has assumed that the seeker must be pointing out of the #1, #6, or #2 shield arcs of the fighter.

However, I think it's possible that the facing of the seeking weapon could, if the circumstances be right, be facing through the #3 or the #5 shield arcs!

To make this argument concrete, consider the following situation:

1) A Romulan MRS shuttle is in hex 2215, facing B. The MRS shuttle has, and is cleared by all relevant rules to launch, a plasma-D torpedo.

2) A Gorn Battlecruiser (BC) is in hex 2214, facing F.

3) Assume, for the sake of the example, no other units are on the map.

Therefore, the BC is in the FA arc of the MRS. The Romulan player properly announces the launch of the plasma D torpedo. There are no other possible targets, so practically speaking it is known that the plasma-D is targeted on the BC.

The Romulan player places the plasma-D facing direction *F* - which is effectively out the #5 shield arc of the MRS shuttle. When the plasma-D is facing F, the Gorn BC is also in the FA arc of the plasma D!

In other words, in the above circumstance, by placing the plasma D on the map facing "behind" the MRS, the Romulan player has satisfied both J1.21 (target in the MRS's FA arc) and F1.24 (target in the seeker's FA arc).

To complete the academic exercise, the Romulan player could have also launched the plasma-D in direction A (straight at the BC, out the #6 shield arc of the MRS) or in direction B (out the #1 shield arc of the MRS). The plasma-D could not face directions C, D, or E because to do so would violate rule F1.24.

Please confirm if this example is correct.

Ruling respectfully requested.
-T

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, July 02, 2020 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Would it fall under FP3.11

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 02, 2020 - 01:02 pm: Edit

@Eddie: I don't think so. FP3.11 relates to fixed launchers on certain ships (not fighters). You know if a ship has fixed or swivel arcs based on their ship descriptions in the relevant R section. Examples: WE, unrefitted Gorn CL, unrefitted KRs.

Although that does prompt me to check the R section on fighters..... Nope, nothing in R1.F.

Though maybe I'm missing something.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, July 02, 2020 - 07:14 pm: Edit

I say no. The MRS can only launch a Plasma D in its FA (i.e. in this case, direction A, B, or C - Not F).

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, July 02, 2020 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Ted so applying J4.45 on heavy weapons on fighters would not apply to a fighter say carrying a plasma limited to the FA arc.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, July 03, 2020 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Per (J4.28) Type-D plasma torpedoes are generally treated as Type-I drones...

F1.24 states the target must be in the seeking weapons FA. Since drones are mounted straight under the wing, that would imply the target must be in the fighter's FA also.

J4.21 states the fighter must have their target in their FA firing arc.

J8.13 states The weapons on all MRS shuttles operation and are reloaded exactly as he identical weapons on a fighter are.

Ted - I agree with your analysis. A seeking weapon can be fired 120 degrees off arc from the direction that shuttle is traveling. It just depends on the FA overlaps.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 03, 2020 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Tomorrow is July 4th. I will not be in the office until July 6th, and I will try to clean this up then.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, July 03, 2020 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Well, to be fair, I don't know if I'm missing something or maybe there's a rule I haven't found. But it does seem odd that the plasma could be launched "behind" the MRS - but in the example I posited (which won't happen often, but it DID actually happen in a game I just played) I think it could work. By the letter of the rules as I saw them.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 06, 2020 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Francois Lemay:

I thought I had answered the ISC CAT query in the ships topic, If not, please bump my elbow to answer it.

Francois Lemay:

In re the question on fighters.

This game has been played for 40 years, and that question has never come up. I think players took a look at the drone rails and some did it the way it was intended, and some took the rules at face value and applied them to fighters.

I hate to tell you this, but I queried SVC on it (which is the final authority on such matters, even if without my prompting he provided the answer that I had always used).

Drone rails are fixed (which applies to plasma rails etc.). The drone launches from the rail in the same direction and with the same facing as the fighter (or MRS shuttle) that it was launched from. It moves directly ahead on its first impulse of movement. After which it can maneuver normally.

You cannot launch a drone or plasma from a fighter, and place it on the map facing 60 degrees off the fighter's direction of movement. You cannot launch a drone (or plasma) and place it on the map facing 120 degrees off the fighter's direction of movement.

I will make sure there is a published rule covering this. But even without a published rule, this is the interpretation and is what was intended, and I fear that SVC is not going to change the rule.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, July 06, 2020 - 02:19 pm: Edit

@SPP: Thank you, that also answers my question regarding fighters. You might find my question useful to the extent that I identified the rules I found regarding fighter launch of seeking weapons.

It might be I missed a published rule.

If not, then one of the rules I identified may need to be updated.

Thanks,

-T

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, July 06, 2020 - 08:50 pm: Edit

SPP,
Yep, I saw your answer re the ISC CAT.
I was asking as I am made the 3G SSD for this ship based on Module R9 which turns out to be in error it seems.
From your comment, I get the following re the ISC CAT ship,
YIS is 168, BES 22.
This ship has 3 plasma G, no 6 rear F torps but does have the 6 rear phaser 3s.
Bpv is 148 Bpv.

In Y170, the 3 G torps can be upgraded to 3 S torps for 15 Bpv[ 5 per torp]
Cost is now 163 Bpv.

In Y179, it gets the 6 rear F torp refit for a cost of 12 bringing total cost to 175 Bpv.

Seems this CAT never gets the PPD refit since the CA and CC gets the PPD refit.

I will rebuild this ship as such.
Please let me know if I am in error or an adjustments needs to be done.

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, July 07, 2020 - 02:24 am: Edit

Steve Petrick,

I had played in different SFB groups with different interpretations of the rule (some used fixed launcher, some did not). I am happy to know that the fighter drone rails are fixed.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, July 07, 2020 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Frank Lemay:

Y166 Prototype. This ship had no rear firing plasma torpedoes and had three plasma-G torpedoes (the plasma-G torpedoes always had swivels). BPV for this ship would have been 148. (It is possible that during this period from Y166 to Y168 that a ship entered service without the LS/RS phaser-3s, and if so its BPV would have been 142, but after Y168 no ship would have been in service without the LS/RS phaser-3s.)

Y168 Ship in squadron service, no change.

Y170 Ships upgraded the three plasma-Gs to plasma-Ss (the plasma-S torpedoes always had swivels), BPV 163. It is possible that some ships of the type were converted to a PPD in this year (becoming Standard Star Cruisers).

Y175 Ships of this type entered into low rate production (as they were identical to Star Cruisers except that the plasma launcher "A" was replaced by a PPD, but rather than serve as the core of an echelon were used to patrol alone, while they were produced as standard cruisers prior to Y170, from Y170 the standard cruiser had a PPD), so this was a restart of production.

Y179 Ships of the type received plasma-Fs L+LR/RR+R. It is possible that a ship of this type only received one plasma-F L+LR/RR+R at this time (increase BPV to 167), but the refit was eventually completed with three each side (adding a total of 12 BPV which includes the four BPV of the first two torpedoes), BPV was 175. Low rate production continued (Star Cruisers were preferred for the support of echelons).

Y180 Ships of this type received the Sabot refit increasing their BPV by (3xPlasma-S @ 2 points each = 6 and 6xPlasma-F @ 1 point each = 6) 12 points to 187. Low level production continued.

Y183 Some ships of this type received the Mech-Link refit to support casual fast patrol ships increasing the BPV by two points to 189.

In Y190 production was increased in the face of the Andromedan threat.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, July 07, 2020 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Did Y170 plasma-Gs add swivels?

Were the Ph-3 added on refits or were they original equipment?