Archive through September 07, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through September 07, 2020
Also, why do you think Death Bolts are 'sort of plasma'?
Lol just see them as fire drones I guess lol. Ignore that. And no....not early years.
The rulesare FD20.54 and FD 20.541
All it says is it reduces its damage by 2 up to 6 to get up to 3 points of armor maximum.
I see that as 3 damage point reductions of 1 point each because of armor. But if it is a drone, and it is in the drone area, then it could be seen as spaces of armor. Which would be a lot more. And We had the 2 reduction for 2 protection belief.
So I need a more...official answer. Since the wording while clear to me. 2 damage reduction giving 1 protection seems clear. There is wiggle room.
I am guessing Carnivon Death Bolts are not a well known weapon.
Anyway...have a game continuing in an hour. Could sure use an official answer soon lol. We split the difference and are running with 2 for 2. I am pretty sure its 2 for 1 armor. Which means 1 point of protection.
If the rules say 2 warhead for 1 armor, then it's 2 warhead gets you one armor.
From what you said above it appears that if you reduce the damage by two, you get one armor, and can do this three times at most.
Well I certainly agree Richard. But what does the armor mean? With drones...an Armor space is 4 armor.
So just the one makes sense if it is just an armor. And not an armore space. Or something else.
I have believed it was "an" armor. 1 point worth. But I have been wrong before lol. So wanted a more definitive answer.
Charles H. CarrolL:
At this point, you are asking for a technobattle explanation of the way a rule works. I cannot give you that. All I can say is that the rules allow you to reduce the warhead by two points in exchange for the death bolt requiring one additional point to destroy. The rule plainly says that, there is no obfuscation in the rule. You can exchange up to six warhead points (in terms of whole warhead points (no fractional points) to gain up to three damage points (armor) on the death bolt. It takes 10 points to destroy a death bolt, and they have 30 point warheads (why they are called "death bolts"), but you can reduce the warhead two, four or six points to make a given death bolt require 11, 12, or 13 damage points to destroy.
Thank you Steve. That was my interpretation from the start. But Marcel thought it was 2 for 2. And it occured to me that since they are drones. Maybe armor meant drone armor. Like a module.
In case you missed my earlier question SPP,
Question re DEFSATS.
Once a DEFSAT fires/launches weapons, a lock on is attained that turn.
Is another lock on roll required on subsequent turns ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
Frank Lemay:
As the rule says you "roll immediately for a lock-on" if the seeking weapon fires" during that impulse, but the lock-on is NOT automatic. Even if your sensor rating is "6," you get a lock-on on a roll of one-to-four. Once you have a lock-on, whether on Impulse #1 or Impulse #32, you retain the lock-on until the start of the following turn, when you roll again with a "one-to-four" to retain. Note than on a future turn you have to be moving Speed 6 or slower.
Note that you may have up to five chances to gain the lock-on to most defsats during a turn, depending on its weapons fire a phaser-3s at a drone or fighter (both have to fire on the same impulse if not player controlled but might be at separate targets), that is one chance each. Fires a phaser-2 on a different impulse at one target, fires the other phaser-2 on another impulse at another target (might be the same), fires a disruptor at a target (again, a different impulse, but could be the same target). Fires the other disruptor etc.
It should be obvious that player controlled defsats will try to fire just before they orbit behind the planet, which allows them to again be concealed even if you had a lock on before it move behind the planet. But automatic defsats do not have that option and must fire according to the automatic rules.
Question regarding MRS availability (J8.5):
Do Monitors qualify to carry a MRS?
Marcel
Good question, Marcel. As I read the rule section, though, it doesn't look likely. I mean, War Cruisers are pretty major units in a fleet and they almost never get them.
While there are two "Carrier Exceptions" specifically mentioned in the rules, my suspicions are that, even if your Monitor is operating with a carrier pallet, its lack of "Carrier Escorts" will also prohibit the ship from qualifying as a "MRS Operating Carrier."
As such, I think your only real option for having a MRS aboard your Monitor would be the old, "Ask your opponent if he/she's okay with you having it," option.
It's worked for me more often than you might think, so it's always worth a try. 
A monitor with a carrier pallet is considered a true carrier. I think it likely that such a unit is qualified to have an MRS, even if it rarely actually happens.
J8.5 says most carriers can have an MRS and also says size 4 ships could not (except for some carriers).
Without an explicit rule saying otherwise, it seems to me that a MON with a pallet that qualifies it as a true carrier would be qualified to purchase an MRS.
Marcel Trahan:
There is a note on the Monitor rules in the copy that it scheduled for update in the "General Units Master Starship Book" that says the Monitor cannot have an MRS.
Even if the MON carries a fighter/SCS pallet?
Is it still considered then a small carrier under J8.511?
Marcel Trahan:
No MRS means no MRS. MRS shuttles are pretty rare, there are not enough for every heavy cruiser, or even command cruiser, or command war cruiser, to have one. Monitors are fleet units, like bases, and can have their fighters (and an MRS if one had ever been assigned) taken from them for use by the mobile ships of the fleet.
So, no. Unless SVC takes pity and decides that monitors can have them in specific circumstances. But the "No MRS" note did not say "No MRS unless the monitor is equipped with a fighter or space control pallet," it said "No MRS PERIOD."
Monitor historical scenarios are pretty rare, IIRC.
Off hand, I can recall one. Juggernaut attack on a major world (I forget which one... might have been Rigel, but I will need to verify that.)
The General scenarios fall into only a few categories:
1) Monitor assigned defense mission, attacker (Orion, raider from neighboring empire or independent world raider using a modified civilian hull on piracy raid) attacks, not knowing a Monitor is present. Short boring battle, often with fatal result for raider.
2) Monitor assigned defense mission, attacker knows monitor is present, and believes has strength to win. (Might be interesting battle, if monitor is reinforced by unanticipated reinforcements ...)
3) monitor present, attacked by monster. Out come uncertain.
4) very rare convoy battle. Monitor encounter to new assignment. Used as emergency escort when regular escort not available, and only if convoy headed in the General direction of the next planet to be defended. (Conjecture: might also happen if no suitable escort for the planetary defense battalion(PDB)is available, and both the monitor AND the PDB Just happen to be departing at the same time from the same departure point and going to the same destination.)
Other than that, trying to arrange a battle for a Monitor seems about as likely as an offensive use of one or more bomber squadrons. (Which is to say not very likely.)
Jeff Wile: Juggernaut Beta attacked Arcturia.
Terry, thank you. Idk why I thought it was Rigel.
A monitor left its planet to recover PFs and was attacked while doing so.
A monitor traveling with a convoy was used in an attack on an Orion base that the police forces found.
These events are RARE. Monitors are not offensive units (they are slower than even freighters used to form Special Attack Forces, and telegraph the attack if you try to use them. But stumbling across an Andromedan or Orion base in your own territory while they are moving between assignments is possible, a monster encountered while the monitor is changing bases (the monitor is traveling alone as a warship) could happen, but is again a rare circumstance.
A long time ago, I tried to take a monitor into a free-for-all simply because I would curious to see how it would fly. My then compatriots refused to let me fly it (albeit, I was a "big fish in a small pond," i.e., I was the player to beat, eventually just wound up running the charts for the other players).
Quote:but is again a rare circumstance.
hows it go:
"Years of sheer boredom, 2 minutes of sheer terror"
Monitor might have a role in a historical scenario.
Say during an invasion, the Monitor acts as flagship for a skiff/shuttle convoy.
Might make a (very short) campaign as the group attempts to reach friendly territory.
Kind of thing that would be low priority as only moves at slow speed, with frequent stops as the admin shuttles don’t have the range that starships have.
Sort of like a old joke of the Irish.
A column of British regulars is marching along a road trying to pacify the local population.
Up jumps a rebel shouting “I am red Rory! Send up your best man!” So the martinet col orders “send our best man! I want that rebels head!”
So up the soldier advances. Pretty soon, his head comes rolling down the hill, followed by red Rory shouting “I am Red Rory! Send up your best Squad!” And the Col complies.
Very soon after, the heads of the squad comes rolling down the hill.
Eventually, the col orders the entire battalion to advance. Which was followed by the sounds of a ferocious battle. The colonel’s aide comes over the rise of the hill, obviously wounded, and he calls to the Col, “run Sir! It’s a trap! There are two of them!”
Guys I have a few questions regarding Space Dragons as I could not find any information on it! As they are living creatures with a survival instinct:
At what point will a space dragon opt to disengage instead of staying and possibly dying?
Can a Dragon opt to fire its eye weapon at plasma torpedoes? (to reduce the damage it takes!)
Does the dragon's close defence system affect plasma's ?
If there are several dragons in an encounter do they operate in a coordinated manner such as using their eye weapons and flame on the same target (Ship , plasma etc)?
Farsi,
The SFB Database article in Captain's Log #35 is all about Space Dragons. The article answers the MCIDS question.
Majead Farsi:
Space Dragons are PLAYER OPERATED.
So if the player feels that he has reached a point where he cannot win, he can disengage and live to fight another day.
If the player decides that the eye phasers are better used this turn to degrade a plasma or to engage a drone (for example, because the tail has been destroyed), he can. It is a player choice.
Plasma torpedoes are "seeking weapons," and the rule does not differentiate between seeking weapons. Death bolts, for example, do not include text making them immune to the Dragon's take and simply fall under the rubric of a seeking weapon.
Again, dragons are player operated. There are no rules requiring the players to operate as individuals, or to automatically attack each other, or etc. If the players decide to concentrate on one ship, they can do so. If the players decide to have on dragon attack one ship and three other dragons attack another ship, leaving a third ship unengaged, that is their choice.
If I replace the booster packs on a gunboat that already has damage to its engines do the booster packs still operate at full power?
For example a G1 with 3 damage to its L Warp Engine and 2 damage to its R Warp Engine (after dropping its original booster packs). If I add new packs does it still get 6 additional power/engine boxes or just one? What if both engines are completely inoperable?